Usage in Second Language Acquisition: Critical Reflections and Future Directions 9781032668468, 9781032668055, 9781032668475

Citation preview

This volume offers an insightful exploration of the usage-learning nexus, arguably the key issue in current second language acquisition research and theory. It goes beyond a collection of conceptual reviews. Each chapter stands independently and when taken together the chapters provide a comprehensive account of language usage, learning, and how they are interconnected. It will serve as a valuable resource for researchers both familiar with SLA and just entering the field. Natsuko Shintani, Kansai University, Japan The nine highly readable chapters in this collection address three questions of central importance to second language acquisition research and pedagogy: what is usage, what is the second language learning task, and what are the connections between usage and learning? The contributions address these issues using different methodologies, but with highly compatible underlying assumptions. In this way, the volume provides a definitive up-to-date statement regarding the role of usage in second language learning. Brian MacWhinney, Carnegie Mellon University, USA





USAGE IN SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

The study of “usage” has constituted a major line of second language learning research for decades now. The concept of usage, however, can be defined and studied in many different ways. In this comprehensive, forward-looking text, international scholars from a variety of perspectives review and critically examine current conceptualizations of usage, learning, and their connections in the field of second language acquisition (SLA). Bringing these diverse perspectives into conversation, Kevin McManus synthesizes the state of the art to set the agenda for new directions in theory-building and empirical SLA research. This text will be an invaluable resource to students and researchers in SLA, applied linguistics, psychology and cognitive science, education, and related areas. Kevin McManus is an Associate Professor of Applied Linguistics at The Pennsylvania State University, USA.

Second Language Acquisition Research Series Susan M. Gass and Alison Mackey, Series Editors Kimberly L. Geeslin, Associate Editor

The Second Language Acquisition Research Series presents and explores issues bearing directly on theory construction and/or research methods in the study of second language acquisition. Its titles (both authored and edited volumes) provide thorough and timely overviews of high-interest topics, and include key discussions of existing research findings and their implications. A special emphasis of the series is reflected in the volumes dealing with specific data collection methods or instruments. Each of these volumes addresses the kinds of research questions for which the method/instrument is best suited, offers extended description of its use, and outlines the problems associated with its use. The volumes in this series will be invaluable to students and scholars alike, and perfect for use in courses on research methodology and in individual research. Practice and Automatization in Second Language Research Perspectives from Skill Acquisition Theory and Cognitive Psychology Edited by Yuichi Suzuki Conducting Genre-Based Research in Applied Linguistics A Methodological Guide Edited by Matt Kessler and Charlene Polio The Minority Language as a Second Language Challenges and Achievements Edited by Jasone Cenoz and Durk Gorter Social Network Analysis in Second Language Research Theory and Methods Kristen Kennedy Terry and Robert Bayley Usage in Second Language Acquisition Critical Reflections and Future Directions Edited by Kevin McManus

For more information about this series, please visit: www​.routledge​.com​/Second​-Language​ -Acquisition​-Research​- Series​/ book​-series​/ LEASLARS

USAGE IN SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION Critical Reflections and Future Directions

Edited by Kevin McManus

Designed cover image: © Getty Images | nevarpp First published 2024 by Routledge 605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158 and by Routledge 4 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2024 selection and editorial matter, Kevin McManus; individual chapters, the contributors The right of Kevin McManus to be identified as the author of the editorial material, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: McManus, Kevin (Linguist), editor. Title: Usage in second language acquisition: critical reflections and future directions/edited by Kevin McManus. Description: New York, NY: Routledge, 2024. | Series: Second language acquisition research series | Includes bibliographical references and index. | Identifiers: LCCN 2023037007 (print) | LCCN 2023037008 (ebook) | ISBN 9781032668468 (hardcover) | ISBN 9781032668055 (paperback) | ISBN 9781032668475 (e-book) Subjects: LCSH: Language and languages–Usage. | Language and languages–Study and teaching. | Second language acquisition. | LCGFT: Essays. Classification: LCC P301 .U85 2024 (print) | LCC P301 (ebook) | DDC 418.0071–dc23/eng/20231010 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2023037007 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2023037008 ISBN: 978-1-032-66846-8 (hbk) ISBN: 978-1-032-66805-5 (pbk) ISBN: 978-1-032-66847-5 (ebk) DOI: 10.4324/9781032668475 Typeset in Galliard by Deanta Global Publishing Services, Chennai, India

CONTENTS

Acknowledgments ix List of illustrations xi List of contributors xii 1 Introducing usage in SLA Kevin McManus 2 Corpus-linguistic approaches to usage in SLA Stefanie Wulff 3 Multimodal resources and action: a conversationanalytic approach to SLA and usage Søren Wind Eskildsen

1 26

46

4 Usage and variationist approaches to SLA Aarnes Gudmestad

67

5 What counts as usage in Dynamic Usage-Based models? Marjolijn Verspoor and Hans-Jörg Schmid

87

6 Cognitive-linguistic approaches to SLA and usage Han Luo

107



viii Contents

7 Usage in ISLA from a processing-based perspective Ronald P. Leow 8 Skill acquisition theory: Learning-to-use and usage-for-learning SLA Yuichi Suzuki 9 Synthesizing usage in SLA Kevin McManus

128

147 169

Index 193

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This project came to fruition thanks to the support and encouragement of many people whom I would like to thank here. The ideas for this book project started following initial discussions with Ze’ev Sudry at the Second Language Research Forum conference in Montréal, Canada, and then with Kimberly Geeslin some months later. I want to thank both Ze’ev and Kimberly for their encouragement and enthusiasm for the project. I particularly want to thank Kimberly who reached out with much interest and enthusiasm for this project from the very outset. I also want to thank the contributors to this book who saw interest in this book project and agreed to participate. The volume would not be much more than an idea had these authors not been very willing and supportive from the outset. The volume was also reviewed by several people whom I would like to thank for their time and very careful feedback that helped improve this project immensely. Those people include Marianne Gullberg, Stefan Th. Gries, Amanda Huensch, Matthew Kanwit, Stephen Looney, Han Luo, Brian MacWhinney, Anne O’Keeffe, Guillermo Rodríguez, Natsuko Shintani, Hui Sun, Yuichi Suzuki, and Marjolijn Verspoor. I am also very appreciative to Nick Ellis, Jim Lantolf, and Brian MacWhinney for discussing this book project and the ideas represented in it. Lastly, I would also like to thank Minghui Sun for her research assistance, who helped with the initial formatting and reference checking of the volume.



x Acknowledgments

As always, the editorial staff at Routledge have been very supportive throughout the process and I would like to thank series editors Alison Mackey, Susan Gass, and Kimberly Geeslin, as well as Ze’ev Sudry, Amy Laurens, and Bex Hume, all of whom helped tremendously with keeping this project on course.

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Figures

2.1 Usage as a complex concept 33 3.1 Extract 1, line 1 (arrows mark the trajectory of Carlos’ hand movement) 53 3.2 Extract 1, line 4 (arrows mark the trajectory of Carlos’ hand movement) 54 5.1 The Tinguely-machine model of how language works 89 5.2 Illustration of “rich” situated usage event 93 5.3 Jorge’s (13) development of negative constructions 97 6.1 Cognitive model of language (conceptualization highlighted)  109 6.2 Cognitive model of language (concepts and language highlighted)109 6.3 Mental representation of transitive particle verbs 113 6.4 Plural formation 117 Table

8.1 Declarative and Procedural Knowledge

149



CONTRIBUTORS

Søren Wind Eskildsen, University of Southern Denmark Aarnes Gudmestad, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, USA Ronald P. Leow, Georgetown University, USA Han Luo, Lafayette College, USA Kevin McManus, The Pennsylvania State University, USA Hans-Jörg Schmid, Ludwig-Maximilians University Munich, Germany Yuichi Suzuki, Kanagawa University, Japan Marjolijn Verspoor, University of Groningen, the Netherlands Stefanie Wulff, University of Florida, USA, and UiT The Arctic University

of Norway



1 INTRODUCING USAGE IN SLA Kevin McManus

1.1 Introduction

Documenting and theorizing the different ways that usage, or a learner’s exposure to a language and their use of that language, drives second language (L2) development now constitutes a major line of research in the field of second language acquisition (SLA; Cadierno & Eskildsen, 2015; Ellis et al., 2016; Lowie et al., 2020; Tyler et al., 2018). Indeed, most, if not all, SLA theories agree that exposure to language and opportunities for meaningful language use are needed to support L2 learning (Gass et al., 2021; Mitchell et al., 2019; VanPatten et al., 2020). Given the diversity of SLA theories in circulation, this observation highlights that usage is a frequently researched and important construct in the field. For example, usage has been studied in terms of quantitative and qualitative features of the language input and learners’ language production (Ellis et al., 2016; Verspoor et al., 2012), the ways in which speakers use language to interact and perform social actions (Geeslin, 2022; Hall, 2019), as well as opportunities to rehearse (or practice) linguistic structures and patterns in deliberate ways (DeKeyser, 1997; Suzuki et al., 2019). Such scholarly interest in usage and its role in L2 learning should not be a surprise, though, because the forms, functions, and frequencies of language that learners encounter, process, and use are widely understood to influence the nature and course of L2 development in fundamental ways (Ellis & Sagarra, 2010; Hall, 2022; Verspoor et al., 2011). Research has demonstrated this most clearly by studying how particular contexts, changes in context (e.g., from the

DOI: 10.4324/9781032668475-1

2  Introducing usage in SLA

classroom to study abroad), as well as the specific characteristics of learners’ interactions, influence what is learned and how (McManus et al., 2021; Mitchell, 2023; Pérez-Vidal, 2014). One observation shaping this understanding is that the field of SLA is very multidisciplinary (Luo, this volume; Ortega, 2015; Robinson & Ellis, 2008), which has influenced how we think about, research, and explain learning. For example, SLA researchers regularly apply new ideas about the nature and functions of language (Langacker, 2008; Schegloff, 2007; Schmid, 2020), adopt new methods and revisit established ones for documenting, describing, and analyzing the types of language that speakers are exposed to and use (Arndt et al., 2023; Wulff, this volume; Tracy-Ventura & Paquot, 2021), and have refocused attention on learning as a topic of interest in its own right (Divjak, 2019; Lantolf & Thorne, 2006; Suzuki, this volume). These developments have led to robust accounts about how properties of the language input, the ways in which people use language to communicate, and the dynamic interactions among them can shape the trajectories of L2 learning. Furthermore, instructional research informed by usage-based learning theory has also benefited from these broader changes in the field, showing that directing learners’ attention to L2 features that might be missed due to prior experience and/or infrequency and that promoting specific learning activities can effectively support L2 development (Leow, 2015; McManus & Marsden, 2017; Suzuki et al., 2019; Tyler et al., 2018). An important point to highlight here, too, is that these developments in terms of how we think about and theorize usage and learning in SLA are driven and supported by the field’s ever-diversifying methodological toolkit, which has been used to advance, refine, and revisit key claims and established findings about usage, learning, and their connections (Mackey & Gass, 2016; Plonsky, 2015; Porte & McManus, 2019). In this way, theory-building and methodological innovation go hand-in-hand and the importance of research methods to theoretical progress should not be overlooked. Indeed, reviews of the field have repeatedly reinforced this point about the interconnectedness of theory-building and methodological innovation by noting that a major strength of usage-based accounts for studying L2 learning is their theoretical, methodological, and empirical eclecticism, which can offer researchers a variety of powerful and multidisciplinary tools for conceptualizing, studying, and explaining L2 learning (Eskildsen & Cadierno, 2015; Larsen-Freeman, 2022; Pekarek Doehler & Eskildsen, 2022). As discussed by Ortega (2015), for example, a clear benefit of a usage-based approach to SLA is that it offers a supratheoretical vision that is capable of loosely uniting quite diverse schools on the basis of some shared, broad ontological premises

Introducing usage in SLA 3

for what counts as language and as learning. Complementarity rather than agreement is the key to this new eclecticism. (p. 369; see also Hall, 2019; Tyler et al., 2018) Some of the ideas supporting this new eclecticism are that language learning is input-driven, socio-culturally gated, and dependent on learners’ prior and ongoing experiences with the world (Beckner et al., 2009; Duff & Byrnes, 2019; The Douglas Fir Group, 2016). These points of agreement (rather than their differences) are broadly perceived as a strong foundation for theorization and progress in the field. From this brief overview, we can begin to see how a usage-based approach can facilitate methodological innovation to advance knowledge and understanding in the field. At the same time, we should also be aware that even though different research traditions discuss and frame their work as “usage-based” (e.g., cognitive linguistic, corpus linguistic, conversation analysis), these conceptualizations, operationalizations, explanations, and ways of studying usage can be critically different (e.g., usage as input and production, opportunities for practice, communication, and interaction). In other words, not all usage-based approaches define usage in the same ways, thus making comparisons between studies challenging. This issue is further compounded by studies that label themselves as “usage-based” but do not adequately define what is meant by this term for that study. These limitations clearly hamper the growth and credibility of the discipline. This book aims to address this limitation in the field by bringing together diverse approaches and theoretical accounts of L2 learning that study and define usage in potentially different ways. This work is needed to more transparently spell out how usage-based accounts define and study usage, learning, and their connections in SLA. We work toward this goal by asking expert international scholars to reflect on current conceptualizations of usage in the field of SLA, probe at the conceptual and theoretical foundations of usage-based L2 learning, and tease out common and related strands among the approaches and theoretical accounts. To do this, each contributor was asked to critically review and discuss three questions central to the field of SLA. These questions focused on how the field thinks about usage, what we take the L2 learning task to be, and in what ways usage and learning are connected. In this way, this book clarifies the nature of existing conceptualizations and ways of studying usage, learning, and their connections. My aim in this chapter is to lay the groundwork for a critical reflection on usage and its role in L2 learning. This begins in the next section by problematizing and discussing the three questions discussed throughout the book: What counts as usage? What is the L2 learning task? What are the connections between usage and learning? For each question, I summarize some of the current understandings in the field and highlight some of the

4  Introducing usage in SLA

similarities and differences that currently exist. This introduction ends with an overview of each chapter. 1.2 The key questions

Given that the primary focus of this book is to unpack some of the key theoretical constructs used in discussions of usage-based SLA, the key questions were designed to primarily address conceptual and methodological fundamentals in the field. In addition, these questions have important implications for understanding points of agreement and disagreement among usage-based approaches. For example, while multiple research methodologies are regularly employed to study L2 learning from a usage-based perspective (e.g., cognitive linguistic, corpus linguistic, ethnomethodological, sociolinguistic), the field will benefit from clarity about their precise nature and the extent of their (dis)agreement (see Eskildsen, this volume; Luo, this volume; Wulff, this volume). To illustrate, are the units/instances of usage similar across approaches or are they actually quite different? If they are different, are there features of their difference that allow them to work in a complementary manner? Being clearer about each approach’s conceptual fundamentals is key for advancing this line of L2 research. Similarly, thinking about what counts as the L2 learning task across theoretical accounts is also needed. In Skill Acquisition Theory, for example, there is a frequency and/or repetition factor at play to help drive development (see Suzuki, this volume), but is frequency of equal importance in conversation analysis or sociolinguistics approaches (see Eskildsen, this volume; Gudmestad, this volume)? Do these accounts conceptualize “learning” or “development” in similar ways and what are the features that constitute their difference/similarity? These are some of the important questions to be unpacked here and then developed further in this volume. In the remainder of this section, I offer some reflections about the complexity and challenges of defining usage in SLA research, followed by what we might take the L2 learning task to be. Lastly, I consider the ways in which usage and learning are thought to be connected. These points will be further developed in each chapter. 1.3 What is usage?

Many SLA researchers would agree that usage refers to a speaker’s own production and/or perception of language, such as when engaged in a piece of writing or in conversations with other people. Indeed, this constitutes a common approach to studying usage that connects closely with Langacker’s (2008, 2016) seminal definition of language and usage:

Introducing usage in SLA 5

The units of a language are both cognitive and social: the former as an aspect of neural processing, and the latter in a number of respects. For one thing, a unit is part of a language only to the extent of being conventional in a certain speech community. Also, units emerge from usage events – instances of language use in the full detail of their contextual apprehension – by the reinforcement of recurring commonalities. One recurring feature is the very fact that the speaker and hearer are interacting by using the language in question. Hence the ground (the interlocutors, their interaction, and its circumstances) figures at least peripherally in the import of every unit. Indeed, abstracted units can incorporate any facet of the speech situation common to the usage events giving rise to them, such as the following: age, gender, and status of the interlocutors; their social relationship; nature of the occasion; degree of formality; attitudinal, emotive, and affective factors; and the language (or conceived linguistic variety) employed. (Langacker, 2016, p. 469) Consistent with Langacker’s definition, an active line of usage-based SLA research has involved the analysis of large datasets of L2 production to understand the ways in which L2 knowledge and use change over time, both within and across individuals, and are shaped by features of the context where that language use takes place (Kyle et al., 2021; Verspoor et al., 2012, 2021; Wulff & Gries, 2019). A key contribution of this work has been to better understand (i) the types of linguistic structures that learners use and the trajectories of their usage, (ii) how linguistic and contextual conditions influence when and how specific linguistic structures are used, and (iii) the dynamic relationships among different linguistic structures (Verspoor & Schmid, this volume; Wulff, this volume). We can describe this line of usage-based L2 research as “production-driven” because it aims to describe and theorize target language production. An equally active line of L2 research has focused on the amounts, types, and functions of language that speakers are exposed to. In this approach, usage is mostly conceptualized in terms of a speaker’s (likely) exposure to language. Research has worked toward this goal by documenting and examining the types of language available in classrooms, textbooks, and teaching materials, for example (Collins et al., 2012; McManus & Bluemel, 2022; Römer, 2005). Another common approach has included the analysis of large, generalist language corpora to understand the types of language that learners could be exposed to (e.g., The British National Corpus, 2007; see Ellis et al., 2016). Advances in corpus linguistics and learner-corpus research have made particularly important contributions to understanding usage in this way (for reviews, see McEnery et al., 2019; Tracy-Ventura & Paquot, 2021). We can describe this line of usage-based research as being

6  Introducing usage in SLA

“input-driven” because it documents and analyzes the amounts, types, and functions of language available to learners, directly and indirectly. In addition to studying (i) features of learners’ language productions and (ii) what the language input looks like, SLA research has also brought these two lines of research together to examine how L2 abilities are influenced by specific features of the language input, such as how the frequency of linguistic forms and the contingency of form-meaning mappings shape the trajectories of L2 learning (e.g., Ellis et al., 2016; Römer et al., 2014; Römer & Garner, 2019). A repeated finding from this line of L2 research indicates very close relationships between features of the language input and the types of language that learners produce, thus reinforcing the understanding that the amounts, types, and functions of language available to learners can play an essential role in shaping the routes and rates of L2 learning. However, even though frequency might seem like a key driver of learnability, usage-based L2 research has repeatedly noted that frequency alone does not fully explain L2 learning difficulty (Divjak, 2019; Ellis & Wulff, 2020; McManus, 2022). For example, a large body of L2 research has shown that features of the input like the reliability of form-meaning connections are also important (Andersen, 1984; Ellis, 2006; MacWhinney, 2008), which can help us to understand why some extremely frequent linguistic items remain very difficult for L2 learners (e.g., articles in English). In other words, frequent forms that express multiple meanings can be more difficult to learn than less frequent forms that express fewer meanings (Zhao & MacWhinney, 2018). But, again, no single factor can explain why some L2 features appear more difficult than others. We increasingly look to interactions among multiple connected factors when studying and explaining L2 learning from a usage-based approach. Similarly, analyses of the semiotic resources used by speakers in interaction have highlighted the importance of non-linguistic forms of communication in development as well (e.g., gestures, emojis; Hall, 2019; Kasper & Wagner, 2014; Seedhouse, 1996). Such work has examined, for instance, prosody (e.g., pausing, intonation), facial expressions, body positioning, as well as the use of typescripts and punctuation in writing, to better understand how different forms of communication contribute to how learners communicate and the extent to which language production/processing abilities co-develop and/or are driven by the use of semiotic resources (see Gullberg, 2022; Eskildsen, this volume; Stam & Tellier, 2022). With an explicit focus on the contextual, social, and cultural conditions of language use, conversation analysis, sociolinguistic, and linguisticethnographic approaches to SLA have studied some of the reasons why speakers make the language choices that they do (Hall, 2019; Kanwit & Geeslin, 2020; Wagner, 2015). As discussed by Gudmestad (this volume), a focus of variationist sociolinguistic SLA research has been to investigate

Introducing usage in SLA 7

linguistic structures that speakers use in variable but systematic ways and then to understand how and why learners select to use different forms of a structure over others (Bayley & Tarone, 2012; Geeslin, 2022). A welldocumented feature in this line of research has investigated why L2 speakers sometimes drop pre-verbal negative particles like ‘ne’ in French (e.g., je n’aime pas vs. j’aime pas “I don’t like”, see Regan et al., 2009). In addition, agency, identity, and power have emerged as important factors that can explain why L2 learners make the language choices they do. In this view, therefore, thinking about usage as language structure provides a partial account only. How context influences language use must also be studied. That is not to say, of course, that linguistic-ethnographic and conversationanalysis approaches do not study the linguistic structures that learners are exposed to and use themselves. Indeed, many conversation-analysis studies have provided in-depth descriptions of the language input to understand L2 learning (Eskildsen, 2012; Nicaise, 2021; Walsh, 2013). The key point here is not in terms of the absence, presence, and/or frequency of language units, but how, when, and sometimes why learners choose particular linguistic expressions and how their use impacts other speakers and their interactions. As a result, usage here includes linguistic structures as well as how linguistic structures and patterns emerge in and through communication (see also Bybee, 2010; Ellis, 2019; Tomasello, 2003). In this way, we can begin to see usage emerging as a multi-layered construct, referring not only to linguistic units, but also to how and why particular linguistic units are employed to serve communicative, identity, place, and agency aims. Within processing- and skill-theory approaches (DeKeyser, 1997, 2017; Suzuki, this volume; Leow, 2015; this volume), researchers have investigated how encouraging learners to systematically engage in particular types of language-related behaviors, through guided usage/practice, for example, can promote L2 development. Not only has this line of research led to clear and testable accounts about the ways in which different types and schedules of guided practice can support L2 knowledge development, but it has also sought to understand the characteristics of the practice activities themselves that appear most effective for development. For example, in describing practice as systematic, Suzuki (this volume) explains that the target of practice is not frequency only. Rather, usage should be intentional with principled variations so as to foster consolidation. Suzuki also discusses the ways in which massed and spacing practice schedules can contribute to learning outcomes. Together, this work has investigated how different types of language practice/usage (e.g., production, comprehension) as well as conditions of that usage (e.g., massed, spaced) can help us to understand (i) connections between usage and learning and (ii) the extent to which usage conditions can be modified to promote learning (Leow, 2015; McManus, 2021; Suzuki et al., 2019). In addition to thinking about usage

8  Introducing usage in SLA

in terms of language production/perception, these approaches conceptualize usage in terms of the cognitive processes that underpin language use, as represented in Langacker’s seminal definition. For example, Suzuki discusses the different types of knowledge (e.g., declarative, procedural) that underpin particular language-related behaviors, and Leow discusses how different types of processing (e.g., input processing, intake processing, L2 knowledge processing) are needed to explain L2 learning and use. In sum, this discussion of usage indicates that SLA researchers study usage with distinct epistemological and methodological tools. This awareness is important as we move to reflect on the components that potentially unify and distinguish usage-based approaches, including usage as units of language structure, usage as how speakers employ/process linguistic units in interaction, as well as usage as the cognitive consequences involved in employing/processing linguistic units. A further point to consider moving forward will to be what extent these different understandings of usage, including others not yet discussed, are represented, and/or in what ways they are weighted across approaches. 1.4 What is the L2 learning task?

Perhaps some of the most important questions to be asked in SLA research include: What is learning? How do we know/decide if something has been learned? Are there different stages or types of learning? Is the learning of language something quite different from the learning of other skills? These questions, and others connected to them, necessarily sit at the heart of the SLA research program because the question we are ultimately trying to understand is, “What is the L2 learning task?” Agreeing upon and clearly understanding what learning is in the field of SLA is a key condition for advancing the discipline (Divjak, 2019; Leow, 2015, this volume; McManus, 2022). However, as other volumes have demonstrated (e.g., Eskildsen & Cadierno, 2015; Pekarek Doehler & Eskildsen, 2022; Tyler et al., 2018), just as our field exhibits variations in how we conceptualize language and language use, there are also variations in how we conceptualize learning. For example, does the L2 learning task entail being able to appropriately produce and interpret linguistic units? What about being able to combine linguistic units into more complex patterns, and then employing (patterns of) linguistic units to express specific communicative functions? What about roles for metalinguistic, cultural, and pragmatic knowledge/ awareness? These are nontrivial questions for our field. Because the goal of L2 learning changes with time and experience, almost all usage-based approaches agree that the L2 learning task can never be static. Indeed, this is one reason why the contributors in this volume have been asked to reflect on learning from their perspective. In doing so,

Introducing usage in SLA 9

one aim here is to topicalize and problematize learning as a construct in the field and explore common ground and points of divergence. Indeed, as others have discussed (Divjak, 2019; Ellis, 2006; Leow, 2015), critical reflection on what we mean by learning in the field of SLA is not commonplace, even though it is central to the work that we do. We begin here by forefronting some of the questions to be asked in this line of research. Starting with a variationist sociolinguistics perspective, the L2 learning task tends to be understood in terms of a learner being aware that a meaning (or language structure) might have different options (e.g., differences among Y’all, Yinz, You’uns, and Youse in some varieties of American English, see Johnstone, 2013) and then being able to interpret and produce these different linguistic options at an appropriate time and place (Gudmestad, this volume). The question of how speakers develop this knowledge is of considerable interest in the field (e.g., through exposure and/or noticing variations in the choices speakers make). This is one reason why study abroad and immersion contexts have provided a fruitful context for exploring such questions (Geeslin & Long, 2014; Regan et al., 2009). An added point here is to what extent awareness alone is a sufficient condition to determine that something has been learned or whether evidence from production and/or interpretation is also necessary (and vice versa). A clear challenge, therefore, is what types of evidence feed into our operationalization of learning, and to what extent is learning also a multi-layered construct? A Skill Acquisition Theory perspective notes some of these same challenges, especially regarding the conceptual and methodological underpinnings of learning (i.e., how do we conceptualize learning and how do we assess it? DeKeyser, 2009, 2017; Suzuki, this volume). To start with, this approach defines three distinct but related types of knowledge: declarative knowledge, procedural knowledge, and automatic knowledge. Each type of knowledge is determined based on a learner’s performance ability. For example, declarative knowledge is evidenced by a learner’s ability to describe or verbalize the rules or procedures required to perform a task (e.g., describing how regular verbs in Spanish are conjugated for the past tense or how to put a car into reverse). Procedural knowledge is evidenced by the slow and effortful execution of that skill (e.g., a slow and effortful process of putting the car into reverse), while automaticity is evidenced by the fluent and effortless execution of a skill (DeKeyser, 1997; Segalowitz, 2010; Suzuki et al., 2019). Together, these different stages of skill learning have allowed L2 researchers to conceptualize learning in terms of the different stages of being able to execute a skill. Thus, from a Skill Acquisition Theory perspective, the learning task is dynamic and involves working toward the creation and development of automatic knowledge to execute a specific skill (e.g., the ability to conjugate Spanish verbs or reverse park the

10  Introducing usage in SLA

car fluently and effortlessly). Learners can develop this ability by systematically and regularly practicing or performing a specific skill. This indicates that learning is driven by opportunities for practice. In this way, learning from a Skill Acquisition Theory perspective is a staged process. Evidence of learning can be broken down into more discrete stages by assessing a learner’s ability to execute a skill. Some of these ideas about learning are also represented in dynamic usage-based approaches (Lowie et al., 2020; Verspoor et al., 2012, 2021; Verspoor & Schmid, this volume), which focus on the longitudinal trajectories of development by analyzing how a speaker’s language use changes over time. In contrast to the skill-theory approach, where a learning target can be defined (e.g., automaticity), the L2 learning task from a dynamic usagebased approach is thought to be more fluid and dynamic as the learner’s system of language knowledge changes with experience. Critically, evidence of L2 learning is determined by documenting variability in the system, rather than showing evidence of fixed or static performance. This is why a speaker’s system of language knowledge is thought to be dynamic and unpredictable. Evidence of learning comes from documenting the indexes of dynamicity and unpredictability. An ethnomethodological or conversation-analysis approach to learning shares some connections with the previously discussed variationist and dynamic usage-based approaches but with a stronger focus on individuals and the language-related/communicative choices that individuals make during interaction (Eskildsen, this volume; Hall, 2019; Kasper & Wagner, 2014). Consistent with approaches that analyze language use (or performance) to draw conclusions about learning (e.g., Skill Acquisition Theory, variationist sociolinguistics, ethnomethodological conversation analysis), ethnomethodological conversation analysis approaches examine the language choices speakers make at a particular point in time. One example of this can be found in Eskildsen’s (2012) longitudinal analysis of expressing negation in L2 English. Here, Eskildsen used a longitudinal case-study approach with two speakers and tracked the frequency with which they expressed negation in different ways, moving from nontargetlike (e.g., subject no verb) to targetlike (e.g., subject don’t verb). Relevant here is that Eskildsen’s analysis does not conclude with a counting of linguistic patterns to determine learning, but instead seeks to explain why and how these different patterns of negation emerge with reference to the immediate social context. This is because usage is understood to be tightly connected to an individual’s interactional environment. In this section, we have topicalized and reviewed some conceptualizations of learning that will be further explored in this book. One consistency from this review is that the different approaches appear to embrace a conceptualization of learning as a non-static and multi-layered process. The

Introducing usage in SLA 11

types of evidence used to determine if something has been learned are typically derived by analyzing language performance, thus indicating a close relationship between usage and learning (see also Wulff, this chapter). This indicates that the quality of our inferences and theories about learning is strongly influenced by how we conceptualize and assess usage. 1.5 What are the connections between usage and learning?

Better understanding the connections between usage and learning is one way to move the field toward comprehensive explanations of L2 learning. By thinking about usage-learning relationships, we thus embrace the view that learning is a process of accumulating knowledge and experience, driven in part by the learner, such as intentionally engaging in specific behaviors (e.g., seeking out new experiences and contexts for language use). Given the different but complementary accounts of language, usage, and learning discussed in the field, there is likely a good deal of consensus that could be used to advance such a unified account of L2 learning, thus allowing our discipline to more clearly articulate how usage and learning are connected and the ways in which these components work together. Some lines of this research are topicalized here and will be further unpacked in subsequent chapters. Starting with a corpus-driven analysis of the language input, for instance, a key goal of this research program has included attempts to better understand the connections between learners’ exposure to language and their resulting language processing and production abilities (Ellis et al., 2016; Kyle et al., 2021; Wulff & Gries, 2019), such as examining characteristics of L2 processing and production for specific linguistic patterns. Such a research program, however, requires that studies collect language input data from the actual environments in which learners find themselves, rather than using generalist corpora that do not represent the types of language that learners are exposed to. This is a challenging but important methodological limitation in the field that future research should seek to address because it has important implications for our conclusions about learning (Ellis, 2017; Tracy-Ventura & Paquot, 2021). Nevertheless, this work has shown that statistical features of the input appear to impact learners’ use of language, thus establishing important connections between usage and learning. Similarly, usage and learning are also very clearly connected from a Skill Acquisition Theory perspective (DeKeyser, 1997, 2009; Suzuki et al., 2019). This is because knowledge development is understood to be driven by practice (or usage): The development of automatic knowledge results from opportunities to repeatedly and systematically practice a skill. For example, the ability to effortlessly and fluently parallel park a car results

12  Introducing usage in SLA

from opportunities to repeatedly and systematically parallel park the car. Indeed, the process of regularly performing/practicing a skill is required to strengthen the computational routine to perform that skill. Thus, without time, opportunities for practice, and guidance on skill execution (e.g., feedback), learning cannot take place, especially the creation and/or development of automaticity. In Skill Acquisition Theory, therefore, usage and learning are clearly connected. It is furthermore very likely that usagelearning connections are bidirectional because opportunities for usage drive knowledge development and the creation of new knowledge types support fluent and accurate skill execution. From an ethnomethodological conversation-analysis perspective, we can see connections between usage and learning. A particular benefit of this approach, though, is that it allows us to expand our understanding of both usage and learning beyond language units and the production/processing of those units (Eskildsen, 2012; Hall, 2019; Pekarek Doehler & Eskildsen, 2022). For example, this line of research has shown that contextual features give rise to specific types of language use. As a result, providing learners with varied opportunities for language use by systematically providing new and potentially different interactive situations can be one way to support development. It is also possible (or desirable) to incorporate awareness into this process (Leow, 2015), as also indicated by work in variationist sociolinguistics and cognitive linguistics (see Gudmestad, this volume; Luo, this volume). For example, usage and learning are partly underpinned by a learner’s awareness of (i) the linguistic choices they themselves make, (ii) the social consequences of the choices they make, as well as (iii) those made by other speakers in their communities of practice. As such, awareness about the language choices we make, including roles for identity and agency, plays an important role in the broader tapestry of how we think about and research L2 learning. Together, these insights from conversation analysis and sociolinguistics complement the more linguistically and/ or cognitively driven insights previously described. They add awareness, agency, identity, and other social variables to our thinking about the connections between usage and learning. Indeed, bringing together these understandings about usage and learning can inform and support language pedagogies to facilitate L2 learning in instructed contexts (Leow, 2015; McManus, 2022; Tyler et al., 2018). For example, instructional approaches can benefit from L2 research in these areas by providing varied contexts and opportunities for language exposure, encouraging learners to use and process language in a variety of ways and contexts, including using different varieties of the languages under study, and providing space for critical reflection on the choices other speakers make in and across different interactional sequences and contexts (see Leow, this volume; Suzuki, this volume; Verspoor & Schmid, this volume).

Introducing usage in SLA 13

These ideas can play critical roles in shaping language learning opportunities in and outside of the classroom. 1.6 Contributions to the volume

With this brief introduction to the volume and its themes, I now turn to outlining the chapters in this book and the ways in which each of them approaches the topics of usage, learning, and their connections in conceptualizing and studying L2 learning. Our critical review begins with Stefanie Wulff’s overview of corpus-linguistic approaches for studying usage from the perspective of usage-based construction grammar (Goldberg, 1995, 2019). The first part of this chapter begins with a discussion of what a corpus is (a large collection of authentic language-production samples), what corpus linguistics is (a method to investigate the conditional distribution of linguistic phenomena in linguistic corpora), and some essential first steps in the exploration of usage from a corpus-linguistics perspective. Wulff then outlines two assumptions that usage-based accounts of language (learning) agree on. First, language learning primarily depends on the input learners receive and the output they produce. Second, language learning recruits the same cognitive mechanisms involved in all types of learning. Given these assumptions (and especially the first), Wulff argues that all usage-based frameworks are inherently compatible with corpus-linguistic methods precisely because corpora can provide dense and representative samples of language use. The chapter then continues to define usage, building on Langacker (2016), by focusing on (i) usage as input and output and (ii) the language-internal and languageexternal contexts of usage, noting how each of these definitions of usage is inherently complex with multiple layers of representation. For example, we can think of input and output in terms of its quantity (e.g., frequency, dispersion), quality (e.g., comprehensibility, relevance), and modality (e.g., speaking, writing). In addition, any usage event is characterized by complex interactions involving language-internal contexts (e.g., combinations between specific linguistic units including what came before/after specific linguistic units) and language-external context (e.g., social, geographical factors). Furthermore, L2 speakers must navigate the extent to which these features of usage may vary across and between their languages. By bringing these insights together, Wulff argues that we are compelled to recognize that (i) no two speakers have identical usage histories and profiles and (ii) that the study of usage requires a multi-level approach that brings together information from multiple factors. This critical reflection of usage leads Wulff to review what corpus linguistics can do (e.g., investigate input and output properties) and what it potentially could do (e.g., examine individual variation, converge corpus data with other types of data) to

14  Introducing usage in SLA

advance knowledge and understanding about the role of usage in conceptualizing and studying L2 learning. In Chapter 3, Søren Wind Eskildsen defines and examines usage and its role in L2 learning from the perspective of ethnomethodological conversation analysis. A key idea highlighted in this chapter is that in order to make sense of usage, learning, and the connections between them, we critically need to understand how people establish links between linguistic expressions and social action. This account leads Eskildsen to expand the definition of a “construction” beyond the pairing of meaning and form toward one that involves the pairing of embodied action and linguistic expression, building on the understanding that “language” is most appropriately defined in terms of the varied multimodal semiotic resources (e.g., spoken language, bodily action) that people use to accomplish social action. As Eskildsen makes clear, when we conceptualize language in this way, we are required not only to study the specific linguistic expressions produced by people, but also how a person’s use of a linguistic expression connects with and is related to bodily action, the material world, context, and social action. These insights are carefully unpacked and illustrated using longitudinal case-study analyses of L2 use in instructed contexts. In terms of defining the goal of L2 learning from an ethnomethodological conversation-analysis perspective, this chapter shows why focusing on linguistic expressions and their emergence alone provides only a partial account of L2 development. Because people do not use language in a social vacuum, the goal of L2 learning involves being able to carry out meaningful and recognizable multimodal social interactions. As a result, an ethnomethodological conversation-analysis approach to SLA pays close attention to how people learn to participate in, interpret, and observe multimodal interactions. Taken together, L2 learning involves learning how to use and interpret multimodal semiotic resources to act, behave, and respond in ways that make sense to others, while at the same time navigating local environments and attending to the behaviors of other people. The contribution of variationist sociolinguistics to understanding usage and learning in SLA is outlined and critically reviewed by Aarnes Gudmestad, who focuses on two types of variation. First, Type I variation refers to the use of linguistic structures that are considered targetlike in a community and those that are not (e.g., plural marking with semantically plural count nouns, e.g., twelve pencils vs. twelve pencil). Second, Type II variation refers to instances when two or more targetlike forms exist in variation in the target-language community (e.g., word-internal, intervocalic /d/ in Spanish words like cada “each”). Using this backdrop, the chapter proceeds to discuss how variationist L2 researchers study the ways in which linguistic and social factors shape variation in how L2 speakers use and learn language.

Introducing usage in SLA 15

For Gudmestad, language is best conceptualized as a communicative code that (i) carries linguistic and social meaning and (ii) is systematically variable and dynamic. This leads to a definition of “usage” in terms of “language behavior” (Gudmestad, this volume), including language production as well as the interpretation and perception of the language input, all of which are very closely connected. As a result, variationist SLA research is particularly interested in understanding why and how learners vary their language behaviors, with reference to features of linguistic, social, and interactional settings. In terms of identifying the goals of L2 learning, Gudmestad explains that the L2 learning task in terms of Type II variation is for learners “to gain sensitivity to variability in the input and to develop the ability to mirror these same variable patterns in their own usage”. This is how language production and exposure to the language input through interaction are closely connected. Reflecting on how usage and learning are connected, Gudmestad draws on Preston’s (2000) psycholinguistic model of interlanguage variation, which conceptualizes language development through the close interaction among social constraints (e.g., social class, gender), linguistic factors (e.g., subject, person, and number, word-final (t) glottaling), and time (e.g., effects of the amount of instruction, time spent abroad in the target-language community). Language learning is thus understood to be influenced by these factors, illustrated using a coin-toss metaphor, whereby a learner’s use of a language structure with two or more targetlike variants is impacted by interactions among these factors. Experience shifts the weighting of these variables on language use, reinforcing the idea that language is a systematically variable and dynamic communicative code. This is a key reason why learning is understood to happen through interaction, involving both exposure to the target language and opportunities for language production, which allow for variable patterns to emerge and change. In Chapter 5, Marjolijn Verspoor and Hans-Jörg Schmid discuss usage and L2 learning from a dynamic usage-based perspective, in which language is conceptualized as a dynamic and variable network of form-usage-meaning mappings. A key idea represented in form-usage-meaning mappings (highlighted with “usage” as part of this concept) is that linguistic forms are mapped onto usage-dependent meanings, which are conventionalized on the communal level of speech communities and represented in the minds of the members of speech communities. The key aim of dynamic usage-based approaches is to understand how form-usage-meaning mappings become established and are sustained on the communal macro-level and the cognitive micro-level. Usage is assumed to play a central role by mediating between the two levels and establishing and tallying the communal conventions and individual representations subserving form-usagemeaning mappings.

16  Introducing usage in SLA

In order to describe, explain, and apply these ideas to L2 learning, Verspoor and Schmid focus on the Entrenchment-and-Conventionalization Model (Schmid, 2020) as one example of a dynamic usage-based model. This model emphasizes that language (i.e., the network of form-usagemeaning mappings) is usage-dependent, dynamic, and variable. These properties are thought to emerge from the interaction of three components. First, “usage”, which refers to the use of language for the purpose of communication in situated usage events. Second, “conventionalization” includes the social processes that create and sustain linguistic conventions in a community of speakers. Third, “entrenchment” denotes the cognitive processes involved in creating and sustaining linguistic representations in the minds of speakers. Together, the complex interaction among these components is used to describe and explain the nature of language (i.e., why form-usage-meaning mappings include the properties that they do), as well as how language emerges, changes, and is learnable by speakers. The Entrenchment-and-Conventionalization Model and the role of usage in this model are also used to discuss how and why language develops in the ways that it does as well as to provide recommendations for instruction. For example, because language learning is understood as a dynamic, variable, and associative process, repeated exposure and the use of similar utterances in comparable usage events are required in order for form-usagemeaning mappings to be learned. One implication of this understanding is that meaningful exposure to the target language is needed for language development to take place, which, the authors argue, means that dynamic usage-based principles of learning and use align well with strong versions of a communicative language teaching approach. In Chapter 6, Han Luo provides a comprehensive account of cognitive linguistics in terms of how this approach sheds light on conceptualizations and approaches to studying usage, learning, and their connections in SLA. To start, Luo situates cognitive-linguistics approaches in the broader linguistic-theory landscape by describing the main theoretical ideas and constructs found in cognitive-linguistic approaches to SLA. Indeed, a significant contribution of cognitive linguistics to the study of language as well as how speakers learn and use language is in its detailed description of the cognitive processes understood to be at work in language and thought (e.g., entrenchment, meaning construction, schematization). As this chapter makes clear, cognitive-linguistic approaches argue that language knowledge emerges from situated instances of comprehending and producing language (or usage). Thus, understanding how language knowledge emerges requires an approach that focuses on the cognitive processes involved in a speaker’s comprehension and production of language. Luo explains how this is possible by critically reviewing three major hypotheses guiding a cognitive-linguistic approach to language: (i) language is not an

Introducing usage in SLA 17

autonomous cognitive faculty, but language is an integral part of cognition; (ii) grammar is conceptualization, indicating that grammar is a result of human conceptualization of world experience mediated by the nature of our bodies; and (iii) knowledge of language emerges from language use in a bottom-up fashion. Critically, and in agreement with the other chapters in this volume, Luo equates language learning with all kinds of learning and views any type of learning as involving similar cognitive processes. As Luo’s critical review and application of cognitive linguistics for understanding usage in SLA makes clear, language learning cannot be understood by investigating the linguistic structures that speakers process and produce alone. A more holistic approach is needed that incorporates information about speakers’ histories as well as the communicative intent and meanings (broadly construed) of what is being produced. In addition, cognitive-linguistic approaches to SLA are sensitive to the many differences that both unite and distinguish first language (L1) from L2 learning, including the prior language experiences that speakers bring to the language learning task. These observations lead Luo to review why and how instruction can play an integral role in L2 development. Luo approaches this task by reviewing contemporary approaches to L2 instruction through the lens of cognitive linguistics. With a focus on L2 learning in instructed contexts, Ronald P. Leow offers a critical review of usage, learning, and their connections from a processing-based perspective, which highlights some of the ways that the field’s key constructs are applied to and studied in the field of instructed SLA. For example, Leow discusses to what extent the key constructs of usage and learning should be broadened and/or revisited given the specific affordances present in formal instructed contexts. Indeed, Leow notes at multiple points that a potential limitation in contemporary usage-based approaches to SLA is that many usage-based ideas are borrowed from studies of child L1 development that may not extend/apply well to studying adult L2 learning. One such consideration is that most adult L2 learners find themselves in instructed classroom contexts as the predominant site for L2 learning. However, these classroom contexts tend to offer few opportunities for interaction and extended exposure to the target language, understood to be critical components for language development to take place. In addition, Leow argues that there is a tendency in the field to predominantly think about usage in terms of the instances of spoken language that learners are exposed to and produce themselves. Leow proposes, therefore, that definitions of usage should also include written language as well as the input processing and intake processing of raw L2 input. These additions could be specific contributions that studies of instructed SLA bring to our understanding of usage. Leow’s review of what counts as usage is developed by considering the limited affordances typical in formal instructed contexts

18  Introducing usage in SLA

(compared with more naturalistic contexts, for instance), the types of processing (which tend to be more explicit than implicit in classroom contexts), as well as methodological concerns that limit how we conceptualize and study learning. Informed by these reflections, Leow’s (2015) Model of the L2 Learning Process in instructed SLA together with the Feedback Processing Framework (Leow, 2020) are identified as ways to elucidate the relationship between language use, cognition, and L2 learning from a joint usageand processing-based instructed SLA perspective. In addition to making connections with other usage-based models of development, this account pays particular attention to the cognitive processes involved in knowledge processing, input processing, intake processing, and roles for feedback. It is argued that such an approach can theoretically account for what takes place at both the later stages of knowledge processing (language use or production) and at the earlier stages of input/intake processing of L2 input that is received during interaction. In Chapter 8, Yuichi Suzuki presents an overview of Skill Acquisition Theory and the ways in which the tenets of this theory shape and inform discussions of usage in the field of SLA. Readers will likely notice a good amount of agreement in this chapter with that discussed in Chapter 7 (Leow) due to their focus on knowledge types and opportunities for learning in classroom contexts. For example, Suzuki discusses some of the characteristics of classroom-based L2 learning (e.g., limited opportunities for extended communication) that can reduce (and sometimes bias) the types of language that learners are exposed to and that they themselves can use. As a result, instructed classroom contexts may not provide sufficient opportunities for L2 learning through exposure to input and communication. Suzuki also notes that in many instructed contexts, learners will have to begin by creating and/or developing declarative (or explicit) knowledge about the target language before engaging in language use (e.g., speaking, listening) that draws on this knowledge. This discussion provides important food for thought in terms of how we might think about and study usage-based approaches to L2 learning in instructed contexts. A critical primer to this discussion about the affordances and limits of L2 learning in instructed contexts is a review of the key tenets of Skill Acquisition Theory, focusing on declarative and procedural knowledge, the process of automatization, as well as a discussion about interactions among knowledge types. This account leads Suzuki to propose and distinguish between “usage for learning” and “learning to use”, which provide a useful framework for conceptualizing different types of usage in SLA. Briefly, “usage for learning” refers to the language exposure that learners receive in communicatively rich human social environments, widely understood to be essential for L2 learning, while “learning to use” refers to the investments

Introducing usage in SLA 19

and experiences that are required for learners to be able to use the L2 in communication. Indeed, unpacking the complex interactions between these two ideas is the core dilemma that Suzuki tackles in the chapter: Exposure is required for learners to be able to master an L2, but learners require a certain level of L2 skill in order to benefit from this exposure and achieve L2 mastery. Working toward this goal of critically reviewing what is meant by “usage” in the field, especially with reference to learning in instructed and immersion contexts, Suzuki reflects on theoretically-informed ways that L2 skills can be developed to enhance opportunities for learning via exposure. A recurrent theme here is that opportunities for practice must be systematic and repeated to support learning. Lastly, in Chapter 9, I provide a synthesis of the contributions of the different chapters in terms of their discussion and critical review of the three questions: What is usage? What is the L2 learning task? What are the connections between usage and learning? In doing so, the review revisits the main ideas topicalized in this chapter and explores common ground among the chapters as well as some of the ways that further work is needed. In this discussion of usage, for example, it is noted that usage is repeatedly discussed as a multi-layered construct that includes input, output, opportunities for practice/rehearsal that speakers produce themselves and are exposed to, the interactional conduct of speakers that support the interpretation of talk, and the cognitive processing mechanisms required in comprehending and producing language. What is interesting among the different contributions, however, is to note the precise ways in which these different types of usage are weighted. A further element that is useful to note is that each chapter builds a strong case that any understanding of usage is underspecified when we focus on a single component only (e.g., language input only). These ideas have important implications for theorization in the field. In terms of how the different chapters conceptualize the L2 learning task, a repeated point is that L2 learning cannot be understood as expanding the inventory of constructions (or form-meaning pairings) or other communicative resources only. L2 learning must also be understood in terms of how speakers employ that knowledge base and how and why that knowledge base exists and is used in the ways that it is. Furthermore, nearly all chapters agree that conceptualizing learning in this way necessitates that we recognize that no two usage events are the same and that this dynamic property of usage is what supports development. The discussion also indicates potential concerns and/or limitations about attributing too great of a role to input in conceptualizing and studying L2 learning, especially for studies of L2 learning in instructed classroom contexts.

20  Introducing usage in SLA

1.7 Conclusion

With this introduction to the volume, including topicalization of the key questions to be asked and overviews of the different chapters, I now leave readers to explore and enjoy the contributions presented here in more detail. As will become clear by reading and considering each chapter, there is considerable interest and appeal in understanding questions of usage and learning in the field of SLA because they feature centrally in all steps of the research process. At the same time, the volume builds a strong case for considerable common ground among the approaches, points to areas for future research and theorization, and makes important connections among L2 theory, studies of L2 development, and instruction. Discussion questions

1. What do you see as being the main advantages and disadvantages of diverse definitions, research methodologies, and methods for defining usage and learning in SLA? 2. Usage has been defined in many different ways over the years and is now widely understood to refer to a multi-layered construct of multiple interlocking elements (e.g., input and output, language production and comprehension, social interaction, cognitive processing). Describe what some of these elements are with examples. 3. The connections between usage and learning are complex. In what ways do you think usage and learning are connected? How could you research your ideas about the ways in which they are related? 4. An important idea discussed throughout this volume is that speakers draw on the same socio-cognitive mechanisms to learn language as they do to learn any skill. List and describe some of the mechanisms. How does this view compare to others in the field of SLA? References Andersen, R. W. (1984). The one to one principle of interlanguage construction. Language Learning, 34(4), 77–95. https://doi​.org​/10​.1111​/j​.1467​-1770​.1984​ .tb00353.x Arndt, H. L., Granfeldt, J., & Gullberg, M. (2023). Reviewing the potential of the Experience Sampling Method (ESM) for capturing second language exposure and use. Second Language Research, 39(1), 39–58. https://doi​.org​/10​.1177​ /02676583211020055 Bayley, R., & Tarone, E. (2012). Variationist perspectives. In S. M. Gass & A. Mackey (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 41– 56). Routledge. Beckner, C., Blythe, R., Bybee, J., Christiansen, M. H., Croft, W., Ellis, N. C., Holland, J., Ke, J., Larsen-Freeman, D., & Schoenemann, T. (2009). Language

Introducing usage in SLA 21

is a complex adaptive system: Position paper. Language Learning, 59, 1–26. https://doi​.org​/10​.1111​/j​.1467​-9922​.2009​.00533.x Bybee, J. L. (2010). Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge University Press. Cadierno, T., & Eskildsen, S. W. (Eds.). (2015). Usage-based perspectives on second language learning. De Gruyter. https://doi​.org​/10​.1515​/9783110378528 Collins, L., White, J., Trofimovich, P., Cardoso, W., & Horst, M. (2012). When comprehensible input is not comprehensive input: A multi-dimensional analysis of instructional input in intensive English as foreign language. In C. Munoz (Ed.), Intensive exposure experiences in second language learning (pp. 66–87). Multilingual Matters. DeKeyser, R. (1997). Beyond explicit rule learning: Automatizing second language Morphosyntax. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(2), 195–221. https://doi​.org​/10​.1017​/S0272263197002040 DeKeyser, R. (2009). Cognitive-psychological processes in second language learning. In M. H. Long & C. J. Doughty (Eds.), The handbook of language teaching (pp. 119–138). Blackwell Publishing. DeKeyser, R. (2017). Knowledge and skill in ISLA. In The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition (pp. 15–32). Routledge. Divjak, D. (2019). Frequency in language: Memory, attention and learning. Cambridge University Press. Duff, P. A., & Byrnes, H. (2019). SLA across disciplinary borders: Introduction to the special issue. The Modern Language Journal, 103, 3–5. https://doi​.org​/10​ .1111​/modl​.12537 Ellis, N. C. (2006). Selective attention and transfer phenomena in L2 acquisition: Contingency, cue competition, salience, interference, overshadowing, blocking, and perceptual learning. Applied Linguistics, 27(2), 164–194. https://doi​.org​ /10​.1093​/applin​/aml015 Ellis, N. C. (2017). Cognition, corpora, and computing: Triangulating research in usage-based language learning. Language Learning, 67(S1), 40–65. https://doi​ .org​/10​.1111​/ lang​.12215 Ellis, N. C. (2019). Essentials of a theory of language cognition. The Modern Language Journal, 103, 39–60. https://doi​.org​/10​.1111​/modl​.12532 Ellis, N. C., Römer, U., & O’Donnell, M. B. (Eds.). (2016). Usage-based approaches to language acquisition and processing: Cognitive and corpus investigations of construction grammar. Wiley. Ellis, N. C., & Sagarra, N. (2010). The bounds of adult language acquisition: Blocking and learned attention. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(4), 553–580. https://doi​.org​/10​.1017​/S0272263110000264 Ellis, N. C., & Wulff, S. (2020). Usage-based approaches to L2 acquisition. In B. VanPatten, G. D. Keating, & S. Wulff (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 63–82). Routledge. Eskildsen, S. W. (2012). L2 negation constructions at work. Language Learning, 62(2), 335–372. https://doi​.org​/10​.1111​/j​.1467​-9922​.2012​.00698.x Eskildsen, S. W., & Cadierno, T. (2015). Advancing usage-based approaches to L2 studies. In T. Cadierno & S. W. Eskildsen (Eds.), Usage-based perspectives on second language learning (pp. 1–16). De Gruyter. https://doi​.org​/10​.1515​ /9783110378528​- 003 Gass, S. M., Behney, J., & Plonsky, L. (2021). Second language acquisition: An introductory course. Routledge.

22  Introducing usage in SLA

Geeslin, K. L. (Ed.). (2022). The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and sociolinguistics. Routledge and Taylor & Francis Group. Geeslin, K. L., & Long, A. Y. (2014). Sociolinguistics and second language acquisition: Learning to use language in context. Routledge. Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. University of Chicago Press. Goldberg, A. E. (2019). Explain me this: Creativity, competition, and the partial productivity of constructions. Princeton University Press. Gullberg, M. (2022). Why second language acquisition of sign languages matters to general SLA research. Language, Interaction and Acquisition, 13(2), 231– 253. https://doi​.org​/10​.1075​/ lia​.22022​.gul Hall, J. K. (2019). The contributions of conversation analysis and interactional linguistics to a usage-based understanding of language: Expanding the transdisciplinary framework. The Modern Language Journal, 103, 80–94. https://doi​.org​/10​.1111​/modl​.12535 Hall, J. K. (2022). L2 classroom input and L2 positionally sensitive grammars: The role of information-seeking question sequences. The Modern Language Journal, 106(S1), 113–131. https://doi​.org​/10​.1111​/modl​.12751 Johnstone, B. (2013). Speaking Pittsburghese: The story of a dialect. Oxford University Press. Kanwit, M., & Geeslin, K. L. (2020). Sociolinguistic competence and interpreting variable structures in a second language: A study of the copula contrast in native and second-language Spanish. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 42(4), 775–799. https://doi​.org​/10​.1017​/S0272263119000718 Kasper, G., & Wagner, J. (2014). Conversation analysis in applied linguistics. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 34, 171–212. https://doi​.org​/10​.1017​ /S0267190514000014 Kyle, K., Crossley, S., & Verspoor, M. (2021). Measuring longitudinal writing development using indices of syntactic complexity and sophistication. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 43(4), 781–812. https://doi​.org​/10​.1017​/ S0272263120000546 Langacker, R. W. (2008). Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford University Press. Langacker, R. W. (2016). Working toward a synthesis. Cognitive Linguistics, 27(4), 465–477. https://doi​.org​/10​.1515​/cog​-2016​- 0004 Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. Oxford University Press. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2022). Combinations and connections: Reaching across disciplinary boundaries. The Modern Language Journal, 106(S1), 132–140. https://doi​.org​/10​.1111​/modl​.12753 Leow, R. P. (2015). Explicit learning in the L2 classroom: A student-centered approach. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. Leow, R. P. (2020). L2 writing-to-learn: Theory, research, and a curricular approach. In R. M. Manchón (Ed.), Writing and language learning: Advancing research agendas (pp. 95–117). John Benjamins. Lowie, W., Michel, M., Rousse-Malpat, A., Keijzer, M., Steinkrauss, R., & Verspoor, M. (Eds.). (2020). Usage-based dynamics in second language development. Multilingual Matters.

Introducing usage in SLA 23

Mackey, A., & Gass, S. M. (2016). Second language research: Methodology and design (2nd ed.). Routledge. MacWhinney, B. (2008). A unified model. In P. Robinson & N. C. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition (pp. 241–371). Routledge. McEnery, T., Brezina, V., Gablasova, D., & Banerjee, J. (2019). Corpus linguistics, learner corpora, and SLA: Employing technology to analyze language use. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 39, 74–92. https://doi​.org​/10​.1017​/ S0267190519000096 McManus, K. (2021). Examining the effectiveness of language-switching practice for reducing cross-language competition in L2 grammatical processing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 24(1), 167–184. https://doi​.org​/10​ .1017​/S1366728920000218 McManus, K. (2022). Crosslinguistic influence and second language learning. Routledge. McManus, K., & Bluemel, B. (2022). Instructional practices in English-Chinese and English-Spanish kindergarten dual language immersion classrooms. In K. McManus & M. S. Schmid (Eds.), How special are early birds? Foreign language teaching and learning (pp. 145–164). Language Science Press. McManus, K., & Marsden, E. (2017). L1 explicit instruction can improve L2 online and offline performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 39(3), 459–492. https://doi​.org​/10​.1017​/S027226311600022X McManus, K., Mitchell, R., & Tracy-Ventura, N. (2021). A longitudinal study of advanced learners’ linguistic development before, during, and after study abroad. Applied Linguistics, 42(1), 136–163. https://doi​.org​/10​.1093​/applin​/amaa003 Mitchell, R. (2023). Documenting L2 input and interaction during study abroad: Approaches, instruments and challenges. Second Language Research, 39(1), 59– 83. https://doi​.org​/10​.1177​/02676583211030626 Mitchell, R., Myles, F., & Marsden, E. (2019). Second language learning theories (4th ed.). Routledge. Nicaise, E. (2021). Native and non-native teacher talk in the EFL classroom: A corpus-informed study. Routledge. Ortega, L. (2015). Usage-based SLA: A research habitus whose time has come. In T. Cadierno & S. W. Eskildsen (Eds.), Usage-based perspectives on second language learning. De Gruyter. https://doi​.org​/10​.1515​/9783110378528​- 016 Pekarek Doehler, S., & Eskildsen, S. W. (2022). Emergent L2 Grammars in and for social interaction: Introduction to the special issue. The Modern Language Journal, 106(S1), 3–22. https://doi​.org​/10​.1111​/modl​.12759 Pérez-Vidal, C. (Ed.). (2014). Language acquisition in study abroad and formal instruction contexts. John Benjamins Publishing Company. Plonsky, L. (2015). Statistical power, p values, descriptive statistics, and effect sizes: A “back-to-basics” approach to advancing quantitative methods in L2 research. In L. Plonsky (Ed.), Advancing Quantitative Methods in Second Language Research (pp. 23–45). Routledge. Porte, G. K., & McManus, K. (2019). Doing replication research in applied linguistics. Routledge. Preston, D. (2000). Three kinds of sociolinguistics and SLA: A psycholinguistic perspective. In B. Swierzbin, F. Morris, M. Anderson, C. Klee, & E. Tarone

24  Introducing usage in SLA

(Eds.), Social and cognitive factors in second language acquisition: Selected proceedings of the 1999 second language research forum (pp. 3–30). Cascadilla Proceedings Project Somerville. Regan, V., Howard, M., & Lemée, I. (2009). The acquisition of sociolinguistic competence in a study abroad context. Multilingual Matters. https://doi​.org​/10​ .21832​/9781847691583 Robinson, P., & Ellis, N. C. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition. Routledge. Römer, U. (2005). Progressives, patterns, pedagogy: A corpus-driven approach to English progressive forms, functions, contexts and didactics (Vol. 18). John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi​.org​/10​.1075​/scl​.18 Römer, U., & Garner, J. (2019). The development of verb constructions in spoken learner English: Tracing effects of usage and proficiency. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research, 5(2), 207–230. https://doi​.org​/10​.1075​/ijlcr​ .17015​.rom Römer, U., O’Donnell, M. B., & Ellis, N. C. (2014). Second language learner knowledge of verb-argument constructions: Effects of language transfer and typology. The Modern Language Journal, 98(4), 952–975. https://doi​.org​/10​ .1111​/modl​.12149 Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge University Press. Schmid, H.-J. (2020). The dynamics of the linguistic system: Usage, conventionalization, and entrenchment (1st ed.). Oxford University Press. Seedhouse, P. (1996). Classroom interaction: Possibilities and impossibilities. ELT Journal, 50(1), 16–24. Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts (LLBA). Segalowitz, N. (2010). Cognitive bases of second language fluency. Routledge. https://doi​.org​/10​.4324​/9780203851357 Stam, G., & Tellier, M. (2022). Gesture helps second and foreign language learning and teaching. In A. Morgenstern & S. Goldin-Meadow (Eds.), Gesture in language: Development across the lifespan (pp. 335–363). De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi​.org​/10​.1037​/0000269​- 014 Suzuki, Y., Nakata, T., & Dekeyser, R. (2019). Optimizing second language practice in the classroom: Perspectives from cognitive psychology. The Modern Language Journal, modl.12582. https://doi​.org​/10​.1111​/modl​.12582 The British National Corpus. (2007). Reference guide for the British national corpus (XML edition). Reference Guide for the British National Corpus (XML Edition). The Douglas Fir Group. (2016). A transdisciplinary framework for SLA in a multilingual world. The Modern Language Journal, 100(S1), 19–47. https://doi​ .org​/10​.1111​/modl​.12301 Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition (1. Harvard University Press paperback ed). Harvard University Press. Tracy-Ventura, N., & Paquot, M. (2021). The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and corpora. Routledge. Tyler, A., Ortega, L., & Uno, M. (Eds.). (2018). Usage-inspired L2 instruction: Researched pedagogy. John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Introducing usage in SLA 25

VanPatten, B., Keating, G. D., & Wulff, S. (Eds.). (2020). Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (3rd ed.). Routledge. Verspoor, M., de Bot, K., & Xu, X. (2011). The role of input and scholastic aptitude in second language development. Toegepaste Taalwetenschap in Artikelen, 86, 47–60. https://doi​.org​/10​.1075​/ttwia​.86​.06ver Verspoor, M., Lowie, W., & Wielang, M. (2021). L2 developmental measures from a dynamic perspective. In Le Bruyn, B & Paquot, M. Learner corpus research meets second language acquisition (pp. 172–190). Cambridge University Press. Verspoor, M., Schmid, M. S., & Xu, X. (2012). A dynamic usage based perspective on L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(3), 239–263. https:// doi​.org​/10​.1016​/j​.jslw​.2012​.03​.007 Wagner, J. (2015). Designing for language learning in the wild: Creating social infrastructures for second language learning. In T. Cadierno & S. W. Eskildsen (Eds.), Usage-based perspectives on second language learning. De Gruyter. https://doi​.org​/10​.1515​/9783110378528​- 006 Walsh, S. (2013). Corpus linguistics and conversation analysis at the interface: Theoretical perspectives, practical outcomes. In J. Romero-Trillo (Ed.), Yearbook of corpus linguistics and pragmatics 2013 (Vol. 1, pp. 37–51). Springer Netherlands. https://doi​.org​/10​.1007​/978​-94​- 007​- 6250​-3_3 Wulff, S., & Gries, S. Th. (2019). Particle placement in learner language. Language Learning, 69(4), 873–910. https://doi​.org​/10​.1111​/ lang​.12354 Zhao, H., & MacWhinney, B. (2018). The instructed learning of form-function mappings in the English article system. The Modern Language Journal, 102(1), 99–119. https://doi​.org​/10​.1111​/modl​.12449

2 CORPUS-LINGUISTIC APPROACHES TO USAGE IN SLA Stefanie Wulff

2.1 Introduction

In keeping with the overall aim of this volume to provide a space for critical reflections on how usage is approached from different theoretical and methodological angles in second language acquisition (SLA) research, this chapter adopts the perspective of corpus linguistics and aims to address not only how usage can be researched using corpus linguistics, but crucially, how it could be used. Consequently, this chapter will not provide a comprehensive review of corpus-linguistic research of usage in SLA; readers looking for such overviews are referred to Tracy-Ventura and Paquot (2021). As I will emphasize in multiple places, I will also not offer an overview of corpus-based approaches to usage from different theoretical standpoints; instead, I limit my critical assessment of what corpus linguistics has to offer for studies of usage adopting the vantage point of usage-based construction grammar only, for the plain reason that this is the only theory I feel competent to write about (Goldberg, 2006, 2019). So, this chapter offers my personal and thus inevitably subjective and limited perspective on the power, potential, and limitations of corpus-linguistic approaches to usage in SLA research as seen through the lens of usage-based construction grammar. Before I can turn to a critical assessment, a few key terms need to be defined. In Section 2, I first define what a corpus is, and what corpus linguistics is. In Section 3, I share with you the specific theoretical vantage point that I adopt when I examine corpus-linguistic approaches to usage. Section 4 outlines the understanding of usage as I see it emerge from that theoretical perspective. Section 5 discusses what aspects of usage have an established track record of using corpus-linguistic methods, and which DOI: 10.4324/9781032668475-2

Corpus-linguistic approaches to SLA 27

aspects of usage corpus linguistics could make more of a contribution to understanding respectively. Section 6 concludes with general recommendations for how to actualize these potential applications. 2.2 Defining corpus linguistics

Stefanowitsch (2020, p. 1) defines a corpus as “a large collection of authentic text (i.e., samples of language produced in genuine communicative situations)”. Three criteria distinguish a corpus from other principled collections of language production. Firstly, the language captured in a corpus should be authentic, which Stefanowitsch (2020, p. 23) defines as follows: [A]uthentic language is language produced for the purpose of communication, not for linguistic analysis or even with the knowledge that it might be used for such a purpose. It is language that is not, as it were, performed for the linguist based on what speakers believe constitutes “good” or “proper” language. Secondly, a corpus captures data that is considered representative of a specific language variety. A language variety, in turn, is defined as any form of language that can be systematically distinguished on grounds of cultural, demographic, and/or social factors, and thus includes different languages (e.g., English vs. Spanish), different varieties of a language (e.g., British vs. American English; Texan vs. New York English), different registers (e.g., colloquial vs. academic English), modalities (e.g., spoken vs. written productions), genres (e.g., newspaper coverage vs. fiction), and so forth. As Stefanowitsch (2020, p. 28) puts it: Thus, for a corpus (a sample of language use) to be representative of a particular language, the distribution of linguistic phenomena (words, grammatical structures, etc.) would have to be identical to their distribution in the language [variety] as a whole. Representativeness is thus an aspiration that is rarely (if ever) realized in any actual corpus. In the context of learner corpora, specifically, the limitations of representativeness of currently available corpora are highly relevant to point out here. Take, for example, the International Corpus of Learner English (ICLE; Granger et al., 2020), a widely used corpus that contains academic essays written by college-aged learners of English as a second language. As invaluable as this corpus has been for learner-corpus research, we must acknowledge its limited representativeness for academic English and/ or for the usage profile of the second language learners that contributed their essays to the corpus: we do not know what share of academic English usage

28  Corpus-linguistic approaches to SLA

these essays represent in the language experience of the average learner (What other academic assignment types do they write in English? How much do they speak academic English?), or what share of their English usage more generally these essays represent for these learners (is their English usage restricted to the academic context, or are they engaged in other English language experiences)? Likewise, we do not know how representative the learners who contributed to the corpus are for learners of English as a second language in general – the fact alone that these are all college students sharply limits their representativeness for all second language learners, as does their age, and in all likelihood, their socio-economic background, etc. In any case, if a corpus is intended to give a maximally balanced representation of the language variety it captures, it is likely of substantial size. At a minimum, that means that the corpus should contain a sample of attestations for the linguistic structures (words, grammatical structures, turns, etc.) under examination that is sufficiently large to permit proper (statistical) analysis. Contemporary learner corpora vary in size between several hundred thousand and several million words. I consider corpus linguistics a method rather than a theory (opinions vary on the matter; see Gries, 2010). I lean again on Stefanowitsch: “Corpus linguistics is the investigation of linguistic research questions that have been framed in terms of the conditional distribution of linguistic phenomena in a linguistic corpus” (Stefanowitsch, 2020, p. 6). The requirement to frame research questions in terms of conditional distributions distinguishes corpus linguistics from neighboring linguistic approaches like discourse analysis and text linguistics, which do not necessarily impose distributional requirements on the structures they examine; the requirement that the research question be linguistic in nature draws a (fuzzy) line between corpus linguistics and computational linguistics, which often focuses on answering engineering problems via language, such as machine translation or speech recognition (Eisenstein, 2019; Kamath et al., 2019), rather than improving our understanding of language itself; and the (obvious) requirement that the source of data be a corpus likewise draws an (again fuzzy) line between corpus linguistics and variationism, which can, but need not rely on corpus data. Crucially, defining corpus linguistics as a method implies that it is, in principle at least, compatible with any theory that considers performance data as relevant to their research questions. That said, I think it is fair to say that up until recently, most theory-driven corpus-linguistic research has adopted a usage-based perspective. 2.3 Theoretical background: usage-based construction grammar

Usage-based linguistics is a framework subsuming several theories, including Construction Grammar (Goldberg, 2006, 2019), Cognitive-Functional

Corpus-linguistic approaches to SLA 29

Linguistics (Evans et al., 2007), emergentism (MacWhinney, 1987), and Complex Dynamic Systems Theory (de Bot et al., 2007), among others (see also Chapters 5 and 6). What holds all usage-based accounts of language (learning) together is that they minimally share two fundamental assumptions (Ellis & Wulff, 2020, p. 63): (1) Language learning primarily depends on ambient language, that is, input learners receive and output they produce in a communicatively rich human environment. (2) Language learning recruits cognitive mechanisms that are involved in learning of any kind, not just language learning. Given (1), all usage-based frameworks agree that the examination of naturally occurring language data (performance data) is a worthwhile endeavor – in fact, looking at authentic language is argued to often be preferable to relying solely on other data like speaker intuitions or judgments (Schütze, 2016). That renders all usage-based frameworks inherently compatible with corpus linguistics as a method, because corpora provide, at least in the ideal scenario, dense and representative samples of authentic language use. The object of acquisition in usage-based construction grammar is a structured inventory of form-meaning pairs or constructions (Goldberg, 2006). In this warehouse of constructions, called a constructicon, “abstract grammatical patterns and the lexical instantiations of those patterns are jointly included …, and … may consist of many different levels of schematic abstraction” (Tummers et al., 2005, pp. 228–229). That is, the constructicon houses simple morphemes such as -tastic (meaning “extremely”) alongside simple words like cookie (meaning “small wheat cake”), collocations like cookie dough, idiomatic noun phrases like smart cookie (meaning “smart person”), and abstract syntactic frames like Subject-Verb-Object-Object (meaning that something is being transferred, as realized in sentences as diverse as Max gave Kevin a cookie, Max gave Kevin a hug, or Kevin baked Max a cake, where cookies, hugs, and cakes are being transferred, respectively). Not all constructions carry meaning in the traditional sense; many constructions rather serve a more functional purpose, like the passive construction, which serves to shift the focus of attention in an utterance from the agent of the action to the patient undergoing the action (compare the passive A cake was baked for Max with its active counterpart). Because complex constructions comprise several smaller constructions, constructions are stored in multiple forms in the mental lexicon. For example, the word cookie and the plural -s morpheme are simple constructions; both are stored also as constituent parts of the more complex construction cookies (“more than one cookie”).

30  Corpus-linguistic approaches to SLA

Different levels of constructional schematization are illustrated in the fully lexicalized formula There you go versus the partially schematized slot-andframe greeting pattern [Happy + (occasion)], which can be realized as Happy birthday and Happy anniversary; and the completely schematic [Noun Phrase + Noun Phrase] construction, which could be realized as raisin cookie, kitchen helper, or weather forecast, to give but three examples. Sentences are not the product of applying a rule to a number of words to arrange them in a grammatical sequence, but of combining constructions. What did Max give Kevin? for instance, is a combination of the following constructions: Max, Kevin, give, what, and do; VP and NP constructions; the Subject-Verb-Object-Object construction; and the Subject-Auxiliary inversion construction. Language competence is thus defined as knowledge of the properties of constructions, which other constructions they combine with, and how they do so. Usage-based approaches to language acquisition differ from formal approaches to language acquisition (see, for example, Yang, 2018; Slabakova et al., 2020) in a number of ways: firstly, formal approaches postulate that in child first language acquisition, learners access a universal grammar which is inborn knowledge of linguistic regularities that are subsequently modified to fit the specific language environment the child is in. For second language acquisition beyond the onset of puberty, formal approaches vary in their hypotheses regarding if and to what extent universal grammar is still accessed. Usage-based approaches, in contrast, work on the assumption that while there is a cognitive blueprint – a set of mechanisms we employ for learning – that blueprint is not custom-tailored to the learning of language, but domain-general, that is, designed to adapt to learning anything. Similarly to those formal approaches that claim access to universal grammar in late-onset second language acquisition, usage-based approaches assume that the blueprint is available to learners of any age, yet the way it is used changes as a function of the learner’s age given (i) maturational changes in the brain and (ii) the fact that the learner has already acquired, or is in the process of acquiring, a first language. A second difference between usage-based approaches and formal approaches falls out from the different positions on nativism; the view that language rules are not inborn, but learnable from scratch promotes a theory of language in which the different elements comprising language differ from one another not fundamentally, but rather to different degrees. While formal approaches uphold the existence of two separate modules, a grammar containing the rules and a lexicon containing the words, usage-based approaches postulate the aforementioned all-encompassing constructicon in their place. In contemporary research, these differences are less divisive than they used to be. Many formal linguists are advocating to examine more closely what exactly may be learnable from the input and suggesting that it may

Corpus-linguistic approaches to SLA 31

in fact be a whole lot more than previously assumed. For example, Yang’s (2016) Variationist Learning Model develops the hypothesis that UG may work in tandem with general associative learning mechanisms. Similarly, generative acquisitionists have called attention to extra-linguistic factors such as quality of schooling – in many ways a proxy to input, or as I would like to argue, usage in the wider sense – to play a crucial role in explaining differential outcomes in L2 acquisition in age-matched children (Kupisch & Rothman, 2018). While an in-depth discussion of recent developments that speak to an increasing reconciliation of theories is beyond the scope of this chapter (see Rothman & Slabakova, 2018), it is important to point out the considerable impact these original differences have had on the respective theoretical foci: while formal approaches have devoted more attention to the characterization of the initial stages of acquisition and questions pertaining to ultimate attainment in different learner populations, usage-based linguistics has focused more on understanding how language development unfolds over time. Likewise, formal theory has focused on describing the nature of linguistic competence, that is, the unconscious knowledge one has of their language(s), under the assumption that it can be dramatically different from actual performance, which is often impacted by factors not reflective of competence, such as the speaker’s cognitive state or the discourse context. In contrast, usage-based linguistics has considered performance data a much more direct reflection of the learning process and the mechanisms underlying it. As various scholars have pointed out (Gries, 2018; Schönefeld, 1999), the focus of usage-based approaches on performance and its inherent affinity with performance data is key to understanding why usage-based linguistics turned to corpus linguistics earlier and more eagerly than advocates of less performance-driven theories. In turn, corpus-linguistic research has inspired a number of theoretically loaded concepts such as lexical bundles (Biber et al., 2003), collexemes (Stefanowitsch & Gries, 2003), and patterns (Hunston & Francis, 2000), further tightening the link between corpus linguistics and usage-based approaches to language (learning). 2.4 Defining usage

So how can we define usage? Langacker (2016, p. 469) proposes that: units emerge from instances of language use in the full detail of that contextual apprehension – by the reinforcement of recurring commonalities … abstracted units can incorporate any fact of the speech situation common to the usage events giving rise to them, such as the following: age, gender, and status of the interlocutors; their social relationship; nature of the occasion; degree of formality; attitudinal, emotive, and affective factors; and the language (or conceived linguistic variety) employed.

32  Corpus-linguistic approaches to SLA

In keeping with this definition, usage events are shaped by a number of factors that characterize the linguistic and extra-linguistic context as well as language users more generally. For starters, we can think of usage as input and output, or the ambient language (The Douglas Fir Group, 2016). These concepts are complex themselves: input and output can be described in terms of quantity, which in turn could be operationalized as frequency, dispersion, and/or length of exposure. Also relevant seems to be the quality of the ambient language: is it comprehensible? How relevant is it in the given context/for the given speakers? A third angle here is to think about input and output as modality-specific: quantitative and qualitative parameters shift between speaking, listening, reading, and writing. In the context of second language learning, a fourth relevant angle is how input and output, in terms of quantity, quality, and modality, relate to a second language learner’s first language: do the distributions in the learner’s first and second language match or at least overlap? A second cluster of factors that define usage revolves around the fact that any usage event will always be characterized by both its language-internal and language-external contexts. By language-internal context, I mean the linguistic context of a construction: what other constructions came before and/or after in the discourse or text? What is the specific morpho-syntactic realization of the construction at hand? These language-internal properties often immediately arise from the language-external context of utterances, specifically, pragmatic, social and geographical, geo-political, and other such “lectal variables”, as Geeraerts (2008) refers to them. Who says what to whom in what kind of situation shapes linguistic choices. This implies that we ultimately cannot study one without recourse to the other. As the properties of the ambient language and the language-internal and language-external contexts vary in their constellations between one usage event and the next, it follows that we cannot expect to ever find two speakers (monolinguals or bilinguals, for that matter) with an identical usage history and profile. Any usage event is always that of an individual at a specific point in time. When we start to compare usage events, we see rampant variation not only between individuals but also within an individual from one usage event to the next. To complicate the picture even further, cognitive linguists have for the longest time advocated for a view of language as an embodied system tightly intertwined (inseparable, really) from cognition at large, and so any individual’s state of cognitive machinery – be it their working memory, executive control, etc. – have been demonstrated to shape usage events as well. Usage, in summary, is a complex concept that comprises aspects of ambient language properties, which in turn are shaped by language-internal and language-external contextual features, as well as the cognitive machinery

Corpus-linguistic approaches to SLA 33

of the speaker(s). The complex connections between all of these aspects of usage yield a network of connections, many of which we are only beginning to understand. Figure 2.1 provides a visualization of usage as a complex concept; another visual that emphasizes the inter-relatedness of the different aspects of usage can be found in The Douglas Fir Group (2016, p. 25). 2.5 Corpus-linguistic approaches to usage in SLA

Given this understanding of usage as a highly complex concept, which aspects are commonly examined using corpus linguistics, and for which aspects could we potentially use corpora more often than we do? Let us address each in turn. 2.5.1 What we can do

As I see it, corpus linguistics has a strong track record in examining two (clusters of) aspects of usage: input/output properties, and language-internal contexts of usage. 2.5.1.1 Investigating input/output properties

One main question in language acquisition research is what is learnable from the input, and what input properties make a target structure learnable. Corpus-linguistic research has been center stage in addressing these

Length of Exposure

Quantity

INPUT AND OUTPUT

USAGE

Dispersion

Quality Modality-Specificity

Comprehensibility

Relative to L1/Ln

Relevance

Individual Differences

INDIVIDUAL USE

Variation Between Individuals Variability Within One Individual

CONTEXTUALIZATION

FIGURE 2.1  Usage

Language-Internal ~

Social ~

Language-External ~

Geo-Political ~

as a complex concept (credit: Khary Khalfani/UF College of Liberal Arts and Sciences)

34  Corpus-linguistic approaches to SLA

questions, as large-scale corpora facilitate observing and quantifying a number of input properties, including token, type, and contingent frequencies as well as the dispersion of constructions. Usage-based linguists have long argued that the frequency of a construction plays a crucial role in acquisition. Counter to common misunderstandings of usage-based definitions of frequency effects, the assumption is not simply that there is a positive correlation between frequency and ease of acquisition; rather, different frequency effects play out simultaneously. Token frequencies are the frequencies with which a particular construction occurs in the input; type frequencies are the number of unique realizations of a given construction. Both token and type frequency are correlated positively with learnability: the more and more varied the opportunities to encounter a specific construction are, the easier it is for learners to abstract schematic representations of its form and meaning/function (Bybee & Hopper, 2001). Beyond that, high token frequency specifically leads to the conservation of specific variants of a construction (Bybee, 2006). Recall that in usage-based construction grammar, the object of language learning is defined as learning constructions and how they combine. When one construction is associated with, or contingent on, the presence of another construction, hearing one construction enables learners to predict what comes next, thus facilitating the automatization of processing and increasing fluency (Divjak & Caldwell-Harris, 2015). Accordingly, a lot of corpus-based research has focused on how some constructions are contingent on the presence of other constructions. Ellis and FerreiraJunior (2009a, 2009b), for example, showed that based on data from the European Science Foundation (ESF) corpus, the verbs that are first learned are those most distinctively associated with the argument structure constructions they are associated with. Ellis and Ferreira-Junior furthermore demonstrated that neither token, type, nor contingent frequencies alone establish sufficient conditions for learning. Of crucial relevance also appears to be how constructions are distributed in the input. Constructions reflect Zipf’s Law (Zipf, 1935): the frequency of a construction is inversely proportional to its rank in a frequency table. Corpus-based studies of first and second language acquisition data have shown that Zipf’s Law holds for constructions in a corpus and likewise, for constructions in constructions, such as the verbs in a given argument structure construction (Goldberg et al., 2004; Ellis & Ferreira-Junior, 2009a, 2009b). Arguably, this specific type of frequency effect – a frequency bias – aids in directing attention to salient and prototypical combinations of constructions, which then serve as “pathbreakers” for the expansion of the category, as originally suggested by Tomasello (2003).

Corpus-linguistic approaches to SLA 35

2.5.1.2 Modeling linguistic context

One of the basic tenets of usage-based approaches is that language is a complex system (Beckner et al., 2009). Correspondingly, the methods required to adequately operationalize, describe, measure, and predict language must allow for complexity: if one has reason to assume, for example, that a speaker’s choice of a particular structure is shaped by at least three different factors, then only an analysis that includes all three factors, as well as possible interactions between them, promises to yield meaningful results. Correspondingly, Gries (2015) writes that “the recognition that corpus-linguistic statistics has to go multifactorial is maybe the most important recommendation for the field’s future development” (p. 64). The same rationale extends to corpus-based studies in SLA, irrespective of the particular theoretical lens adopted (Paquot & Plonsky, 2017). Since corpora capture what users of a language actually say or write in real-life situations, they do, in principle, present a good qualitative match for the demands imposed by research questions that rely on understanding how learners develop their language skills in the real world. Corpora of sufficient size furthermore present a good quantitative match for the demands on sample size when multifactorial models are tested. Since it is typically the case that (as in any complex system, of which language is but one example) several linguistic and extra-linguistic factors jointly shape speakers’ decisions to choose one variant rather than another, research questions that rest on the analysis of patterned distributions necessitate complex analyses that involve multiple predictors. Complex statistical models, in turn, require sufficient power in terms of data sample size. Corpora provide exactly that: they are a record not only of what learners write or say, but what they say more often or less often than we would expect them to, depending on how linguistic and extra-linguistic factors are shaping speakers’ preferences. Similarly, corpus data is particularly useful when the goal of a study is not simply to supply existential proof of a learner producing a particular target form at least once, but when the research question requires that we examine the patterned distributions of multiple attestations of a particular linguistic expression. In other words, corpora can shine when the focus is not just on the learner’s ability to supply a target form in an obligatory context and suppress a form in an inappropriate context, but rather when we study the variable deployment of several competing target forms, with all being strictly grammatical yet possibly more or less preferred depending on a number of linguistic and extra-linguistic factors that jointly condition speakers’ preferences for one over another variant. This probabilistic (rather than deterministic) knowledge is what makes language use idiomatic, and correspondingly, constitutes a milestone towards qualifying as an advanced learner of a language (Ellis, 1996). Accordingly, there is an impressive track record of corpus-based

36  Corpus-linguistic approaches to SLA

work on monolingual and bilingual variation (Biber, 2015; Gries, 2008) as well as diachronic and synchronic language variation (Hilpert & Gries, 2016; Szmrecsanyi, 2017). Similarly, there are several well-established corpusbased methodologies specifically tailored to study collocational phenomena (Stefanowitsch & Gries, 2003, 2005; Gries & Stefanowitsch, 2004), corpus-based methods designed to measure variation across registers (Berber Sardinha & Veirano Pinto, 2019), methods designed to examine polysemy and near-synonymy in corpus data (Jansegers & Gries, 2020), and multifactorial approaches to contrasting different speaker populations, including language learners (Gries & Adelman, 2014; Gries & Deshors, 2021). The latter is maybe the most flexible recent methodological development in corpus linguistics that explicitly seeks to capture multifactorially determined variation. MuPDAR(F) (for Multifactorial Prediction and Deviation Analysis Using Regression/Random Forests) allows for a systematic and contextsensitive (that is, multifactorially described) comparison of choices made by a target group (such as language learners) and a reference level group (such as monolingual speakers of the second language, or any other speaker group deemed meaningful for comparison, such as bilingual speakers, advanced learners, etc.). In SLA, MuPDAR(F) has been applied to various phenomena comparing non-native and native speakers, including intensifier use in learner English (Schweinberger, 2020), register variation in native and nonnative written English varieties (Kruger & van Rooy, 2018), subject drop in Japanese (Gries & Adelman, 2014), adjective order in English (Wulff & Gries, 2015), and verb complementation in English (Wulff et al., 2018). The MuPDAR(F) approach does justice to the understanding of usage outlined above in a number of ways: for one, it allows us to examine L2 production in a fully contextualized manner. We can include as many predictors as we are theoretically motivated to include. Secondly, this method allows us to establish the L1 usage of the target constructions specifically before we compare it to L2 usage. That is in keeping with our theoretical understanding that usage will always be construction-specific, as well as the methodological logic that one should like to compare usage under maximally similar contextual scenarios if one wants that comparison to be meaningful. A third advantage of MuPDAR(F) is that it allows us to pinpoint qualitative and quantitative differences between L1 and L2 usage, which again reflects our theoretical understanding that we expect variation between L1 and L2 usage, both at the level of groups, as well as between individuals. 2.5.2 What we could do (more of)

Returning for a moment to Figure 2.1, what aspects of usage could corpus linguistics be applied to that it has not been applied to yet, or to a far lesser extent than possible? There are various possibilities, I believe.

Corpus-linguistic approaches to SLA 37

2.5.2.1 Examining individual variation

One way in which corpus linguistics has been underutilized to date is in research on individual use. In Figure 2.1, I divide individual use into three components: (i) individual differences, which are the cognitive, social, and socio-economic factors that characterize each learner uniquely – one can see individual differences as an inevitable outcome of the afore-discussed complexity of usage; (ii) variation between individuals, which follows directly from individual differences being a reality; and (iii) variability within individuals, which captures the fact that learner performance oscillates naturally as a consequence of each usage event they are exposed to being unique, and thus, presenting slightly different opportunities for learning each time, which yields non-linear development in learner language (Verspoor & Lowie, 2021). Corpus-based research, however, to date constitutes only a small portion of all studies in this area (see Möller, 2017 for a recent exception). The genuine limitations of corpus data aside, a main reason for this seems to be a misconception among non-corpus linguists that corpora only contain massive pools of data collapsed over anonymized speakers, with no option to tie data points to the individual speakers who produced them. While that can be the case, I am not aware of this being an issue with learner corpora, specifically, which are usually organized in such a way that each file is produced by one learner, for whom at least some metadata may also be available either in the file header on in accompanying metadata inventory. That means that we can include the learner as a random effect in, say, a mixed effects regression model just like we would if we were examining experimentally solicited data. Wulff and Gries (2021) make suggestions for how to adapt MuPDAR(F) to yield insights into individual variation in learner-corpus data, including ways to identify learners with the highest error rates, which can prompt meaningful qualitative follow-up analyses regarding the underlying reasons for these errors. 2.5.2.2 Converging corpus data with other kinds of data, and building better corpora

Even if it should become standard practice for learner-corpus analyses to include analyses of individual variation, several parts of Figure 2.1, and crucially their interconnections, remain unaddressed. A growing body of recent literature is beginning to empirically unpack usage as defined above, probing the connections between cognition, language use, and language-external factors such as social network structure, identity, etc. (Kutlu et al., 2022; Navarro et al., 2022; Titone & Tiv, 2022); alongside have come calls for corresponding changes in our methodological tool kits (Tiv et al., 2022). Many methods in corpus linguistics (listed above) are inherently compatible with these required changes, but there is a major stumbling block to

38  Corpus-linguistic approaches to SLA

overcome if we want to meaningfully employ these methods in the ways required: the corpus data we have represents only a sliver of the inherent diversity and complexity entailed in Figure 2.1. While learner corpora like the ICLE are invaluable resources that have promoted major insights and progress in the field, we need to acknowledge that the demographics that ICLE and most other available learner corpora capture are representing a rather small portion of bilingual speakers worldwide. To truly capture usage effects empirically using corpus data, we need to move beyond corpora that capture sequential bilinguals, foreign-language learners of English as a second language who are likely from Western, middle-class backgrounds, and add corpora that complete the representation of the many shapes and forms of bilingualism and language learning in the world: simultaneous acquirers of two or more languages; learners of languages other than English; learners from various socio-economic backgrounds; learners who are learning immersively rather than in the foreign-language classroom; learners younger and older than college-aged young adults; and so forth. Without such data, we will only be able to speculate about the relative importance of the various factors shaping usage in all its different manifestations. Similarly, without longitudinal data, we will not be able to monitor within-individual variability. A second requirement that follows is that corpora should no longer be restricted to language-production data with sharply limited metadata about the speakers who produced them. Information such as age or gender will only get us so far. Corpora need to be expanded and enriched with metadata that capture the various cognitive and social factors, for instance, that we assume to impact language outcomes. Regarding social factors and language-use profiles, several useful survey tools, methods, and measures have been proposed that stand ready to be employed, including surveys of bilingual use (Anderson et al., 2018; Li et al., 2020; Marian & Kaushanskaya, 2007), social network analysis (Borgatti et al., 2009; Lev-Ari, 2017) to capture the structure of learners’ personal social networks, and using entropy as a measure of the social diversity of language use (Gullifer & Titone, 2020). Likewise, there are standardized tool kits for cognitive measures long shown to impact language learning, such as the NIH-Toolbox, which includes test batteries for executive function, working memory, attention, and affective measures, among others (Gershon et al., 2013). Making more diverse and metadata-enriched learner corpora available to the research community will also address a number of issues that we have come to recognize in SLA recently, such as monolingual comparative normativity, that is, the practice of comparing second language learners to monolinguals in a way that suggests that successful second language attainment should somehow mirror the end state of monolingual language development – a nonsensical assumption both on theoretical grounds and certainly incompatible with what we know about bilingual language

Corpus-linguistic approaches to SLA 39

processing and representation (Rothman et al., 2023). Another related issue this would remedy is that we too often engage in “corpus recycling” (Egbert et al., 2022): we use the same corpora over and over again, without critically checking beforehand whether we, in fact, have reason to assume that the corpus contains the data relevant to our question. We know from experimental evidence that different aspects of first language and second language development unfold at specific time courses, and yet somehow, we turn to the same learner corpora that capture learners typically in their college years who have had second language instruction since 5th grade and somehow expect to find data that capture the full arc, or at least a good portion of, the development of specific linguistic features. Similarly, there are too many published research articles based on corpus data that speculate about L1 transfer effects without a proper corresponding analysis of actual L1 data; only with L1 mirror corpora that follow the same compilation criteria as the L2 corpora will we be able to talk about transfer meaningfully. Finally, while I have been emphasizing how many corpus-linguistic methods already exist whose full potential is yet to be explored with the right corpus data, there certainly are several methods that are worth exploring. Milin et al. (2016), for example, advocate for methods that they consider more cognitively plausible proxies to learning, such as support vector machines or naïve discriminative learning. Dąbrowska (2016) has specifically problematized the use of regression statistics to model language learning: do regression analyses, with their adversity to collinearity, present a poor proxy to learner decisions, which might well be reliant on collinearity? Questions like these present their own research agenda, with potentially dramatic implications for how we measure usage, whether we are using corpus or any other kinds of data, for that matter. 2.6 Conclusion and outlook

As has hopefully become obvious, corpus methods and data have a lot to contribute to researching usage. Like any type of data, however, corpus data has genuine limitations. They tell us little to nothing about comprehension and also give only limited insights into processing. These genuine limitations aside, corpus-linguistic approaches to usage are currently being held up mainly by limited access to corpora that capture usage in all its diverse shapes and forms. What steps can we take to address this disparity? Obviously, we need to advocate for the compilation of sizable, longitudinal corpora that capture currently under-represented second language learners. That said, there are things we can immediately do to exploit the potential of corpus approaches more fully. For one, researchers who have any amount of authentic production data from under-represented learner groups should feel strongly encouraged to share their data with the research

40  Corpus-linguistic approaches to SLA

community at large, for example, alongside their publications on platforms like the Open Science Framework, Github, or the Databrary project. This would allow the pooling of data, which would allow us to answer at least certain research questions that may lean more on diversity of data than the rather abstract ideal of full representativity. At minimum, it could also continue to spread the appeal of corpus data not necessarily even as the main data type, but a complementary data type in a research study that converges different sources of data, and/or informs experimental design in ways that narrow the gap between authentic language use and lab-generated data. While the compilation of new corpora should definitely consider the inclusion of richer metadata as outlined above, there are also a few potential ways in which existing corpus data could be enriched post-fact. Tiv et al. (2022), for example, cleverly added to their (experimental) data set of second language learners by pulling data from Statistic Canada’s 2016 Canadian Census Profile in order to establish a measure of bilingual language use in the residential neighborhoods of their participants; analogous information could be retrieved for existing learner corpora as well. Similarly, one could seize upon the availability of, say, learners’ zip codes to look up predictors relevant to SLA such as SES or school zones; this “geocoding”, and the use of other “linked external data”, has been gaining traction in other fields including health science and economics (for a random, yet fascinating recent example, see Fan et al., 2021). In sum, with a little bit of creative thinking, we can enrich existing corpus data in ways that allow us to capture usage to a fuller extent and thus open exciting new avenues for research in which more fully contextualized corpus data earn a front seat. Discussion questions

1. Wulff provides three descriptors of a corpus that are important for doing corpus linguistics research: authentic, representative, and size. Briefly describe what each of these descriptors stands for, with examples, and discuss why they are important. 2. From a usage-based construction grammar approach, the object of learning is described as “a structured inventory of form-meaning pairs or constructions” (Goldberg, 2006). What are constructions in this theory? What do you think is meant by the expression “a structured inventory”? 3. This chapter discusses usage events and the ways in which they are characterized by the linguistic and extra-linguistic context. Explain some of the ways that linguistic context and extra-linguistic context differ as well as how they can interact. 4. Wulff notes that corpus linguistics has played an integral role in usagebased SLA by investigating input/output properties. Describe two examples of this work and how these findings have shaped the field.

Corpus-linguistic approaches to SLA 41

5. In discussing what corpus linguistics could do more of, Wulff recommends studying individual variation and converging corpus data with other kinds of data. How and why do you think these recommendations could contribute to research in usage-based SLA? References Anderson, J. A. E., Mak, L., Keyvani Chahi, A., & Bialystok, E. (2018). The language and social background questionnaire: Assessing degree of bilingualism in a diverse population. Behavioral Research Methods, 50(1), 250–263. Beckner, C., Blythe, R., Bybee, J., Christiansen, M. H., Croft, W., Ellis, N. C., Holland, J., Ke, J., Larsen-Freeman, D., & Schoenemann, T. (2009). Language is a complex adaptive system: Position paper. Language Learning, 59(S1), 1–26. Berber Sardinha, T., & Veirano Pinto, M. (Eds.). (2019). Multidimensional analysis: Research methods and current issues. Bloomsbury Academic. Biber, D. (2015). Corpus-based and corpus-driven analyses of language variation and use. In B. Heine & H. Narrog (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis (pp. 159–192). Oxford University Press. Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Cortes, V. (2003). Lexical bundles in speech and writing: An initial taxonomy. In A. Wilson, P. Rayson, & T. McEnery (Eds.), Corpus linguistics by the lune: A festschrift for Geoffrey Leech (pp. 71–92). Peter Lang. Borgatti, S. P., Mehra, A., Brass, D. J., & Labianca, G. (2009). Network analysis in the social sciences. Science, 323(5916), 892–895. Bybee, J. (2006). Frequency of use and the organization of language. Oxford University Press. Bybee, J., & Hopper, P. (Eds.). (2001). Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. John Benjamins. Dąbrowska, E. (2016). Cognitive linguistics’ seven deadly sins. Cognitive Linguistics, 27(4), 479–491. de Bot, K., Lowie, W., & Verspoor, M. (2007). A dynamic systems theory approach to second language acquisition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10(1), 7–21. Divjak, D., & Caldwell-Harris, C. L. (2015). Frequency and entrenchment. In E. Dabrowska & D. Divjak (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 53–74). de Gruyter Mouton. Egbert, J., Biber, D., & Gray. B. (2022). Designing and evaluating language corpora: A practical framework for corpus representativeness. Cambridge University Press. Eisenstein, J. (2019). Introduction to natural language processing. The MIT Press. Ellis, N. C. (1996). Working memory in the acquisition of vocabulary and syntax: Putting language in good order. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49(1), 234–250. Ellis, N. C., & Ferreira-Junior, F. (2009a). Construction learning as a function of frequency, frequency distribution, and function. Modern Language Journal, 93(3), 370–386. Ellis, N. C., & Ferreira-Junior, F. (2009b). Constructions and their acquisition: Islands and the distinctiveness of their occupancy. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 7(1), 188–221.

42  Corpus-linguistic approaches to SLA

Ellis, N. C., & Wulff, S. (2020). Usage-based approaches to SLA. In B. VanPatten, G. Keating, & S. Wulff (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition (pp. 63– 82). Routledge. Evans, V., Bergen, B., & Zinken, J. (Eds.). (2007). The cognitive linguistics reader. Equinox. Fan, C. C., Marshall, A., Smolker, H., Gonzlez, M. R., Tapert, S. F., Barch, D. M., Sowell, E., Dowling, G. J., Cardenas-Iniguez, C., Ross, J., Thompson, W. K., & Herting, M. M. (2021). Adolescent brain cognitive development (ABCD) study linked external data (LED): Protocol and practices for geocoding and assignment of environmental data. Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, 52, 101030. Geeraerts, D. (2008). Lectal variation and empirical data in cognitive linguistics. In F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibanez & M. S. Pena Cervel (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction (pp. 163–190). de Gruyter Mouton. Gershon, R. C., Wagster, M. V., Hendrie, H. C., Fox, N. A., Cook, K. F., & Nowinski, C. J. (2013). NIH toolbox for assessment of neurological and behavioral function. Neurology, 80, S2–S6. Goldberg, A. E. (2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford University Press. Goldberg, A. E. (2019). Explain me this: Creativity, competition, and the partial productivity of constructions. Princeton University Press. Goldberg, A. E., Casenhiser, D. M., & Sethuraman, N. (2004). Learning argument structure constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 15(3), 289–316. Granger, S., Dupont, M., Meunier, F., Naets, H., & Paquot, M. (2020). The international corpus of learner English, version 3. Presses Universitaires de Louvain. Gries, St. Th. (2010). Corpus linguistics and theoretical linguistics: A love-hate relationship? Not necessarily…. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 15(3), 327–343. Gries, St.Th (2015) Quantitative design and statistical techniques. In Douglas Biber & Randi Reppen (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of English Corpus Linguistics (pp. 50–71). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gries, St. Th. (2018). Operationalizations of domain-general mechanisms cognitive linguists often rely on: A perspective from quantitative corpus linguistics. In S. Engelberg, H. Lobin, K. Steyer, & S. Wolfer (Eds.), Wortschätze: Dynamik, Muster, Komplexität (pp. 75–90). de Gruyter Mouton. Gries, St. Th., & Adelman, A. S. (2014). Subject realization in Japanese conversation by native and non-native speakers: Exemplifying a new paradigm for learner corpus research. In J. Romero-Trillo (Ed.), Yearbook of corpus linguistics and pragmatics 2014: New empirical and theoretical paradigms (pp. 35–54). Springer. Gries, St. Th., & Deshors, S. C. (2021). Statistical analyses of learner corpus data. In N. Tracy-Ventura & M. Paquot (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of SLA and corpora (pp. 121–134). Routledge. Gries, St. Th., & Stefanowitsch, A. (2004). Extending collostructional analysis: A corpus-based perspective on alternations. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 9(1), 97–129. Gullifer, J., & Titone, D. A. (2020). Characterizing the social diversity of bilingualism using entropy. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 23(2), 283–294.

Corpus-linguistic approaches to SLA 43

Hilpert, M., & Gries, St. Th. (2016). Quantitative approaches to diachronic corpus linguistics. In M. Kytö & P. Pahta (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of English historical linguistics (pp. 36–53). Cambridge University Press. Hunston, S., & Francis, G. (2000). Pattern grammar: A corpus-driven approach to the lexical grammar of English. John Benjamins. Jansegers, M., & Gries, St. Th. (2020). Towards a dynamic behavioral profile: A diachronic study of polysemous sentir in Spanish. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 16(1), 145–187. Kamath, U., Liu, J., & Whitacker, J. (2019). Deep learning for NLP and speech recognition. Springer. Kruger, H., & van Rooy, B. (2018). Register variation in written contact varieties of English: A multidimensional analysis. English World-Wide, 39(2), 214–242. Kupisch, T., & Rothman, J. (2018). Terminology matters! Why differences is not incompleteness and how early child bilinguals are heritage speakers. International Journal of Bilingualism, 22(5), 564–582. Kutlu, E., Tiv, M., Wulff, S., & Titone, D. (2022). Does race impact speech predictability? An account of accented speech in two different multilingual locales. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 7(7), 1–16. Langacker, R. W. (2016). Working towards a synthesis. Cognitive Linguistics, 27(4), 465–477. Lev-Ari, S. (2017) Talking to fewer people leads to having more malleable linguistic representations. PLoS ONE, 12(8), e0183593. Li, P., Zhang, F., Yu, A., & Zhao, X. (2020). Language History Questionnaire (LHQ3): An enhanced tool for assessing multilingual experience. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 23(5), 938–944. MacWhinney, B. (1987). Mechanisms of language acquisition. Erlbaum. Marian, V., Blumenfeld, H. K., & Kaushanskaya, M. (2007). The Language Experience and Proficiency Questionnaire (LEAP-Q): Assessing language profiles in bilinguals and multilinguals. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 50(4), 940–967. Milin, P., Divjak, D., Dimitrijevic, S., & Baayen, R. H. (2016). Towards cognitively plausible data science in language research. Cognitive Linguistics, 27(4), 507–526. Möller, V. (2017). A statistical analysis of learner corpus data, experimental data and individual differences: Monofactorial vs. multifactorial approaches. In P. de Haan, S. van Vuuren, & R. de Vries (Eds.), Language, learners and levels: Progression and variation (pp. 409–439). Presses Universitaires de Louvain. Navarro, E., DeLuca, V., & Rossi, E. (2022). It takes a village: Using network science to identify the effect of individual differences in bilingual experience for theory of mind. Brain Sciences, 12(4), 487. Paquot, M., & Plonsky, L. (2017). Quantitative research methods and study quality in learner corpus research. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research, 3(1), 61–94. Rothman, J., Bayram, F., DeLuca, V., Di Pisa, G., Duñabetia, J. A., Gharibi, K., Hao, J., Kolb, N., Kubota, M., Kupisch, T., Laméris, T., Luque, A., van Osch, B., Miguel Pereira Soares, S., Prystauka, Y., Tat, D., Voits, T., & S. Wulff. 2023. Monolingual comparative normativity in (heritage language) empirical

44  Corpus-linguistic approaches to SLA

bilingualism research is out of “control”: Arguments and alternatives. Special issue of Applied Psycholinguistics, 44, 316–329. Rothman, J., & Slabakova, R. (2018). The generative approach to SLA and its place in modern second language studies. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 40(2), 417–442. Schönefeld, D. (1999). Corpus linguistics and cognitivism. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 4(1), 137–171. Schütze, C. T. (2016). The empirical base of linguistics: Grammaticality judgments and linguistic methodology (Classics in Linguistics 2). Language Science Press. Schweinberger, M. (2020). A corpus-based analysis of differences in the use of very for adjective amplification among native speakers and learners of English. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research, 6(2), 163–192. Slabakova, R., Leal, T., Dudley, A., & Stack, M. (2020). Generative second language acquisition. Cambridge University Press. Stefanowitsch, A. (2020). Corpus linguistics: A guide to the methodology. Language Science Press. Stefanowitsch, A., & Gries, St. Th. (2003) Collostructions: Investigating the interaction between words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 8(2), 209–243. Szmrecsanyi, B. (2017). Variationist sociolinguistics and corpus-based variationist linguistics: Overlap and cross-pollination potential. Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revueanadiennee de linguistique, 62(4), 685–701. The Douglas Fir Group. (2016). A transdisciplinary framework for SLA in a multilingual world. The Modern Language Journal, 100(S1), 19–47. Titone, D. A., & Tiv, M. (2022). Rethinking multilingual experience through a systems framework of bilingualism. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition. Advance online publication. Tiv, M., Kutlu, E., Gullifer, J. G., Feng, R. Y., Doucerain, M. M., & Titone, D. A. (2022). Bridging interpersonal and ecological dynamics of cognition through a systems framework of bilingualism. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 151(9), 2128–2143. Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language. Harvard University Press. Tracy-Ventura, N., & Paquot, M. (2021). The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and corpora. Routledge. Tummers, J., Heylen, K., & Geeraerts, D. (2005). Usage-based approaches in cognitive linguistics: A technical state of the art. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 1(2), 225–261. Verspoor, M., & Lowie, W. (2021). Complex dynamic systems theory and second language development. In H. Mohebbi & C. Coombe (Eds.), Research question in language education and applied linguistics (pp. 799–803). Springer. Wulff, S., & Gries, St. Th. (2015). Prenominal adjective order preferences in Chinese and German L2 English: A multifactorial corpus study. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 5(1), 122–150. Wulff, S., & Gries, St. Th. (2021). Exploring individual variation in learner corpus research: Some methodological suggestions. In B. S. W. Le Bruyn & M. Paquot (Eds.). Learner corpus research meets second language acquisition (pp. 191–213). Cambridge University Press.

Corpus-linguistic approaches to SLA 45

Wulff, S., Gries, St. Th., & Lester, N. A. (2018) Optional that in complementation by German and Spanish learners. In A. Tyler, L. Huan, & H. Jan (Eds.), What is applied cognitive linguistics? Answers from current SLA research (pp. 99–120). de Gruyter Mouton. Yang, C. D. (2016). The price of linguistic productivity: How children learn to break the rules of language. MIT Press. Yang, C. D. (2018). A formalist perspective on language acquisition. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 8(6), 665–706. Zipf, G. K. (1935). The psycho-biology of language: An introduction to dynamic philology. MIT Press.

3 MULTIMODAL RESOURCES AND ACTION A conversation-analytic approach to SLA and usage Søren Wind Eskildsen

3.1 Introduction

Research in various subfields of applied linguistics, including psycholinguistics, neurolinguistics, corpus linguistics, sociolinguistics, and second language acquisition (SLA) has garnered a vast amount of evidence for the emergence of language out of repeated usage, primordially in and through social interaction, both phylogenetically and ontogenetically (see references in Eskildsen, 2022). Specifically in SLA, the potential for cross-fertilization between ethnomethodological conversation analysis (EMCA) and its application to L2 studies on the one hand and approaches to the study of language and language acquisition drawing on usage-based linguistics (UBL) on the other has been explored and confirmed (Eskildsen, 2011; Cadierno & Eskildsen, 2015; Hall, 2019; Huth, 2020; Pekarek Doehler & Eskildsen, 2022). Such a combination has allowed us to understand how a focus on human cognition, perception, construal, and categorization of the world as found in UBL needs to be situated in a more fundamental consideration as found in EMCA of how people’s situated communicative purpose, their reasons for producing strings of talk is not to merely describe, construe, and document what they think, see, and understand, but to get some response from some co-participant(s) in some situation, primarily in social interaction. Humans construe and categorize the world through language, but not in a social vacuum (Eskildsen, 2020). Say, you are taking a walk with a friend. You see a dog and its owner, and as they approach you, you say, “What a beautiful dog” and smile, first at the dog then at the owner. Provided that DOI: 10.4324/9781032668475-3

Multimodal resources and action 47

the humans in this scene all speak the same language, it is unlikely that nothing else will be done. Your comment will not be left alone but will get its meaning from the responses from your co-participants. Your friend might agree and even upgrade the assessment of the dog (“Yes, very beautiful”) and sit down to pat it. The dog might wag its tail and walk to your friend, and the dog owner might respond with a “thank you” and a smile. That is, whatever we say, we are likely to say it in a situation where it can be made sense of by co-participants as an action occasioning a response (e.g., an assessment, a token of surprise, or something else). Talk-in-interaction is the primordial scene of human social life (Schegloff, 1987, 1996), and so social interaction is key to our understanding of usage-based L2 learning, specifically to our understanding of how people establish links between linguistic expressions and the actions they can be used to accomplish. 3.2 Ethnomethodological conversation analysis and language

Rooted in sociology and emerging in the 1950s and 1960s, particularly in the work of Garfinkel (e.g., 1967), ethnomethodology (EM) is concerned with how people achieve social order. As a sociological methodology, EM differentiated from predominant ways of thinking in sociology by not starting from the question of how macro-structures of society inform and define human behavior (for example, how independent variables such as socio-economic status might explain ultimate educational achievement; cf. Markee, 2011). Instead, EM was concerned with the establishment of social order through peoples’ methods of achieving everyday actions and practices, the key being specifically that social order is primarily to be understood from an emic, that is, participant-based perspective (Goffman, 1983; Goodwin, 1984; Schegloff et al., 1996; Garfinkel, 2002). Whereas EM is not particularly interested in how people use language to accomplish these everyday practices, conversation analysis (CA), which derives from EM, seeks to explain the methods whereby the various interactional practices that specify social order are achieved in and through talk-ininteraction. It should be observed, however, that CA is not solely concerned with the modality talk, but with all interactional conduct, including bodily resources such as gesture, gaze, and body posture, and uses of and orientations to configurations of space, objects, tools in the environment, etc. Language is human behavior in a material reality where physical artifacts can be vehicles for action accomplishment, and where language structure emerges from co-constructed semiotic bodily gestalts (Mondada, 2016). Crucial to an understanding of language from a CA vantage point are two notions: (1) intersubjectivity, and (2) the next-turn proof procedure. Intersubjectivity, which is akin to Clark’s (1985) common ground and crucial to understanding joint attention in developmental psychology (e.g.,

48  Multimodal resources and action

Tomasello, 2003), concerns the ongoing work people carry out to ensure a common understanding of what is currently happening in an interaction, and CA is concerned with explicating peoples’ methods for achieving this. CA’s focus, then, is on the interactional methods – people’s production and displayed understanding of actions in interaction – whereby people achieve shared understanding, or intersubjectivity. The next-turn proof procedure is the analytic tool analysts use to scrutinize peoples’ methods of achieving and maintaining intersubjectivity. It derives from the basic observation that conversation consists of turns-attalk and that these are done in adjacency pairs (Sacks et al., 1974) – that is, when an action is produced, the next relevant action is occasioned, and this next action gives meaning to the prior one. In other words, by providing an answer to a question, accepting an invitation, or mitigating and producing an objection to a produced comment or assessment (etc.), people show their understanding of what their co-participant just said, thus ensuring the constant building of the architecture of intersubjectivity (Heritage, 1984). If intersubjectivity is challenged, people can initiate repair and work through the challenge to restore intersubjectivity. Irrespective of the phenomenon under investigation in research, CA always maintains the emic perspective and the next-turn proof procedure to analyze and understand participants’ orientations, understandings, actions, etc. as publicly visible-hearable, empirically observable interactional conduct (Markee & Kasper, 2004). For further introductions to CA, see e.g., ten Have (2007); Sidnell (2010). As may be inferred, CA takes a primary interest in people’s actions and how these contribute to the achievement and maintenance of social order in conversational interaction as the “primordial site of sociality” (Schegloff, 1987, p. 208). The phenomenon we usually talk about as “language” is, in CA terms, a resource among others through which we accomplish actions, but CA did not grow out of an interest in language per se (Sacks, 1992). In a foundational paper to CA, Sacks, Schegloff, and Jefferson (1974, p. 722) described (aspects of) language structure as “designed for conversational use”, that is, for turn-taking which presupposes an ability to monitor other people’s talk, to anticipate when speaker transition is relevant, and to produce turns that are recipient-designed and fitted to prior turn(s). If we dig into this, we will see that “language” is all over the place; it is just not specified in morphosyntactic, lexicosemantic, or otherwise grammatical or traditionally linguistic terms. Instead, grammar, while not exhaustively described in CA terms, is one resource among others in people’s interactional competence, “a set of practices deployed in practical activities” (Kasper & Wagner, 2011, p. 120). The first work in CA drew on corpora of landline telephone conversations, most famously phone calls to a suicide prevention center. Talk became an object of inquiry, not just a locus for something else worthy of more

Multimodal resources and action 49

attention (Schegloff, 1995). As digital video technology became ubiquitous, it led to a surge of CA studies of multimodal interaction (Nevile, 2015; Mondada, 2018). These studies added significantly to our knowledge about the relations between language, bodily actions (including hand gestures), materiality, and tangible objects which are now central interests in CA (e.g., Goodwin, 2000, 2018; Mondada, 2016, 2018, 2019; Day & Wagner, 2019; for SLA, see e.g., Markee & Kunitz, 2013; Eskildsen & Wagner, 2015; Thorne et al., 2021; Hellermann & Thorne, 2022). Charles Goodwin’s work (inter alia 2000, 2018) has pioneered the development of CA toward a better understanding of local materiality and bodily action in situated interaction. Goodwin showed how the different semiotic resources – spoken language, bodily action, the material world – conspire as collaborative action in sense-making processes. His concept of the environmentally coupled gesture (Goodwin, 2000), i.e., gestures that merge features of the environment with gaze, posture, movement, and talk, paved the way for “recasting language within a multimodal approach” and for conceiving language in conjunction with body materiality as intertwining resources mobilized for action (Mondada, 2019, p. 110). It is becoming clear, then, that the human capacity for stringing words together for communicative purposes is fundamentally rooted in (recurring) bodily actions in the world (Streeck, 2021). The ways we accomplish social actions semiotically are inherently multimodal, and what we usually refer to as “grammar” is a residual of such action accomplishment, an assemblage of flexible, locally adaptable multimodal templates (or gestalts, cf. Mondada, 2014) derived from usage. To understand grammar and language, then, we need to understand action formation and action ascription and the work that bodily practices do as an integral component of action accomplishment in interactions (Piirainen-Marsh et al., 2022). The analytic task of understanding this through empirical work is not made easier by the fact that actions are often double-barreled (Schegloff, 2007) or composite (Rossi, 2018) – i.e., people routinely accomplish two or more actions at the same time – and so research is needed that casts further light on the specifics of multimodal action formation and ascription and the emergence of multimodal templates or gestalts (de Stefani, 2022). 3.3 What counts as usage from a conversationanalytic perspective?

I would like to begin this section from a functionalist vantage point. A key argument that has been put forward repeatedly in functionalist and usagebased linguistics is that language use, predominantly use in interaction, drives the emergence of linguistic structure as constructions (i.e., symbolic form-meaning pairings) and forms language learning. For example,

50  Multimodal resources and action

MacWhinney et al. (1984, p. 128) argued that “[t]he forms of natural languages are created, governed, constrained, acquired and used in the service of communicative functions”. In Tomasello’s words (1992, p. 67) “[a] language is composed of conventional symbols shaped by their social-communicative functions”, and Larsen-Freeman (2006), from a dynamic complexity perspective, further underscored the social foundations of language, arguing that “language is social in nature” and that “it is used for social action within a context of use” (p. 593). This means that to understand the mechanics and specifics of language learning, it is necessary to put a lens on locally situated interactions. As Ellis and Cadierno (2009, p. 112) put it, “[t]he realization of the primacy of language usage to language acquisition necessitates a commitment to (…) the study of contextualized functional discourse”. Such commitment is the raison d’être of research that combines usagebased approaches with CA and/or CA’s more linguistically oriented adjacent discipline, interactional linguistics (see Pekarek Doehler & Eskildsen, 2022). Such a combination has been applied and refined over the last decade, starting with Eskildsen (2011), who showed an ESL classroom learner’s developmental trajectory from the multiword expression (MWE) “What do you say?”, used initially as a request for help in word-search sequences (in the sense of “How do you say X?”), and then as a repetition request (in the sense of “What did you just say?”), and for soliciting a co-participant’s opinion (in the sense of “What do you say/think?”). The data underscored the exemplar-based trajectory as proposed by UBL but also pointed to this trajectory being a matter of interactional competence – i.e., the accomplishment of social action – and strongly locally contextualized in situated interactions, with the frequency-gated foundations of the MWE and ensuing emergence of a more varied “(WH-) do PRO VERB” construction being rooted in and later distributed across specific interactional environments, communicative contexts, and functions. Since then, interactionally oriented longitudinal research, drawing mostly on CA and less on UBL, has confirmed that the development of L2 interactional competence cannot be boiled down to the acquisition of new form-meaning pairings, nor solely to the accomplishment of social action in situ. Rather, as pointed out in Pekarek Doehler and Eskildsen (2022), participation in both recurring usage environments and usage environments that differ slightly from previous experiences, the accomplishment of environmentally, materially adapted, embodied social actions, and the gradual and ongoing understanding and recalibration-throughuse of linguistic patterns all conspire to form the backbone of routinization and diversification in the emergent L2 grammar for social action that characterizes developing interactional competence (e.g., Eskildsen, 2020; Pekarek Doehler, 2018; Pekarek Doehler & Balaman, 2021). The

Multimodal resources and action 51

inclusion of interactional linguistics, with its definition of grammar as “sedimented ways of accomplishing specific social actions in talk-in-interaction” (Couper-Kuhlen, 2014, p. 624), in the usage-based/conversation-analytic approach has refined our understanding of how linguistic resources – i.e., “grammar” – play into people’s work to achieve action formation and manage social interaction, that is, how “grammar” serves as a resource for the machinery of turn-taking and the building of intersubjectivity (Ochs et al., 1996; Couper-Kuhlen & Selting, 2018; Mushin & Pekarek Doehler, 2021) and how it develops as part of an emergent interactional competence. The precise relationship between materiality, embodiment, usage environment, social action, and the deployment of specific linguistic resources is a core interest in current longitudinal L2 research that draws on CA and interactional linguistics. The CA perspective that language in and of itself is not the primary analytic target still stands; the interest is in language as one of a range of semiotic resources in the material and ecological mesh that is usage. Not being concerned with language at all would be to repeat the story of the proverbial baby and the bathwater. The epistemological interest is in “scrutinizing how linguistic resources sediment experientially, in and through social interaction, to form emergent L2 grammars for social action” (Pekarek Doehler & Eskildsen, 2022, p. 5). The available empirical evidence repeatedly shows that this development – experiential sedimentation, the emergence of L2 grammar for social action – is embodied and rooted in the local, material ecology of social interaction. Usage, then, is a matter of meaning-making, accomplishing social action, encountering and using linguistic material, and putting language to work collaboratively with co-participants – and it is all accomplished multimodally in an interplay with recurring and changing material ecologies. From a CA vantage point, meaning is primarily action that is ascribed to the use of a linguistic construction, and the ascribed action becomes visible in the next turn-at-talk (vis-à-vis the next-turn proof procedure). This is usage in a nutshell; it is a conspiracy of the linguistic material, the bodily conduct, and the locally contextualized use in the ecology and materiality of the interaction that enables the interpretation of “talk” and hence the formation and ascription of action. What we typically think of as semantic meaning seems secondary to the accomplishment of action. Consequently, coming as I do from usage-based linguistics, I have attempted to advance a reconceptualization of the notion of construction; instead of thinking in terms of formmeaning pairings, I have suggested moving toward an understanding of construction as embodied action-expression relation (Eskildsen & Kasper, 2019; Eskildsen, 2020). Such a reconceptualization brings usage-based models of language in alignment with the action-oriented interests of CA and interactional linguistics.

52  Multimodal resources and action

3.4 How does usage lead to learning in a longitudinal conversation-analytic perspective?

A concrete example of how meaning-making and action accomplishment in embodied, material ecologies give rise to (aspects of) a developing L2 grammar for social action in the form of a locally adaptable multimodal template comes from Eskildsen and Wagner (2018) and Eskildsen (2021). In Eskildsen and Wagner (2018) we traced an ESL classroom learner, Carlos’, development of embodied conduct in verbal productions involving “ask”, “say”, and “tell” over a period of two-and-a-half years. We documented how his embodied conduct was a matter of reused embodied assemblies, used predominantly in instruction environments. We showed how his bodily conduct indexed targets and accomplished reference in the environment and indicated the transfer of something going from A to B, the latter typically by way of a flip or bend of the wrist. The participants in the interactions were thus found to make sense of the relation between the targets indexed by the embodied work as an “A to B” relation, not an “A + B” relation. In all our instances, and in congruence with the linguistic format, the first appointed target was the “actor” and the second one, “the receiver”. The embodied ensemble, in other words, “is a flexibly employed embodied construction that is fitted to local configurations and understood in situ as doing referencing to two co-participants and indicating an actional relation between them” (Eskildsen & Wagner, 2018, p. 158). By “flexibly employed” we wanted to stress that the coupling between the linguistic construction and the embodied conduct is not a permanently fixed gestalt; in fact, we showed that early in development, Carlos was more reliant on embodied conduct than in later instances, implying that the linguistic and the bodily parts need not be co-produced. We also found a tendency for Carlos to use the object-transfer gesture in instruction sequences. In Eskildsen (2021), I shifted the primary analytic focus from the role of embodied conduct in the achievement of the instruction to its role in forming the backbone of an emergent object-transfer construction as an instance of Carlos’ grammar for social action. An example illustrates what I mean by object-transfer construction and shows an example of Carlos’ materially coupled bodily work (Extract 1).1 Extract 1 is an example with the verb “say”. The students have been putting together a story based on small paper clippings during the prior session. The paper clippings – the white dots in the pictures – are now ordered on a desk in accordance with the storyline. Just before Extract 1, the teacher instructed Li to ask Mariela to tell her (Li) the story because she (Li) was not present when they began the task. Mariela does not comply with the request to retell the story, and in line 1, Carlos explains to Mariela what she must do. Note that Mariela stands behind Gabriel.

Multimodal resources and action 53

Carlos’ turn, “you say the story (.) a:: Li”, is temporally aligned with his embodied actions: he produces two separate units and makes two distinct gestures, one deictic-dynamic gesture going from Mariela to Li (aligned with “you say the story”), and one pointing gesture toward Li (aligned with “a Li”) (Figure 3.1). Mariela makes an open-class repair initiation (line 2), and Carlos produces a repair of his utterance (line 5). His repaired version is

FIGURE 3.1  Extract

1, line 1 (arrows mark the trajectory of Carlos’ hand movement)

54  Multimodal resources and action

delivered as one fluent unit (i.e., there is no micropause and no vowel lengthening as in line 1), and he seems to also revise his gesture: going from Mariela via the story as represented by the paper clippings to Li, the gesture is now one fluent movement that more clearly marks out the positions in space of Mariela, the story, and Li (see also Figure 3.2), thus enhancing the semantics of the transfer of the story from Mariela to Li and emphasizing the instructional nature of his turn. The teacher confirms Carlos’ instruction (line 6) and points out the story and the instructed teller and recipient in space. Carlos’ embodied work points out the actor, recipient, and trajectory of the action as well as the object to be transported, as represented by the paper clippings on the desk. But in the redesign of the action, the objecttransfer trajectory is enhanced, and the gesture is done as one movement. The three arrows in Figure 3.2 represent the trajectory of Carlos’ gesturing: from Mariela downward, toward the story as represented by the paper clippings, and from the story upward and toward Li. In Eskildsen (2021), I showed how Carlos employed the embodied object-transfer construction in instruction sequences, using the verbs “tell”, “ask”, “say”, and “give”. Those instances of the embodied object-transfer construction conveyed the meaning of something being translocated to somebody by somebody. The words and the gesture worked together to index, in a locally, materially adapted fashion, the actor and the recipient of the action as well as the trajectory of the object transfer from actor to recipient. The semantics of the construction and hence its “grammar” were argued to be concretely embodied, i.e., visible in Carlos’ bodily conduct. This shows, in a very concrete and salient way, the fundamentally embodied nature of human linguistic categorization pointed out from a theoretical perspective by Langacker (1987): we understand the categories

FIGURE 3.2  Extract

1, line 4 (arrows mark the trajectory of Carlos’ hand movement)

Multimodal resources and action 55

of language, through which we perceive and conceptualize the world, with our bodies. From a developmental perspective, Carlos initially used the object-transfer construction without the standard linguistic items to do so (“you say the story a Li” is also an example of that), and the gesturing was suggested to play a vital role communicatively in these early examples. Therefore, Carlos’ bodily actions were not only argued to be a matter of showing semantics; they were also described as instances of accountable behavior in terms of action formation and action ascription (Lilja & Piirainen-Marsh, 2019). That is, it was argued that the entire embodied construction enabled Carlos to perform a social action that was recognized and understood by the coparticipants, and it was this recognition and understanding that occasioned the next relevant actions in the examples. With the emergence of “give” and “show”, Carlos began employing more standard linguistic resources (e.g., “I give you the picture”). It is important to point out that Eskildsen (2021) also documented embodied-verbal instructions on the part of the teacher that indicated that the bodily performance of the object-transfer construction used for instructing was not Carlos’ prerogative, but may be a more fundamentally human feat. Many of Carlos’ uses analyzed in Eskildsen and Wagner (2018) and Eskildsen (2021) were found in instruction sequences, and the same applied to the teacher’s uses (Eskildsen, 2021). This indicates that there may be a relationship between the semantics of object transfer and the pragmatics of giving instructions. If that is the case, the question is whether the act of instructing gives rise to the semantics of object transfer or viceversa or whether the relationship is somehow bidirectional. If people learn to use language as a set of resources to accomplish social action, then there is merit to the idea that actions, such as instruction-giving, spawn semantics, such as the object-transfer construction. It should be remembered, however, that although body, grammar, and action (and materiality) are somehow connected, there is no one-to-one correlation between precise bodily conduct, linguistic construction, and social action. Bodily conduct and action accomplishment seem tightly interwoven; CA research has demonstrated that social actions (e.g., requesting, recruiting, offering, responding to requests, initiating repair, doing extended word searches, reformulating, teasing, apologizing, and instructing; see Piirainen-Marsh et al., 2022, for a recent overview) are recurrently achieved multimodally, but not necessarily accompanied by any one specific recurring linguistic construction. Given the fundamentally polysemous nature of constructions (Goldberg, 2009), this is no surprise. Linguistic constructions constitute a network of interrelated, context-dependent, and context-renewing meanings, and so any given instantiation of an expression gets its meaning from its situated use.

56  Multimodal resources and action

Consider what I described as a “deviant case” in Eskildsen (2021). The example (Extract 2) showed that the linguistic object-transfer construction and the deictic-dynamic gesturing did not combine into a monolithic package. Rather, the talk-gesture pairing was found to be permeable and flexible, allowing Carlos to recalibrate his semiotic resources when required by the interactional circumstances. The action of interest is Carlos’ turn in line 3, which is a request to the teacher to show him a piece of paper on which she has written the word “stapler”, a lexical item that they practiced earlier. The piece of paper is on the teacher’s desk and the teacher is walking away from her desk when Carlos summons her (line 1). When answering the summons (line 2) she continues walking in the same direction.

Orienting to Carlos’ multimodal request, the teacher turns and begins walking back toward her desk during his turn. When he is verbalizing the requested object, “the other paper”, she begins reaching for the piece of paper on her desk with the word “stapler” written on it. She picks it up while saying the word stapler in rising intonation which calls for Carlos’ confirmation

Multimodal resources and action 57

(lines 5–6). At the same time, Carlos begins retracting his hand while also slightly changing the nature of the pointing. Finally, the teacher holds up the piece of paper in front of him so that he can see the word, which accomplishes compliance with the request. When she does that, Carlos abandons the deictic gesture and gets ready to write in his notebook. Carlos’ bodily conduct here is different from the previous example. It primarily enhances the deictic part of the construction, i.e., pointing to what he wants the teacher to show him. Arguably, it is a conspiracy of the linguistic format, the prior classroom work, Carlos’ projected action (a request), and his embodied work (the pointing) that enables the teacher to understand what he is after. The object-transfer construction was in this example embedded in a “can you X”-pattern (on the inter-embeddedness of linguistic units, see Eskildsen, 2020b). As shown in Eskildsen and Kasper (2019), Carlos used “can you write” and “can you spell” to request help with the writing or spelling of a word. These were found in Carlos’ usage from the onset of his time in the classroom, so we cannot say with certainty where he learned these (he had been in the US for 21 months prior to coming to this class). But Eskildsen and Kasper (2019) documented the growth of the pattern as it recruited new verbs, including “show”. The embodied, “Can you show me the other paper?” underlines that the action accomplishment is primary; as was the case with, “You say the story a Li” in which the use of the prepositional paraphrase of the double-object construction could be said to be epiphenomenal to the act of instructing, the entire “can you X”-pattern with an embedded double-object construction is epiphenomenal to the act of requesting (see further discussion in Eskildsen & Kasper, 2019; Eskildsen, 2021). The linguistic constructions do not live a life outside of such uses as abstract templates, but they emerge from them as flexibly employable, multimodal, and materially and ecologically manipulable semiotic ensembles for doing social action. Over time, as L2 users are constantly calibrating their embodied interactional competence in and through usage, the L2 grammar for social action will come to consist of a network of such resources. This is how usage leads to learning; usage is bodily and verbal social action in recurring and changing material ecologies. Noticing and appropriating recognizable ways of accomplishing social action in and through usage is at the heart of language learning. 3.5 What is the L2 learning task in a conversation-analytic perspective?

From the vantage point of EMCA, cognition is viewed as a socially shared, publicly visible phenomenon. Cognition, that is, can be studied through peoples’ observable behavior in and through talk and other embodied behavior in interaction (Garfinkel, 1967; Heritage, 1984; Schegloff, 2006; Kasper, 2009).

58  Multimodal resources and action

Cognition, learning, and language thus all emerge as embedded, embodied, and distributed – a point that has also made its way into usage-based second language acquisition (SLA) research (Ellis, 2014, 2015; Douglas Fir Group, 2016; Eskildsen & Cadierno, 2015; Eskildsen & Markee, 2018). Concerned with L2 learning as a socially observable phenomenon, i.e., as something that people do and demonstrably orient to in and through talk, conversation-analytic SLA, or CA-SLA, has predominantly focused on the here-and-now and demonstrated that L2 speakers in and of themselves are not defective communicators, that people have ways and methods to display learning behavior, and that repair practices, definition talk, or metalingual talk might lead to situated opportunities for learning. The research is too rich to be discussed at length here, but the interested reader should consult Brouwer (2003), Markee and Kasper (2004), Pallotti and Wagner (2011), Kasper and Wagner (2011), Eskildsen and Markee (2018), and Hellermann et al. (2019). Longitudinal CA-SLA is a more recent addition to the field. While it shares the core epistemology with situated conversation-analytic work on L2 learning, the longitudinal perspective introduces methodological challenges concerning the notion of comparability (Schegloff, 2009; Deppermann & Pekarek Doehler, 2021). This means that researchers must rigorously account for the investigated phenomenon and for why the instances are, in fact, instances of the same phenomenon (e.g., an interactional activity, a social action, or bodily conduct). Longitudinal CA-SLA has generally taken one of two directions, either focusing on interactional practices or on linguistic/semiotic resources (Kasper & Wagner, 2014). The former has been concerned with exploring L2 speakers’ interactional competence, that is methods of accomplishing actions, such as repair, turn openings and closings, storytelling, dispreferred responses, and how those methods change over time (e.g., Brouwer & Wagner, 2004; Hall et al., 2011; Hellermann, 2008; König, 2020; Pekarek Doehler, 2018; Pekarek Doehler & Eskildsen, 2022; Pekarek Doehler & Pochon-Berger, 2015; Skogmyr Marian & Balaman, 2018). The longitudinal linguistically/semiotically oriented CA research traces changes in the interactional use of specific linguistic items over time (e.g., Eskildsen, 2009, 2011, 2012, 2015; Hauser, 2013; Ishida, 2009; Kim, S., 2019; Kim, Y., 2009; Masuda, 2011). These studies have shown how people develop their interactional competencies with respect to the deployment of particular words and other lexically specific items in an increasing variety of interactional contexts. Case studies of L2 usage over time have shown that the interactional contexts in which L2 speakers participate have profound consequences for developmental trajectories (recently, Eskildsen, 2020a, 2020b; Nguyen, 2019; Pekarek Doehler & Berger, 2019; Theodórsdóttir & Eskildsen, 2022). Eskildsen and Pekarek Doehler (2022) combine usage-based SLA,

Multimodal resources and action 59

conversation-analytic SLA, and interactional linguistics in a first move toward systematically researching the precise role of linguistic structures – as grammatical resources for interaction – in shaping L2 speakers’ ability to interact (“interactional competence”), and on the precise role of the nature of L2 speakers’ interactional environments in shaping their L2 grammars. The articles in that collection showed how patterns of language use emerge out of social interaction and how they routinize as resources for social action; that is, as part of the systematic procedures that participants use for coordinating and jointly organizing their interaction. CA-based approaches to SLA, then, have mainly scrutinized L2 learning empirically, to varying degrees, in terms of the following, sometimes overlapping, dimensions: (1) situated social action, (2) change in the accomplishment of specific social actions, (3) routinization of a particular expression, and (4) change, or diversification, in the deployment of a particular expression. With the increasing use of video data, we are also accumulating empirical evidence that reveals the fundamental importance of bodily conduct (and material surroundings) in the L2 learning process across these four dimensions (e.g., Eskildsen & Wagner, 2015; Eskildsen, 2021; Pekarek Doehler & Balaman, 2021; Hellermann & Thorne, 2022; Skogmyr Marian & Pekarek Doehler, 2022). I will end by reporting on an empirical example of Carlos’ developing interactional competence as the teacher in the classroom taught her students two phrases, “it’s incorrect” and “let me help you” in a highly contextualized fashion in environments where she explicitly linked the expressions to specific actions of pointing out mistakes and volunteering to correct the mistakes (Eskildsen & Markee, 2018). The video data revealed, importantly, that the teaching and learning of the phrases happened in ways that drew on the materiality of the classroom (e.g., whiteboards, inscriptions) and were deeply embodied (accompanied by e.g., deictic gestures, eye gaze, getting up and moving). Through her teaching, the teacher provided the students with opportunities to use specific semiotic resources for specific actions in specific, recurring interactional environments. Carlos learned and used these expressions in these recurring environments around activities that occasioned the uses. He thus developed his interactional competence in the classroom as a community of practice to be able to volunteer, write on the communal board, correct himself and others, and help others. Through an understanding of such classroom activities, he learned the linguistic tools, taught by the teacher, to index a problem and/or project the upcoming action (“it’s incorrect” indexes the problem; “let me help” projects the upcoming action). Setting aside the issue of whether these linguistic tools are the most apt for accomplishing these specific actions, the point is that “language” was taught and learned as a semiotic resource for social action.

60  Multimodal resources and action

This data also showcased the complex ecology of situated language learning. The co-participants continuously displayed that they were navigating the environment and using resources within it. The teacher, for example, repeatedly oriented physically (posture, gaze) to the whiteboard and the phrases she wrote there in ways that were designed to be visible to her co-participants (the students). Cognition, we therefore argued, is deeply embedded in and contingent upon the materiality and configuration of the local space. This finding came not from our access to the writing on the board but from the participants’ visible orientations, i.e., the teacher and the students constantly displayed their current thinking through verbal and bodily actions. People “do not just speak; they enact, point, nod, shift gaze etc.” (Eskildsen & Markee, 2018, p. 94). Cognition is, then, not only embedded but it is also embodied and socially observable and emerges as distributed across participants and fundamentally contingent upon their actions in the service of achieving and maintaining intersubjectivity. Through language-as-action the co-participants, notably the teacher and Carlos, accomplished teaching, explaining, understanding, and learning in ways that were fundamentally co-constructed and which could not be reduced to any one constituent turn-at-talk. Finally, the teaching and learning of langu​age-a​s-a-s​emiot​ic-re​sourc​e-for​ -soci​al-ac​tion ultimately rests on contingencies in the local ecology (cognition is embedded), bodily actions (cognition is embodied), and fundamentally collaborative practices that are irreducible to any one contribution, turn-at-talk, or individual mind (cognition is socially shared and extended beyond the individual). Learning an L2 therefore crucially concerns learning to navigate local ecologies, to monitor other people’s behavior, and to use constantly recalibrated semiotic resources to act, behave, and respond in ways that make sense to others. The nut to crack for L2 learners, then, is to discern, out of all the bits and pieces of “language” and all the instances of accomplished social actions that filter through to them as they navigate their everyday lives, what can be used to accomplish what actions and when and where these actions are called for. Research into L2 interactional competence attempts to forge a method to tackle these specific challenges in the social-local-material worlds of L2 learners. This is where the use and learning of multimodal, materially contingent resources to accomplish social action begins. Discussion questions

1. What are some similarities and differences between interactional affordances in the language classroom vs “the wild”? 2. In what ways does context influence or determine long-term language learning?

Multimodal resources and action 61

3. How does your own perspective on “grammar” and “language” relate to the vantage points presented here? 4. Do you agree that social interaction is the primordial form of usage? Why/why not? 5. Consider “the nut to crack for L2 learners” as it is formulated in the final paragraph of the chapter. What are the implications of this for L2 teaching? Note 1 Transcription conventions are at the end of the chapter.

References Brouwer, C. E. (2003). Word searches in NNS-NS interaction: Opportunities for language learning? Modern Language Journal, 87(4), 534–545. Brouwer, C. E., & Wagner, J. (2004). Developmental issues in second language conversation. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 29–47. Cadierno, T., & Eskildsen, S. W. (Eds.). (2015). Usage-based perspectives on second language learning. Mouton de Gruyter. Clark, H. H. (1985). Language use and language users. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (pp. 179–231). Harper and Row. Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2014). What does grammar tell us about action? Pragmatics, 24(3), 623–647. Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Selting, M. (2018). Interactional linguistics: Studying language in social interaction. Cambridge University Press. Day, D., & Wagner, J. (2019). Objects, bodies and work practice. Multilingual Matters. de Stefani, E. (2022). On gestalts and their analytical corollaries: A commentary to the special issue. Social Interaction: Video-Based Studies of Human Sociality, 5(1). DOI: 10.7146/si.v5i2.130875 Deppermann, A., & Pekarek Doehler, S. (2021). Longitudinal conversation analysis – Introduction to the special issue. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 54, 127–141. Douglas Fir Group. (2016). A transdisciplinary framework for SLA in a multilingual world. Modern Language Journal, 100(Supplement), 19–47. Ellis, N. C. (2014). Cognitive and social language use. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 36, 397–402. Ellis, N. C. (2015). Cognitive and social aspects of learning from usage. In T. Cadierno & S. W. Eskildsen (Eds.), Usage-based perspectives on second language learning (pp. 49–74). Mouton de Gruyter. Ellis, N. C., & Cadierno, T. (2009). Constructing a second language: Introduction to the special section. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 7(1), 111–139. Eskildsen, S. W. (2009). Constructing another language - Usage-based linguistics in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 30(3), 335–357. Eskildsen, S. W. (2011). The L2 inventory in action: Conversation analysis and usage-based linguistics in SLA. In G. Pallotti & J. Wagner (Eds.), L2 learning as social practice: Conversation-analytic perspectives (pp. 337–373). University of Hawai’i, National Foreign Language Resource Center.

62  Multimodal resources and action

Eskildsen, S. W. (2012). L2 negation constructions at work. Language Learning, 62(2), 335–372. Eskildsen, S. W. (2015). What counts as a developmental sequence?: Exemplarbased L2 learning of English questions. Language Learning, 65(1), 33–62. Eskildsen, S. W. (2020a). From constructions to social action: The substance of English and its learning from an interactional usage-based perspective. In C. Hall & R. Wicaksono (Eds.), Ontologies of English: Reconceptualising the language for learning, teaching, and assessment (pp. 59–79). Cambridge University Press. Eskildsen, S. W. (2020b). Creativity and routinisation in L2 English - two usagebased case-studies. In W. Lowie, M. Michel, A. Rousse-Malpat, M. Keijzer, & R. Steinkrauss (Eds.), Usage-based dynamics in second language development (pp. 107–129). Multilingual Matters. Eskildsen, S. W. (2021). Embodiment, semantics and social action: The case of object-transfer in L2 classroom interaction. Frontiers in Communication, 6. doi​ .org​/10​.3389​/fcomm​.2021​​.660674 Eskildsen, S. W. (2022). Usage-based SLA: From corpora to social interaction. In K. Geeslin (Ed.), Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and sociolinguistics (pp. 45–58). Routledge. Eskildsen, S. W., & Cadierno, T. (2015). Advancing usage-based approaches to L2 studies. In T. Cadierno & S. W. Eskildsen (Eds.), Usage-based perspectives on second language learning (pp. 1–18). Mouton de Gruyter. Eskildsen, S. W., & Kasper, G. (2019). Interactional usage-based L2 pragmatics: From form-meaning pairings to construction-action relations. In N. Taguchi (Ed.), The handbook of second language acquisition and pragmatics (pp. 176– 191). Routledge. Eskildsen, S. W., & Markee, N. (2018). L2 talk as social accomplishment. In R. Alonso Alonso (Ed.), Speaking in a second language (pp. 69–104). John Benjamins. Eskildsen, S. W., & Pekarek Doehler, S. (Eds.). (2022). Emergent L2 grammarfor-interaction: Toward an interactional usage-based SLA. Special issue of The Modern Language Journal. Modern Language Journal, 106(Supplement). Eskildsen, S. W., & Wagner, J. (2015). Embodied L2 construction learning. Language Learning, 65(2), 419–448. Eskildsen, S. W., & Wagner, J. (2018). From trouble in the talk to new resources - The interplay of bodily and linguistic resources in the talk of a novice speaker of English as a second language. In S. Pekarek Doehler, E. González-Martínez, & J. Wagner (Eds.), Documenting change across time: Longitudinal studies on the organization of social interaction (pp. 143–172). Palgrave Macmillan. Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Prentice-Hall. Garfinkel, H. (2002). Ethnomethodology’s program. Rowman & Littlefield. Goffman, E. (1983). The interaction order. American Sociological Review, 48(1), 1–17. Goldberg, A. E. (2009). The nature of generalization in language. Cognitive Linguistics, 20(1), 93–127. Goodwin, C. (1984). Notes on story structure and the organization of participation. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 225–246). Cambridge University Press.

Multimodal resources and action 63

Goodwin, C. (2000). Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 32(10), 1489–1522. Goodwin, C. (2018). Co-operative action. Cambridge University Press. Hall, J. K. (2019). The contributions of conversation analysis and interactional linguistics to a usage-based understanding of language: Expanding the transdisciplinary framework. Modern Language Journal, 103(Supplement), 80–94. Hall, J. K., Hellermann, J., & Pekarek Doehler, S. (Eds.). (2011). L2 interactional competence and development. Multilingual Matters. Hauser, E. (2013). Stability and change in one adult’s second language English negation. Language Learning, 63(3), 463–498. Hellermann, J. (2008). Social actions for classroom language learning. Multilingual Matters. Hellermann, J., Eskildsen, S. W., Pekarek Doehler, S., & Piirainen-Marsh, A. (Eds.). (2019). Conversation analytic research on L2 interaction in the wild: The complex ecology of learning-in-action. Springer. Hellermann, J., & Thorne, S. (2022). Collaborative mobilizations of interbodied communication for cooperative action. Modern Language Journal, 106(Supplement), 89–112. Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Polity Press. Huth, T. (2020). Interaction, language use and second language teaching. Routledge. Ishida, M. (2009). Development of interactional competence: Changes in the use of ne in L2 Japanese during study abroad. In H. T. Nguyen & G. Kasper (Eds.), Talk-in interaction: Multilingual perspectives (pp. 351–386). University of Hawai’i, National Foreign Language Resource Center. Kasper, G. (2009). Locating cognition in second language interaction and learning: Inside the skull or in public view? International Review of Applied Linguistics, 47, 11–36. Kasper, G., & Wagner, J. (2011). A conversation analytic approach to second language acquisition. In D. Atkinson (Ed.), Alternative approaches to second language acquisition (pp. 117–142). Routledge. Kasper, G., & Wagner, J. (2014). Conversation analysis in applied linguistics. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 34, 171–212. Kim, S. (2019). We limit under twenty centu charge okay?: Routinization of an idiosyncratic multiword expression. In J. Hellermann, S. W. Eskildsen, S. Pekarek Doehler, & A. Piirainen-Marsh (Eds.), Conversation analytic research on learning-inaction: The complex ecology of second language interaction ‘in the wild.’ (pp. 25–49). Springer. Kim, Y. (2009). The Korean discourse markers – Nuntey and kuntey in nativenonnative conversation: An acquisitional perspective. In H. T. Nguyen & G. Kasper (Eds.), Talk-in interaction: Multilingual perspectives (pp. 317–350). University of Hawai’i, National Foreign Language Resource Center. König, C. (2020). A conversation analysis approach to French L2 learning: Introducing and closing topics in everyday interactions. Routledge. Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford University Press.

64  Multimodal resources and action

Larsen-Freeman, D. (2006). The emergence of complexity, fluency, and accuracy in the oral and written production of five Chinese learners of English. Applied Linguistics, 27(4), 590–619. Lilja, N., & Piirainen-Marsh, A. (2019). How hand gestures contribute to action ascription. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 52(4), 343–364. MacWhinney, B., Bates, E., & Kliegl, R. (1984). Cue validity and sentence interpretation in English, German, and Italian. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 23(2), 127–150. Markee, N. (2011). Doing, and justifying doing, avoidance. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(2), 602–615. Markee, N., & Kasper, G. (2004). Classroom talks: An introduction. Modern Language Journal, 88(IV), 491–500. Markee, N., & Kunitz, S. (2013). Doing planning and task performance in second language acquisition: An ethnomethodological respecification. Language Learning, 63(4), 629–664. Masuda, K. (2011). Acquiring interactional competence in a study abroad context: Japanese language learners’ use of the interactional particle ne. Modern Language Journal, 95(4), 519–540. Mondada, L. (2014). The temporal orders of multiactivity: Operating and demonstrating in the surgical theatre. In P. Haddington, T. Keisanen, L. Mondada, & M. Nevile (Eds.), Multiactivity in social interaction: Beyond multitasking (pp. 33–75). John Benjamins. Mondada, L. (2016). Challenges of multimodality: Language and the body in social interaction. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 20(3), 336–366. Mondada, L. (2018). Multiple temporalities of language and body in interaction: Challenges for transcribing multimodality. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 51(1), 85–106. Mondada, L. (2019). Transcribing silent actions: A multimodal approach of sequence organization. Social Interaction: Video-Based Studies of Human Sociality, 2(1). doi​.org​/10​.7146​/si​.v2i1​​.113150 Mushin, I., & Pekarek Doehler, S. (2021). Linguistic structures in social interaction: Moving temporality to the forefront of a science of language. Interactional Linguistics, 1, 2–32. Nevile, M. (2015). The embodied turn in research on language and social interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 48(2), 121–151. Nguyen, H. T. (2019). Turn design as longitudinal achievement: Learning on the shop floor. In J. Hellermann, S. W. Eskildsen, S. Pekarek Doehler, & A. Piirainen-Marsh (Eds.), Conversation analytic research on learning-in-action: The complex ecology of second language interaction ‘in the wild’ (pp. 77–103). Springer. Ochs, E., Schegloff, E. A., & Thompson, S. A. (Eds.). (1996). Interaction and grammar. Cambridge University Press. Pallotti, G., & Wagner, J. (Eds.). (2011). L2 learning as social practice: Conversationanalytic perspectives. University of Hawai’i, National Foreign Language Resource Center. Pekarek Doehler, S. (2018). Elaborations on L2 interactional competence: The development of L2 grammar-for-interaction. Classroom Discourse, 9(1), 3–24.

Multimodal resources and action 65

Pekarek Doehler, S., & Balaman, U. (2021). The routinization of grammar as a social action format: A longitudinal study of video-mediated interactions. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 54(2), 183–202. Pekarek Doehler, S., & Berger, E. (2019). On the reflexive relation between developing L2 interactional competence and evolving social relationships: A longitudinal study of word-searches in the ‘wild’. In J. Hellermann, S. W. Eskildsen, S. Pekarek Doehler, & A. Piirainen-Marsh (Eds.), Conversation analytic research on learning-in-action: The complex ecology of second language interaction ‘in the wild’ (pp. 51–76). Springer. Pekarek Doehler, S., & Eskildsen, S. W. (2022). Emergent L2 grammars in and for social interaction: Introduction to the special issue. The Modern Language Journal, 106(Supplement), 3–22. Pekarek Doehler, S., & Pochon-Berger, E. (2015). The development of L2 interactional competence: Evidence from turn-taking organization, sequence organization, repair organization and preference organization. In T. Cadierno & S. W. Eskildsen (Eds.), Usage-based perspectives on second language learning (pp. 233–268). Mouton de Gruyter. Piirainen-Marsh, A., Lilja, N., & Eskildsen, S. W. (Eds.). (2022). The role of gestures in action formation and action ascription in multilingual interaction. Special Issue. Social Interaction: Video-based Studies of Human Sociality, 5(1). https://tidsskrift​.dk​/socialinteraction​/issue​/view​/9565 Rossi, G. (2018). Composite social actions: The case of factual declaratives in everyday interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 51(4), 379–397. Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on conversation. Volumes I and II (G. Jefferson, Ed.). Blackwell. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735. Schegloff, E. A. (1987). Analyzing single episodes of interaction: An exercise in conversation analysis. Social Psychology Quarterly, 50(2), 101–114. Schegloff, E. A. (1995). Introduction. In G. Jefferson (Ed.), Harvey Sacks’ lectures on conversation. Volumes I and II (pp. IX–LXII). Blackwell. Schegloff, E. A. (1996). Turn organization: One intersection of grammar and interaction. In E. Ochs, E. A. Schegloff, & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and grammar (pp. 52–133). Cambridge University Press. Schegloff, E. A. (2006). Interaction: The infrastructure for social institutions, the natural ecological niche for language, and the arena in which culture is enacted. In N. J. Enfield & S. C. Levinson (Eds.), Roots of human sociality (pp. 70–96). Berg. Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis (Vol. 1). Cambridge University Press. Schegloff, E. A. (2009). One perspective on conversation analysis: Comparative perspectives. In J. Sidnell (Ed.), Conversation analysis: Comparative perspectives (pp. 357–406). Cambridge University Press. Schegloff, E. A., Ochs, E., & Thompson, S. A. (1996). Introduction. In E. Ochs, E. A. Schegloff, & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and grammar (pp. 1–51). Cambridge University Press.

66  Multimodal resources and action

Sidnell, J. (2010). Conversation analysis: An introduction. Wiley-Blackwell. Skogmyr Marian, K., & Balaman, U. (2018). Second language interactional competence and its development: An overview of conversation analytic research on interactional change over time. Language and Linguistics Compass, 12(8), 1–16. Skogmyr Marian, K., & Pekarek Doehler, S. (2022). Multimodal word-search trajectories in L2 interaction: The use of gesture and how it changes over time. Social Interaction – Video-Based Studies of Human Sociality, 5(1). https://doi​ .org​/10​.7146​/si​.v5i2​.130867 Streeck, J. (2021). The emancipation of gestures. Interactional Linguistics, 1(1), 90–122. ten Have, P. (2007). Doing conversation analysis: A practical guide. Sage. Theodórsdóttir, G., & Eskildsen, S. W. (2022). Accumulating L2 semiotic resources for social action: Learning Icelandic in the wild. Modern Language Journal, 106(Supplement), 46–68. Thorne, S. L., Hellermann, J., & Jakonen, T. (2021). Rewilding language education: Emergent assemblages and entangled actions. Modern Language Journal, 105(S1), 106–125. Tomasello, M. (1992). First verbs: A case study of early grammatical development. Cambridge University Press. Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language. Cambridge University Press.

Transcription conventions CAR:, TEA:      Participants Wei[rd w]ord    Beginning and end of overlapping talk     [yeah] #/¤/%/&       Mark beginning of embodied action in transcribed talk #/¤/%/&        Description of embodied conduct (in italics) on line below transcribed talk (in some cases, embodied conduct that is not central to the investigated phenomenon is described without marked alignment with the talk) (1.0)         Pause/gap in seconds and tenth of seconds (.)            Micro pause (< 0.2 seconds) word= =word         Multi-line turn wo:rd            Prolongation of preceding sound word?            Rising intonation word.             Falling intonation

4 USAGE AND VARIATIONIST APPROACHES TO SLA Aarnes Gudmestad

4.1 Introduction

At its inception, variationist second language acquisition (SLA) drew on theoretical foundations and methodological practices in variationist sociolinguistics,1 which has tended to investigate first-language speakers (e.g., Labov, 1972; see Tagliamonte, 2012, for an overview).2 This line of inquiry seeks to explain the complex ways in which linguistic and social factors influence variation in language usage and development among additionallanguage learners and users. It conceptualizes language as a communicative code that is systematically variable and dynamic and that carries linguistic and social meaning. Regarding the systematic nature of language variability,3 variationist SLA holds that “variation in language is not a consequence of random performance errors or dialect mixing, but rather an essential component of linguistic competence” (Bayley & Escalante, 2022, p. 4). Central to this approach, therefore, is the understanding that linguistic competence is variable (Preston, 2000, p. 27). 4.1.1 Types of variation

Variationist SLA researchers distinguish between two types of variation (Rehner, 2002): Type I (or vertical variation) and Type II (or horizontal variation). Type I variation, on the one hand, refers to variability that is present along the developmental trajectory and is presumably not found among native speakers. In this type, variation occurs between linguistic forms that are targetlike and those that are not. Young’s (1991) study of plural marking on nouns in English among native speakers of Chinese is DOI: 10.4324/9781032668475-4

68  Usage and variationist approaches

one example. In this investigation, Young examined the “marking of (s) plural on semantically plural count nouns” (p. 84, e.g., pencils, boxes). The presence of a plural morpheme was the targetlike form and the absence of a plural morpheme was the non-targetlike form. An important characteristic of the analysis was that rather than distinguishing between plural allomorphs (i.e., -s and -es) and the errors that learners make with these morphemes, it differentiated solely between the presence or absence of a plural morpheme on semantically plural nouns. In this way, Young investigated learners’ ability to mark plurality and sought to explain the factors (for examples, see Section 4.1.2) that influenced their variable use of plural morphemes. This analysis contrasts with those that focus on how accurately learners use plural morphemes (e.g., White et al., 2004). Type II variation, on the other hand, pertains to variation that is found in the target language, which means that two or more targetlike forms are in variation with each other among native speakers. In this way, variationist SLA has been valuable for examining sociolinguistic competence, or the ability to interpret and use language in contextually and socially appropriate ways (Canale & Swain, 1980). For instance, first-language speakers of Spanish vary their use of word-internal, intervocalic /d/ (in words like cada “each”), and the use of various allophones (e.g., stop, spirant, lenition, tap) in this context is linguistically and socially conditioned (e.g., Solon et al., 2018). Word-internal, intervocalic /d/, thus, is a phonetic feature of sociolinguistic competence that learners need to acquire if they are to become highly proficient users of the language (see Solon et al., 2018, for an investigation that compares learners with bilingual native speakers). Importantly, however, these two types of variation are not necessarily mutually exclusive, as seen in Pozzi (2021). Pozzi investigated the use of second-person-singular subject pronouns in Spanish among additionallanguage learners who were studying abroad in Argentina. She considered these subject pronouns “a hybrid feature that incorporates aspects of Type 1 and Type 2 variation” (p. 2). This is because second-person-singular subject pronouns in Spanish exhibit regional variation (i.e., Type II variation), but, according to Pozzi (2021), native speakers in Argentina use the secondperson-singular subject pronoun vos categorically (i.e., Type I variation; for evidence of variation between vos and tú in Argentina, however, see Bland & Morgan, 2020). The learners in her study were exposed to another second-person-singular subject pronoun tú in their instructional experience in the United States prior to studying in Argentina. She found that the participants used tú categorically before studying abroad. Although two participants began using vos categorically while studying in Argentina, a majority of the learners varied their use of vos and tú. These participants gained sensitivity to the regional variant vos but continued to use the pronoun tú, the form that was present in their instructional experience in the

Usage and variationist approaches 69

United States and that is found in other regions of the Spanish-speaking world. 4.1.2 Key constructs in variationist SLA

There are four key constructs that shape scholarship on Type II variation: variable structure, variant, envelope of variation, and constraint. These constructs are valuable because they offer researchers concrete conceptual and methodological tools for analyzing and explaining variation. Variable structures (called linguistic variables in sociolinguistics) are linguistic phenomena that exhibit variability in the target language. They are realized by two or more linguistic forms, called variants, that express the same function or meaning and that native speakers or bilinguals use. Examples of variable structures and (at least some of) their variants that have been investigated in variationist SLA are available in (1a–1f). Phonological and morphosyntactic structures have been studied most often, but there are investigations of lexical and discourse-pragmatic phenomena. The envelope of variation (also called the variable context) refers to the linguistic contexts where the variants of a variable structure are in variation with each other in the target and excludes categorical contexts (i.e., those that do not exhibit variation). The last construct, constraint, refers to the linguistic and extralinguistic factors that influence the occurrence of the variants of a variable structure. (1a) Phonological variable structure (e.g., Hansen Edwards, 2011): /t, d/ in word-final consonant clusters in English (e.g., in words like just) Variants: Retention and elision of /t/ and /d/ (1b) Phonological variable structure (Raish, 2015): Realizations of the character ‫ ج‬jīm in Arabic Variants: [g], [j], etc. (1c) Morphosyntactic variable structure (e.g., Gudmestad & Edmonds, 2023): First-person-singular subject expression in Spanish Variants: Personal pronoun and unexpressed subject (1d) Morphosyntactic variable structure (e.g., Donaldson, 2017): Verbal negation in French Variants: Presence or absence of the preverbal particle ne (1e) Lexical variable structure (e.g., Nadasdi et al., 2008): Words for car in Canadian French Variants: machine, char, auto, automobile, and voiture (1f) Discourse-pragmatic structure (e.g., Davydova & Buchstaller, 2015): Quotative marking in English Variants: be like, say, think, the absence of a quotative marker, etc. For first-person-singular subject expression in Spanish, the variable structure in (1c) above, Gudmestad and Edmonds (2023) defined the envelope

70  Usage and variationist approaches

of variation as the subject of a first-person-singular finite verb. As shown in (1c), the variants are the personal pronoun (yo “I”) and unexpressed subject. An example of a well-studied linguistic constraint that conditions the use of subject forms is referent continuity (also called switch reference; Carvalho et al., 2015) in which an unexpressed subject is more likely to occur if the referent of the preceding subject is the same as the referent in the context being analyzed. This tendency is illustrated in (2), where the first instance of a first-person-singular subject, which is a personal pronoun, is followed by an unexpressed subject pertaining to the same referent. Referent continuity is an example of a factor that also predicts use among first-language speakers, so variationist SLA researchers are interested in understanding when learners develop a sensitivity to this constraint and therefore demonstrate targetlike behavior. An extralinguistic constraint that we found to be important for the additional-language learners we investigated was placement type. This factor differentiated between learners who worked versus those who studied during a stayabroad experience in Spain. Results showed that the learners who were working during their time in Spain were more likely to use personal pronouns compared to those who were taking classes. Placement type is an extralinguistic constraint that is generally relevant for learners only (not native speakers), meaning that it can provide important information about additional-language development but does not shed light on targetlikeness. This is because learners’ usage patterns with respect to this factor cannot be compared to those of native speakers (i.e., the native speakers are not studying abroad and experiencing different placement types during a stay abroad). (2) Yo no sé. ∅ Voy a preguntarle a alguien. “I don’t know. (I) am going to ask someone.” These four constructs originated in sociolinguistics and, consequently, have traditionally been attributed to Type II variation in SLA. However, they are arguably useful, with some tweaking, for investigations of Type I variation as well. To illustrate this application, I return to Young (1991). The variable structure in this study is plural marking on count nouns in English. The key difference with the application of this construct (i.e., variable structure) to Type I variation is that the variability (ostensibly) is not found in the target. Instead, it occurs among learners only, or at least among learners at certain points along the developmental trajectory. The envelope of variation that he identified consisted of semantically plural count nouns. Young’s analysis centered on two general variants: the presence and absence of an English plural morpheme. Whereas with Type II variation, SLA researchers focus on variants that native speakers use

Usage and variationist approaches 71

to convey the variable structure, with Type I variation at least one of the variants is not used among native speakers or bilinguals for the linguistic structure under investigation. The justification behind the constraints that researchers investigate is another difference between Type I and Type II variation. As seen with subject expression in Spanish, an example of Type II variation, researchers analyzed both constraints that were found in the target (e.g., referent continuity) and those that were not (e.g., placement type). For Type I, however, the constraints are centered on learner behavior, again because native speakers do not exhibit variation with Type I structures. Examples of constraints that Young (1991) investigated include the social factor of the ethnicity of the interviewer and the linguistic factor of the preceding phonological segment (p. 123). The results showed that the ethnicity of the interviewer did not significantly influence plural marking and that the preceding phonological segment was important. Specifically, preceding non-sibilant fricatives, vowels, and stops promoted plural marking, whereas nasals, sibilants, and laterals did not. In brief, Type II variation has been investigated more thoroughly in variationist SLA, given its connection to sociolinguistics, and receives greater attention in the current chapter. However, I discuss Type I variation as well because it is not only an important part of variationist SLA research but also in certain ways, such as the learning task, it differs from Type II variation. In what follows, I further explore variationist SLA by discussing three issues: what counts as usage in this line of inquiry, what the learning tasks are, and how usage leads to additional-language learning. 4.2 What counts as usage in variationist SLA?

In variationist SLA, usage refers to language behavior, which includes, for example, not only language production but also the interpretation and perception of the input to which language learners and users are exposed. These different facets of usage (e.g., production, interpretation) reflect the fact that language production does not exist in isolation; it is connected to language input, language attitudes, etc. Namely, just as “native speakers … of a language interpret utterances according to context and … vary their own production based on features of the linguistic, social, and interactional setting” (Geeslin & Hanson, 2023, p. 41), research has shown that learners develop the ability to vary their usage based on an array of linguistic and extralinguistic factors (Geeslin with Long, 2014). For this reason, in the current chapter, I use the term usage to refer more generally to language behavior and I limit the term use to refer to language production. Variationist SLA is particularly interested in explaining variable usage patterns found in the occurrence of specific linguistic structures, be they cases of Type I or Type II variation. These patterns emerge in interaction

72  Usage and variationist approaches

(i.e., communication) and consist of three general characteristics for a given linguistic phenomenon: the inventory of variants that are in variation, the frequency with which each variant occurs, and the multitude of linguistic and social factors that simultaneously influence the distribution of the variants. The third characteristic is connected to a central tenet of the variationist perspective, which is that a purely linguistic or purely social account of usage would be incomplete (Geeslin with Long, 2014, p. 162). Kanwit (2017) illustrates all three characteristics of usage in his investigation of future-time reference in Spanish, an example of Type II variation. The participants were additional-language learners who were at five different instructional levels of university study (Level 1 being the lowest instructional level and Level 5 the most advanced) and a group of bilingual native speakers. They completed an oral personal prompt response task, in which most of the prompts were future-time oriented. Kanwit’s assessment of the inventory of variants identified seven verb forms that were used by all participant groups to express futurity: present indicative, periphrastic future, morphological future, lexical future, present subjunctive, conditional, and progressive forms. In terms of the frequency of use of the variants, the results showed, for example, that the learners at Levels 1 through 3 used the present indicative most often, whereas the most frequent form for Levels 4 and 5 and the native speakers was the periphrastic future. In order to determine the constraints that influenced the use of future-time verb forms, he focused the regression analyses on the four most frequent forms: the periphrastic future, the morphological future, the present indicative, and lexical futures. His analysis consisted of five linguistic factors and one extralinguistic factor (i.e., preceding tense-mood-aspect, verb type, person/number of the verb, temporal distance, adverb, and study-abroad location; see Kanwit, 2017, for details). For Level 4, for instance, one of the linguistic factors that was important was temporal distance. These learners were more likely to use lexical futures compared to the periphrastic future when the event was more than a year away, but the periphrastic future was more likely than lexical futures in immediate and later-today contexts. Regarding the extralinguistic factor of study-abroad location, the Level 4 learners who had not studied abroad were more likely to use the morphological future compared to Level 4 participants who had studied in Mexico or Spain (p. 482). These characteristics of usage can also be seen in the case of Type I variation. Gudmestad et al. (2021) examined grammatical gender marking among additional-language learners of Spanish in the LANGNSAP corpus (Mitchell et al., 2017, available at https://slabank​.talkbank​.org​/access/ and http://langsnap​.soton​.ac​.uk), a longitudinal corpus that tracks learners over a time span of 21 months and that includes an academic year in the target-language environment. The data came from three production tasks:

Usage and variationist approaches 73

an oral interview, an oral narrative, and a written argumentative essay. We investigated variability in the use of modifier gender in noun-modifier (i.e., determiners and adjectives) pairs. The repertoire of forms consisted of modifiers that were overtly marked for feminine gender, modifiers that were overtly marked for masculine gender, and modifiers that were not overtly marked for gender, though the analysis excluded non-overtly marked modifiers. In terms of frequency, the mixed-effects model revealed three observations. One is that the learners were more likely to use feminine modifiers at the end of their stay abroad compared to before departure. The second is that their use of feminine modifiers was similar before studying abroad and eight months after returning home. Third, there was no change in their log-likelihood of using feminine modifiers between the end of their stay abroad and eight months after returning home. Finally, modifier type and task are examples of linguistic and extralinguistic factors, respectively, that influenced learners’ variable use of modifier gender. The results showed that the learners were more likely to use feminine modifiers with determiners compared to adjectives (modifier type) and on the written essay compared to the oral narrative task. It is worth highlighting that Kanwit (2017) and Gudmestad et al. (2021) are examples of variationist studies that examined language production. Analyses of this type of usage are common in variationist SLA, in part because they allow for the study of contextualized language usage.4 Given this framework’s recognition that language exists for the purpose of communication, observing usage in context—both linguistic and social context—tends to be important. This means that researchers often do not analyze language use that is devoid of context because it is through context that we are able to gather information about the constraints that shape variable usage. In other manifestations of usage, however, researchers have analyzed decontextualized language. In the case of interpretation and perception, variationist researchers in SLA have analyzed (largely) decontextualized language. Two examples of this type of work have been on Type II variation in Spanish. Kanwit and Geeslin (2014) investigated learners’ variable interpretation of verbal moods in adverbial clauses, as in (3). They were particularly interested in two possible interpretations of verbal mood: habitual and not yet occurred (p. 498) and the constraints that predicted these interpretations. In the interpretation task, participants were presented with a sentence that contained an independent clause and an adverbial clause only. There was no situational context or linguistic context beyond the level of the sentence in the instrument. Regarding perception, Escalante (2018) studied learners’ perception of /s/-weakening (e.g., the aspiration of /s/ in hasta “until”: [ah-ta]), a variable sound feature present in coastal Ecuador where the learners were living at the time of the study. Like Kanwit and

74  Usage and variationist approaches

Geeslin’s (2014) interpretation task, the perception instrument was void of situational context. The linguistic context provided to participants was even more restricted than the interpretation task: participants listened to a carrier phrase followed by a series of nonce words in Spanish. Escalante (2018) explored whether learners perceived [h] as a variant of /s/ and sought to identify the linguistic and extralinguistic constraints that conditioned their perception of the aspirated variant. In these aspects of usage (i.e., the interpretation and perception of variable structures), linguistic and social context is restricted so that learners attend only to the linguistic phenomenon of interest. This methodological decision can enable researchers to tap into the sociolinguistic features that learners have assigned (or not) to specific linguistic forms, without biasing these assessments by providing these linguistic and social cues in a data-collection instrument. One reason that investigations of interpretation and perception are valuable for advancing the understanding of Type II variable usage is that they allow researchers to determine whether learners have gained sensitivity to variation in the target before, perhaps, this sensitivity can be observed in their own language production (Geeslin & Hanson, 2023, p. 44). (3) Celebramos el cumpleaños de Julieta cuando Carlos nos visita [INDIC/visite [SUBJC]. “We celebrate Julieta’s birthday when Carlos visits us.” 4.3 What is the learning task in variationist SLA? 4.3.1 Type II variation

In the case of Type II variation, as previously defined, usage patterns of first-language speakers are variable, which indicates that the input to which learners are exposed is variable and the target of acquisition is also variable. In order to assess learners’ acquisition of a variable target, variationist SLA researchers typically use native speakers or highly proficient bilinguals as a benchmark for additional-language learning. I first discuss the identification of a baseline group and then describe the learning task in greater detail. Determining what the specific target of acquisition is entails identifying a native-speaker or bilingual group that is an appropriate baseline for the learner population under investigation. Regarding scholarship in which learners are located in the target-language environment, researchers have often collected usage data from native speakers who live in the same location where the learners are studying or living.5 Salgado-Robles (2018) is one example of study-abroad research. He investigated variation between animate, indirect, third-person object pronouns in Spanish (le and la) among learners studying in Madrid, Spain. He compared learners’ variable usage to

Usage and variationist approaches 75

that of native speakers of Spanish who were from Madrid. A strength of this study is that many of the native-speaker participants knew the learners (e.g., friends, members of host families, p. 317). This characteristic bolsters the appropriateness of the comparative group because, for example, it is a way to capture some of the input learners receive in the target language. In a similar vein, Adamson and Regan (1991) investigated variable (ing) in English in words like eating and nothing (i.e., [iŋ] versus [ɪn]) among Vietnamese and Cambodian immigrants living in Philadelphia or Washington, D.C. in the United States. The comparison group consisted of native speakers of English living in Philadelphia. Choosing a native-speaker population that is located in the same community or geographical region as the learners helps researchers to take into account the regional variation that exists in language (i.e., the fact that the target of acquisition can vary geographically). There are also investigations of Type II variation among classroom learners who are not living in a target-language environment (e.g., classroom learners of French living in the United States). In these cases, learners are typically compared to a baseline group that consists of native speakers of the target language who live in the same community as the learners and are highly proficient in the dominant language of that community. In other words, the comparison group is bilingual. Kanwit’s (2017) study of future-time reference in Spanish illustrates this type of benchmark. He collected data from instructed learners and a group of Spanish-English bilinguals who were living in the same community. Another feature of this bilingual group is that they came from different Spanish-speaking regions. This diversity is important because the learner population was also exposed to different regional varieties of Spanish, through exposure such as study abroad and various instructors in Spanish classes who speak different dialects (Kanwit, 2017, p. 470). Crucially, in investigations where data are collected from learners and a benchmark group, all participants complete the same tasks. The advantage of this methodological decision is that the task, which is a source of variability, is controlled for (cf. Geeslin, 2010). In light of the variation found in native-speaker and bilingual usage, the learning task of variable structures for additional-language learners, therefore, is to gain sensitivity to variability in the input and to develop the ability to mirror these same variable patterns in their own usage. More specifically, targetlike variable usage consists of the three characteristics mentioned in the previous section: learners are faced with the acquisitional challenges of acquiring the complete repertoire of variants that express a variable structure, the frequency with which each variant occurs, and the ways in which the distribution of these variants is conditioned by linguistic and social factors. Gudmestad (2012) illustrates each of these learnability issues for variable mood distinction in Spanish. In this study, I investigated additional-language learners at five course levels and one group of bilingual

76  Usage and variationist approaches

native speakers. The findings demonstrated that each learner level and the native speakers used both variants—the subjunctive and indicative—in production tasks. In terms of the frequency of use of the variants, the learners’ use of the subjunctive increased, and their use of the indicative decreased as proficiency level increased. The most advanced group, Level 5, used each variant at a similar rate to the native speakers. Learners must also recognize the linguistic and extralinguistic constraints that condition the occurrence of verbal moods and the specific influence that these factors have on variation. I examined four linguistic constraints and one extralinguistic factor (i.e., semantic category, form regularity, time reference, hypotheticality, and task; see Gudmestad, 2012, for details), all of which were shown to predict native-speaker usage. The examination of the developmental trajectory using cross-sectional data revealed that as course level increased, learners gradually became sensitive to the same constraints that conditioned native speakers’ use of verbal moods. For instance, the extralinguistic factor of task was the only important factor for Level 1, and at Level 2 the linguistic factor of semantic category, in addition to task, predicted use.6 Once the learners reached Level 4, they were sensitive to the same five constraints that influenced native-speaker variation. Finally, while gaining sensitivity to a particular linguistic or extralinguistic constraint that conditions the usage of a given variable structure is part of the learning process, learners must also acquire the specific influence that a constraint has on variation. For example, one of the influential linguistic factors was time reference (i.e., whether the discourse context referred to past, present, or future time). The native speakers produced the subjunctive most often in future-time contexts and least often in past-time contexts. While this pattern was also observed for Level 5 learners, a different usage pattern was seen for Levels 3 and 4. Level 3 and 4 learners recognized that this linguistic constraint was important for variable mood use, but their distribution of the subjunctive and indicative moods across the categories of time reference differed from the native speakers (e.g., Level 4 used the subjunctive least often in futuretime contexts). Thus, Levels 3 and 4 needed more experience with Spanish in order to reach targetlike usage of verbal moods in different contexts of time reference. In short, Gudmestad (2012) demonstrates that the learning task of Type II variation is multidimensional. 4.3.2 Type I variation

The learning task for Type I variation differs from that of Type II variation because, in the case of the former, the target of acquisition is considered to be invariable. Learner usage of Type I structures contrasts with the target because it is variable between at least two forms—a targetlike form and a non-targetlike form—and conditioned by a range of linguistic

Usage and variationist approaches 77

and extralinguistic factors, whereas usage among first-language speakers appears to be categorical (i.e., speakers use just one form). This means that learners are faced with the acquisitional challenge of decreasing or eliminating variability if the goal is to achieve the categorical usage observed among native speakers. Their learning tasks are to phase out both the nontargetlike form and their sensitivity to linguistic and extralinguistic factors. Picoral and Carvalho (2020) offer an example of a Type I variation study. They investigated preposition + article contractions in Portuguese among learners acquiring Portuguese as a third language. Certain prepositions in Portuguese (a “to”, de “from”, em “in”, por “by”) obligatorily contract with the following article. For example, de “from” followed by the feminine plural definite article as contracts to das “from the” (Picoral & Carvalho, 2020, p. 4). In their examination of written data, they found that, overall, learners’ use of the contracted form was high. They also observed that two linguistic factors (preposition and article number) and one extralinguistic factor (proficiency in Portuguese) predicted variability between the targetlike (contracted) and non-targetlike (not contracted) forms. The results showed that learners were most likely to contract a and least likely to contract por and that singular articles favored contraction whereas plural ones did not. Understanding the influence of these linguistic factors is important because, even though they do not correspond to targetlike norms, they show that learners’ non-targetlike patterns are systematic. Picoral and Carvalho’s findings also revealed that as proficiency in Portuguese increased, learners were more likely to produce preposition + article contractions. In other words, as learners became more proficient, there was a reduction in variability and learners moved toward the categorical target. In sum, although the particular acquisitional challenges differ between Type I and Type II variation, they are similar in that learners are faced with multifaceted learning tasks in order to move toward targetlike usage. 4.4 How does usage lead to learning in variationist SLA?

The psycholinguistic model of interlanguage variation developed by Dennis Preston (2000, inter alia) provides “the conceptualization of how language is acquired, stored, and used from a psycholinguistic or cognitive perspective” (Geeslin with Long, 2014, p. 162). This model consists of three levels: Level I pertains to social factors, Level II to linguistic factors, and Level III to time. Together the different components of this theoretical model provide explanations of how usage leads to learning. After presenting each of these levels in turn, I discuss the contribution that this model makes to variationist SLA’s understanding of how usage promotes learning.

78  Usage and variationist approaches

Level I concerns the influence that social constraints have on the occurrence of linguistic forms used to convey a given linguistic structure. At its inception, variationist sociolinguistics investigated macrosociological variables that corresponded to demographic characteristics of speakers, such as gender, socioeconomic status, and age (Eckert, 2012, pp. 88–89).7 Two of the social factors that have been investigated in variationist SLA are the gender and social class of the learner. Regan et al. (2009) is an example of a study that analyzed both constraints. They analyzed nous and on, two subject pronouns in French that are in variation when they convey the function of first-person-plural subjects (a case of Type II variation). Their findings revealed that among Irish learners of French who were studying in France, middle-class learners and men favored the informal variant on more than upper-class learners and women. In addition to macro-level social factors, variationist SLA researchers have expanded the scope of Level I to include extralinguistic constraints more broadly so that they include factors related to other characteristics of learners, the learning context, and, in the case of studies on language production, the speech context (Geeslin with Long, 2014, pp. 155–156). For instance, Li (2014) investigated variable subject expression in Mandarin Chinese (i.e., variation between unexpressed subjects and overt pronouns; another Type II variable structure). She included in her analysis the macrosociological factor of gender and four extralinguistic factors that are traits of the learners and of the speech context. Native language, proficiency level, and length of residence in China were the individual characteristics and discourse context (called task in other studies) pertains to the speech context. She found that all of these non-linguistic factors constrained the use of subject expression. For gender, women favored and men disfavored the use of overt subject pronouns. Native speakers of Russian and English favored overt subject pronouns in Mandarin Chinese more than the Japanese and Korean speakers. Moreover, intermediate-level learners were more likely to use overt pronouns than advanced-level learners, and learners who had been living in China for three or four years favored overt pronouns, whereas those who had been in China for a year disfavored them. Finally, regarding the discourse context factor, the two oral-production tasks that the participants completed were an informal interview and a narrative retelling of the short film The Pear Story (Chafe, 1980). While there was no clear difference in the use of subject forms in the interview, the learners favored unexpressed subjects in the narrative task. Li (2014) showcases the range of some of the Level I factors that researchers have investigated and demonstrates that multiple extralinguistic constraints can be examined in a single study. Regarding Level II of the psycholinguistic model of interlanguage variation, these linguistic constraints are directly connected to (or hypothesized to be associated with) usage of the linguistic structure under investigation

Usage and variationist approaches 79

and not necessarily to language globally. This is why, for example, native language and proficiency level are considered to be extralinguistic factors. I briefly discuss investigations of two different variable structures in order to illustrate how diverse the linguistic constraints can be. Given this goal, I focus on the constraints themselves, rather than the particular effects that these factors have on the variable structures under investigation. First, returning to Li’s (2014) study of variable subject expression in Mandarin Chinese, she examined four linguistic factors—the person and number of the subject, sentence type, specificity of the subject referent, and coreference—all of which were shown to condition learner use of subject forms in a regression analysis. The person and number of the subject distinguished not only between grammatical persons and singular and plural subjects but also between animate and inanimate referents in the third person.8 Sentence type differentiated between declarative statements, interrogatives, and imperatives and specificity distinguished between specific and nonspecific referents. On the one hand, factors like person and number and specificity of the referent have been examined in research on subject expression in other languages and found to be important for learners (see Geeslin & Gudmestad, 2008, for Spanish). Thus, they have crosslinguistic relevance. On the other hand, coreference demonstrates that linguistic constraints can shed light on unique features of a given language. Li (2014) offered the following description of coreference: [Coreference is] relevant to one of the prominent features in Chinese— namely, topic chain …—in which a subject coreference may occur in the preceding clause as an object, as a fronted topic, or in other sentence positions, even though there is a switch in subject referent. Therefore, regarding treatment of coreference in this study, if there is a switch in the subject referent from the one in the preceding clause, it is coded as switch and, if not, as no switch. Additionally, if the underlying entities of the subjects in two adjacent clauses are the same, it is coded as same underlying … or, if they partially overlap, it is coded as partial overlap … (p. 48, italics in the original) Li’s explanation shows that this factor is quite complex and includes categories that are specific to Mandarin Chinese. In another illustrative investigation, Meyerhoff and Schleef (2014) studied first-language speakers of Polish, who were living in Edinburgh, Scotland and learning English as an additional language. Word-final (t) glottaling was one of the variable structures that they examined. This phonological feature refers to the variable use of [ʔ] and [t] (or other stops) in word-final position in words like night and about (Meyerhoff & Schleef, 2014, p. 106). They analyzed two groups of learners separately

80  Usage and variationist approaches

according to self-reported proficiency. Focusing here just on the linguistic constraints, the grammatical category of the word (e.g., pronoun, adjective, verb) conditioned use among the low-proficiency participants and preceding phonological context (vowel or nasal) constrained use among the learners with higher proficiency. They investigated three other linguistic constraints that did not influence the use of (t) glottaling in either learner group: following phonological context (e.g., stop, liquid, pause), number of syllables of the word, and word frequency as determined by an external corpus of British English. These five linguistic factors have often been examined in investigations of variable phonological structures, and in recent years, variationist SLA researchers have increasingly sought to account for the role that lexical frequency plays in the usage of a range of linguistic phenomena (Geeslin with Long, 2014). More generally, a strength of variationist approaches to SLA is that through careful attention to numerous linguistic constraints, researchers have been able to explain the systematic and complex patterns of variable usage in additional languages. Finally, Level III enables researchers to understand how variable usage changes along the developmental trajectory and has either been investigated using cross-sectional or longitudinal data. Beginning with an example of cross-sectional research, Geeslin (2000) studied the variable usage of copular verbs (ser and estar “to be”) in adjectival contexts in Spanish among four instructional levels of learners. She found that the frequency of occurrence of estar increased and the omission of a copular verb (i.e., ella inteligente “she intelligent”) decreased as the instructional level increased. Her analysis of the constraints that predicted the usage of copular verbs consisted of 11 linguistic constraints (e.g., animacy) and one extralinguistic factor (task). Regarding Level III of the psycholinguistic model of interlanguage variation, Geeslin (2000) examined each instructional level separately and made two general observations: The first is that certain contextual features are relevant at each level of acquisition and, thus, can be said to generalize across levels of proficiency. The second observation is that certain contextual features are only relevant at particular levels of development. These features contribute to the description of learner grammars at each level of attainment and in some cases are able to describe the change that occurs across levels of development. (p. 63) Thus, the cross-sectional analysis of Level I and Level II factors revealed evidence of stasis and change in learners’ usage of copular verbs in adjectival contexts as they became more proficient.

Usage and variationist approaches 81

Turning to longitudinal research, Regan et al. (2009) studied various Type II structures among Irish-speaking learners of French who spent a year in France. In their analysis of verbal negation (i.e., the presence or absence of the preverbal particle ne as in je (ne) sais pas “I don’t know”), they found that the learners increased their rate of ne deletion after their time abroad in France, moving closer to targetlike rates of omission. They also gained greater sensitivity to the constraints that condition verbal negation among native speakers of French, and in some cases, they overgeneralized targetlike patterns. This latter observation was seen with the style constraint. The learners were similar to native speakers of French in that they retained ne more in formal speech compared to casual speech. However, after a year abroad, the learners increased their deletion of ne in formal speech, which the researchers argued is an overgeneralization of native-speaker patterns. Whether researchers investigate time directly with longitudinal data or indirectly with cross-sectional data, central to variationist SLA’s investigation of language learning are the ways in which time (Level III) interacts with linguistic and extralinguistic constraints (Levels II and I, respectively). In particular, variationist studies are able to explain how variable usage evolves during the acquisitional process and how learners’ sensitivity to linguistic and extralinguistic constraints changes along the developmental trajectory. By using a metaphor of a coin toss, Preston (2000) explained usage and the learning of variation in probabilistic terms. In the case of a linguistic structure with two forms or variants, he wrote: a speaker (and I will operate on a speaker- rather than hearer-focused model) is equipped with a coin, the two sides of which represent the options for that variable [i.e., linguistic structure]; it is flipped before the product appears … the more weight you added to one side, the greater the probability it would come up on the other side. (Preston, 2000, p. 11) The three levels in the psycholinguistic model of interlanguage variation condition the weight that each side of the coin has. In other words, extralinguistic and linguistic factors and time all influence the patterns of variable usage and the learning of these patterns. For example, in Regan et al.’s (2009) study of variation between nous and on to convey first-personplural subjects in French, we see that the coin is weighted in favor of the informal variant on among men (Level I), when the wording preceding the subject pronoun ends in a consonant (Level II), and after a year abroad in France (Level III). In contrast, the coin is weighted in favor of the formal variant nous among women (Level I), when the word preceding the subject pronoun ends in a vowel or glide or the preceding segment is a pause or

82  Usage and variationist approaches

hesitation (Level II), and when the learners had been in France for a length of stay between 0 and 20 days (Level III). Importantly, from the perspective of variationist SLA, learning happens through interaction, which involves both exposure to the target language (i.e., input) and opportunities for language production, and this interaction allows for usage to take place and for variable patterns to emerge and change. 4.5 Conclusion

Variationist SLA is a framework that enables researchers to uncover rich explanations of variable usage in additional languages. In terms of the developmental trajectory, the learning tasks for Type I and Type II variation are multifaceted and involve gaining or diminishing sensitivity to both the linguistic and social features of language. This approach, furthermore, has shed important light on the variable nature of language learning by demonstrating how complex and systematic patterns of variable usage evolve. Despite the contributions that variationist SLA has made to the understanding of additional-language acquisition, it faces challenges moving forward. I conclude by briefly identifying three. For one, although social constraints (i.e., Level I of the psycholinguistic model of interlanguage variation) are a key component of understanding variable usage and development, extralinguistic factors are understudied in comparison to linguistic constraints (Level II of the model). While this imbalance is in part due to the instrumental role that linguistic factors play in language variation and change (Preston, 1989), this characteristic of existing research also means that there is still much to be learned about how extralinguistic factors (e.g., race and ethnicity, gender and sexuality) shape additional-language usage and acquisition. Scholarship on social dimensions of language is not only important for gaining a deeper understanding of variable usage but also crucial for SLA more generally in light of the field’s strong cognitivist orientation at the outset (e.g., Atkinson, 2011). A second challenge pertains to the fact that a stronger base of knowledge about learners’ variable usage in language production exists compared to other instances of usage. Studies on interpretation and perception have been gaining ground recently, but we still have a lot to learn about how learners interpret and perceive variable patterns in language. This work is valuable because interpretation and perception are an essential part of communication and usage. And, as previously discussed, learners may be able to perceive and interpret linguistic forms that they are not able to use, so studies on interpretation and perception can contribute to a more complete understanding of learner usage and development (Geeslin & Hanson, 2023, p. 44). Lastly, as mentioned earlier in this chapter, most variationist SLA scholarship has focused on Type II variation, which in turn connotes that an overarching goal of this framework

Usage and variationist approaches 83

has been to advance knowledge of sociolinguistic competence. While this is a valuable objective, greater attention to Type I variation, which is not narrowly focused on sociolinguistic competence, may help variationist SLA find new ways to engage with other areas of research in SLA. Variationist research that addresses other issues may help this line of inquiry to broaden the contributions it makes to the field (see, for example, Gudmestad & Edmonds, 2022, which is a variationist study of Type I variation that investigates crosslinguistic influence—a key issue in SLA) because sociolinguistic competence is not a chief concern of all frameworks and subfields of SLA. Discussion questions

1. Research on lexical and discourse-pragmatic Type II variation is understudied in variationist SLA. Identify a lexical or discourse-pragmatic structure that is variable in a language that you know and formulate hypotheses about the linguistic and extralinguistic factors that may condition variable usage of this structure among additional-language learners. 2. Identify two extralinguistic factors that have been investigated in other SLA frameworks and that are not mentioned in this chapter, and then discuss how the investigation of these factors could be fruitfully applied to a variationist investigation of Type I or Type II variation. 3. What are two specific ways in which Type I variation research has the potential to contribute to the understanding of language learning more generally? Explain why variationist SLA is in a position to make a valuable contribution to these areas of research. 4. Research on perception and interpretation lags behind studies on production. Identify a linguistic structure that is variable in a language that you know and formulate hypotheses about the linguistic and extralinguistic factors that may influence variable perception or interpretation of this structure among additional-language learners. Notes 1 See Geeslin (2022) for information on research methods in variationist SLA. 2 Currently, however, both lines of inquiry arguably have a symbiotic relationship, as insights from work on additional-language learners have helped to inform research in sociolinguistics (e.g., Carmichael & Gudmestad, 2019; Gudmestad et al., 2013). 3 I use the terms variation and variability interchangeably in this chapter. 4 See Gudmestad (2022) for a discussion of the role of context in the selection of variable forms using a written contextualized task. 5 In investigations where researchers are interested in making observations about targetlikeness but have not collected data from native speakers, comparisons have been made with previously published studies of native speakers (e.g., Regan et al., 2009).

84  Usage and variationist approaches

6 All participants completed three oral-production tasks, ranging from a highly controlled instrument to one that allowed for free production. Semantic category refers to the preverbal governors (adverbs, independent clauses) that can encourage the use of a particular mood. 7 This is called the first wave of variationist sociolinguistics. For an overview of the first, second, and third waves, see Eckert (2012). Variationist SLA research tends to correspond most closely to the first wave. 8 All first- and second-person subjects were animate.

References Adamson, H. D., & Regan, V. M. (1991). The acquisition of community speech norms by Asian immigrants learning English as a second language: A preliminary study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13(1), 1–22. Atkinson, D. (Ed.). (2011). Alternative approaches to second language acquisition. Routledge. Bayley, R., & Escalante, C. (2022). Variationist approaches to second language acquisition. In K. Geeslin (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 3–16). Routledge. Bland, J., & Morgan, T. (2020). Geographic variation of voseo on Spanish Twitter. In D. Pascual y Cabo & I. Elola (Eds.), Current theoretical and applied perspectives on Hispanic and Lusophone linguistics (pp. 7–37). John Benjamins. Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1–47. Carmichael, K., & Gudmestad, A. (2019). Language death and subject expression: First-person-singular subjects in a declining dialect of Louisiana French. Journal of French Language Studies, 29(1), 67–91. Carvalho, A. M., Orozco, R., & Shin, N. (Eds.). (2015). Subject pronoun expression in Spanish: A cross-dialectal perspective. Georgetown University Press. Chafe, W. L. (1980). The pear stories: Cognitive, cultural, and linguistic aspects of narrative production. Ablex. Davydova, J., & Buchstaller, I. (2015). Expanding the circle to learner English: Investigating quotative marking in a German student community. American Speech, 90(4), 441–478. Donaldson, B. (2017). Negation in near-native French: Variation and sociolinguistic competence. Language Learning, 67(1), 141–170. Eckert, P. (2012). Three waves of variation study: The emergence of meaning in the study of sociolinguistic variation. Annual Review of Anthropology, 41(1), 87–100. Escalante, C. (2018). Perception of coda-/s/ weakening among L2 and heritage speakers of coastal Ecuador. EuroAmerican Journal of Applied Linguistics and Languages, 5(1), 1–26. Geeslin, K. L. (2000). A new approach to the second language acquisition of copula choice in Spanish. In R. Leow & C. Sanz (Eds.), Spanish applied linguistics at the turn of the millennium: Papers from the 1999 conference on the L1 and L2 acquisition of Spanish and Portuguese (pp. 50–66). Cascadilla Press. Geeslin, K. L. (2010). Beyond “naturalistic”: On the role of task characteristics and the importance of multiple elicitation methods. Studies in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics, 3(2), 501–520.

Usage and variationist approaches 85

Geeslin, K. L. (Ed.). (2022). The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and sociolinguistics. Routledge. Geeslin, K. L., & Gudmestad, A. (2008). Variable subject expression in secondlanguage Spanish: A comparison of native and non-native speakers. In M. Bowles, R. Foote, & S. Perpiñán (Eds.), Selected proceedings of the 2007 second language research forum (pp. 69–85). Cascadilla Proceedings Project. Geeslin, K. L., & Hanson, S. (2023). Sociolinguistic approaches to communicative competence. In M. Kanwit & M. Solon (Eds.), Communicative competence in a second language: Theory, method, and applications (pp. 40–59). Routledge. Geeslin, K. L., with Long, A. (2014). Sociolinguistics and second language acquisition. Routledge. Gudmestad, A. (2012). Acquiring a variable structure: An interlanguage analysis of second-language mood use in Spanish. Language Learning, 62(2), 373–402. Gudmestad, A. (2022). Eliciting variable structures across tasks. In K. L. Geeslin (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and sociolinguistics (pp. 224–236). Routledge. Gudmestad, A., & Edmonds, A. (2022). Exploring crosslinguistic influence in gender marking in Spanish. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 44(4), 998–1019. Gudmestad, A., & Edmonds, A. (2023). The variable use of first-person-singular subject forms during an academic year abroad. In S. Zahler, A. Y. Long, & B. Linford (Eds.), Study abroad and the second language acquisition of sociolinguistic variation in Spanish (pp. 266–290). John Benjamins. Gudmestad, A., Edmonds, A., & Metzger, T. (2021). Moving beyond the native-speaker bias in the analysis of variable gender marking. Frontiers in Communication, 6, 165. Gudmestad, A., House, L., & Geeslin, K. L. (2013). What a Bayesian analysis can do for SLA: New tools for the sociolinguistic study of subject expression in L2 Spanish. Language Learning, 63(3), 371–399. Hansen Edwards, J. G. (2011). Deletion of /t, d/ and the acquisition of linguistic variation by second language learners of English. Language Learning, 61(4), 1256–1301. Kanwit, M. (2017). What we gain by combining variationist and concept-oriented approaches: The case of acquiring Spanish future-time expression. Language Learning, 67(2), 461–498. Kanwit, M., & Geeslin, K. L. (2014). The interpretation of Spanish subjunctive and indicative forms in adverbial clauses: A cross-sectional study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 36(3), 487–533. Labov, W. (1972). Sociolinguistic patterns. University of Pennsylvania Press. Li, X. (2014). Variation in subject pronominal expression in L2 Chinese. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 36(1), 39–68. Meyerhoff, M., & Schleef, E. (2014). Hitting an Edinburgh target: Immigrant adolescents’ acquisition of variation in Edinburgh English. In R. Lawson (Ed.), Sociolinguistic in Scotland (pp. 103–128). Palgrave Macmillan. Mitchell, R., Tracy-Ventura, N., & McManus, K. (2017). Anglophone students abroad: Identity, social relationships, and language learning. Routledge. Nadasdi, T., Mougeon, R., & Rehner, K. (2008). Factors driving lexical variation in L2 French: A variationist study of automobile, auto, voiture, char and machine. Journal of French Language Studies, 18(3), 365–381.

86  Usage and variationist approaches

Picoral, A., & Carvalho, A. M. (2020). The acquisition of preposition + article contractions in L3 Portuguese among different L1-speaking learners: A variationist approach. Languages, 5(4), 45. Pozzi, R. (2021). Learner development of a morphosyntactic feature in Argentina: The case of vos. Languages, 6(4), 193. Preston, D. R. (1989). Sociolinguistics and second language acquisition. Blackwell. Preston, D. (2000). Three kinds of sociolinguistics and SLA: A psycholinguistic perspective. In B. Swierzbin, F. Morris, M. Anderson, C. Klee, & E. Tarone (Eds.), Social and cognitive factors in second language acquisition: Selected proceedings of the 1999 second language research forum (pp. 3–30). Cascadilla. Raish, M. (2015). The acquisition of an Egyptian phonological variant by U.S. students in Cairo. Foreign Language Annals, 48(2), 267–283. Regan, V., Howard, M., & Lemée, I. (2009). The acquisition of sociolinguistic competence in a study abroad context. Multilingual Matters. Rehner, K. (2002). The development of aspects of linguistic and discourse competence by advanced second language learners of French. Dissertation Abstracts International, 63, 12. Doctoral dissertation. Salgado-Robles, F. (2018). Efectos del contexto de inmersión en la competencia sociolingüística de EL2: La adquisición del laísmo madrileño. Círculo de Lingüística Aplicada a la Comunicación, 74, 307–332. Solon, M., Linford, B., & Geeslin, K. L. (2018). Acquisition of sociophonetic variation: Intervocalic /d/ reduction in native and nonnative Spanish. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada/Spanish Journal of Applied Linguistics, 31(1), 309–344. Tagliamonte, S. A. (2012). Variationist sociolinguistics: Change, observation, interpretation. Wiley-Blackwell. White, L., Valenzuela, E., Kozlowska-Macgregor, M., & Leung, Y-K. I. (2004). Gender and number agreement in nonnative Spanish. Applied Psycholinguistics, 25(1), 105–133. Young, R. (1991). Variation in interlanguage morphology. Peter Lang.

5 WHAT COUNTS AS USAGE IN DYNAMIC USAGE-BASED MODELS? Marjolijn Verspoor and Hans-Jörg Schmid

5.1 Introduction

The term usage-based was first coined by Ronald Langacker in 1987, and since that time,  usage-based models of language have become a significant new trend in linguistics with influential proponents of usage-based linguistics in first language acquisition such as  Michael Tomasello and diachronic language change such as Joan Bybee. The usage-based model adopts constructions, commonly regarded to be a conventionalized string of words, as the basic unit of form-meaning correspondence (Goldberg, 2006). Langacker (2000) argued that the usage-based system is a dynamic system because of the dynamic interactions between all the linguistic components and the dynamic interactions between speakers. Therefore, we prefer to call our own approach a Dynamic Usage-Based (DUB) account. And to stress the importance of use – which stands for the socio-pragmatic component that a conventionalized string of words may have – we call constructions or units Form-Usage-Meaning-Mappings (FUMMs; Verspoor, 2017). Generally speaking, a DUB account regards language as a network of FUMMs. Linguistic forms such as words and fixed and variable patterns are seen as being mapped onto usage-dependent meanings, in a way similar to the notion of constructions as form-meaning pairings in Construction Grammar (e.g., Croft, 2001; Goldberg, 1995, 2006; Hilpert, 2019). These mappings are conventionalized on the communal level of speech communities and represented in the minds of the members of speech communities. The key mission of DUB approaches is to understand how FUMMs become established and are sustained on both the DOI: 10.4324/9781032668475-5

88  Usage in Dynamic Usage-Based models

communal macro-level and the cognitive micro-level. Usage is assumed to play a central role by mediating between the two levels and establishing and tallying the communal conventions and individual representations subserving FUMMs. While DUB approaches come in various brands and flavors, they are generally united by the following assumptions about language, language development and language learning:

• language is inherently dynamic and variable; • language is not an autonomous faculty but makes use of domain-general

processing and learning mechanisms such as association, categorization, automatization or schematization; • language learning – of first, second, and other languages (L1, L2, and Ln) – is based on and emerges from experience in situated usage events in a non-linear and individual manner, in spite of evidence of common pathways of development. In the present contribution, we will discuss these assumptions with a focus on the role of usage. Our discussion will be tied to one variant of DUB approaches, the so-called Entrenchment-and-Conventionalization Model (or EC-Model) developed by the second author (see Schmid, 2015, 2020). This model will first be introduced (Section 5.2) and then serve as a background for discussions of usage in DUB approaches (Section 5.3), the development of language over time from a DUB perspective (Section 5.4) and DUB implications for L2 learning and instruction (Section 5.5). 5.2 The Entrenchment-and-Conventionalization Model as a Dynamic Usage-Based model

The design of the EC-Model is inspired by a range of usage-based, cognitive-linguistic, socio-cognitive and complex-adaptive approaches to language (Barlow & Kemmer, 2000; Bybee, 2010; Croft, 2009; Kretzschmar, 2015; Langacker, 1988). The model strongly emphasizes the usage-dependent, dynamic and variable nature of linguistic systems. These characteristics of language are seen to emerge from the interaction of three components:

• usage: the use of language for the purpose of communication in situated usage events;

• conventionalization: social processes that create and sustain linguistic conventions in a community of speakers; • entrenchment: cognitive processes that create and sustain linguistic representations in the minds of speakers.

Usage in Dynamic Usage-Based models 89

Conventionalization and entrenchment can only “meet” via usage, which takes place in situated usage events. In Schmid (2020), the way in which usage, conventionalization and entrenchment interact is illustrated with the help of the so-called Tinguely machine represented in Figure 5.1. Inspired by the works of Swiss artist Jean Tinguely, the figure depicts three wheels connected by belts or chains. The source of energy, putting the inner wheel of this machine into motion, comes from speakers engaging in repeated linguistic usage events for communicative purposes. As soon as similar situated usage events – represented by the unruly bunch of black circles – are repeated, the inner wheel and the two outer wheels start to revolve. This is meant to indicate that whenever speakers use language, two types of processes take place: social conventionalization processes operating over regularities of behavior (i.e. conventions), depicted on the left, and cognitive entrenchment processes, operating over patterns of associations, shown on the right. For example, whenever a word-form (e.g. dog, smiled or children) is repeated in a usage event, this has a reinforcing effect on the conventionality of the given forms and meanings in the community and on the strength of the corresponding mental representations of those participating in the usage event. Regarding conventionalization, existing conventions are exploited by speakers in order to be communicatively successful. If the speaker adheres to conventionalized regularities of behavior, such as referring to a dog by using the word dog, communication is more likely to be efficient and successful than when they decide to use words like cat or pencil instead to refer to a dog. At the same time, by virtue of being used, existing conventions are sustained in their conventionality. That is, every single use of the word dog in reference to a dog will confirm and perpetuate the conventional usage-based mapping Community/Society: Conventionalization

Usage: repeated usage events

. regularities of behaviou ns, i.e r ntio e v con

FIGURE 5.1  The

Cognition/Mind: Entrenchment feedback cycle

patterns of associations

Tinguely-machine model of how language works (adapted from Schmid, 2020, p.4)

90  Usage in Dynamic Usage-Based models

of the form dog onto the meaning “dog”. As is suggested by the idea of a self-reinforcing feedback loop, situated usage events thus rely on conventions, while conventions are in turn refreshed by usage. Newly emerging conventions such as neologisms become gradually conventionalized by this feedback-loop mechanism. All things being equal, the more often speakers use and hear (fairly) new words like glamping (a blend derived from glamorous camping) or hangry (a blend of hungry and angry) the more likely it is that these words will catch on. In short, the frequency of repetition plays a central role in keeping conventionalization going. Generally speaking, the more frequently a given regularity is refreshed, the more firmly it becomes conventionalized; the more conventionalized it has become, the more often it will be used again, due to its efficiency for communication. The entrenchment-feedback cycle shown on the right works in an analogous manner. We regard entrenchment as a frequency-driven routinization process (Bybee, 1985, p. 117; Langacker, 1987, p. 59; Schmid, 2017a, 2017b, 2017c). Routinization affects the strengths of patterns of associations of various types (see below for details) in the associative network that are activated when processing FUMMs. The more frequently such a pattern has become activated, the more strongly it will become entrenched; and the more strongly it is entrenched, the more readily it will be activated for another situated usage event. Conventionalization and entrenchment are not driven and controlled by frequency alone, however. If this were the case, frequent FUMMs would become more and more conventionalized and entrenched, while rare ones would eventually drop out of the language, due to missing refreshment by usage. Rather, usage, conventionalization and entrenchment are modulated by a large number of cognitive, emotive-affective, pragmatic and social forces (Schmid, 2015, 2016, 2020). In the present context, we focus on those forces that affect the individual learner of L1, L2 or Ln in language learning. In research on L2 and Ln learning, cognitive and emotive forces are often studied in terms of individual differences, aptitude, anxiety, willingness to communicate, motivation and so on (Ehrman et al., 2003). Generally speaking, cognitive forces involve the ability to perceive and process similarity (things are similar), contiguity (things occur together), salience (things stand out), categorization (things belong to a similar class or not) and gestalt processing (configurations of elements are seen as a whole) (Schmid, 2015, 2016, 2020). Emotive-affective forces include all kinds of personality aspects such as the degree of egocentrism and positive or negative emotion, and the need for admiration, fun and empathy (Schmid, 2015, 2016). As the learner wants to participate in a target language community, they need to recognize the pragmatic forces, which involve recognizing settings, the role of participants, specific event types and the intentions and goals in communication. For example, the learner needs to recognize

Usage in Dynamic Usage-Based models 91

that an utterance such as it was nice to meet you is used to take leave of a person one has met for the first time. The expression is somewhat formal and shows respect, but it would be somewhat inappropriate between two teenagers. Also for the L2 learner, depending on where and how they learn the language social forces are important: social networks, identity, solidarity, peer-group pressure and prestige play a role both in a classroom setting and in a more natural L2 setting. Overall, the model provides a general explanation of how and why speakers share conventions and acquire linguistic representations of these conventions. The dynamic image conjured up by the machine in Figure 5.1 highlights the inherently flexible and variable nature of language. In order to emphasize these characteristics even more, FUMMs are not conceptualized as rules or discrete constructions, but as affordances in a space charted by four dimensions:

• the symbolic dimension of links between forms and meanings and mean-

ings and forms, e.g. between the form table and the meaning “piece of furniture with a flat surface, used for eating, working etc.”, “list of numbers or facts”, or the meaning “positive evaluation” and forms such as good, great, brilliant or cool; • the syntagmatic dimension of links between forms and meanings arranged in linear order, e.g. in the sequence good to see you or the complementation of fond by of or prone by to; • the paradigmatic dimension of links between competing forms and meanings, e.g. the opposition between the pronouns he, she and it or the nearsynonymous relation among the adjectives good, great, brilliant etc.; • and the socio-pragmatic dimension linking forms and meanings to situational and social contexts as well as communities of users, e.g. the associations between the word cool and young speakers, the expression jolly good and older speakers and the word cute and female speakers. All four dimensions apply to the communal level of conventions and to the cognitive level of associations so that we get four types of regularities of linguistic behavior (on the communal level) and four corresponding types of associations (on the cognitive level). It is important to keep these two levels apart since the associative networks of individual speakers are inevitably selective representations of the regularities that can be observed in the community at large. For example, the community may have lexical symbolic affordances for distinguishing hundreds or even thousands of different shades of colors in the color spectrum, while many individual speakers may not have representations of more than 20 or 30 color terms. As Figure 5.1 suggests, repeated situated usage events provide the gateway and input to the conventionalization and entrenchment cycle.

92  Usage in Dynamic Usage-Based models

Therefore, to understand the role of usage in the EC-Model and DUB approaches in general, it is necessary to zoom in on situated usage events and explain what exactly it is that they feed into the communal and mental linguistic systems. 5.3 Usage in the EC-Model and Dynamic Usage-Based models

In line with other variants of Dynamic Usage-Based models, the EC-Model claims that all aspects of situated usage events can serve as input to conventionalization and entrenchment: not only the mappings of forms onto meanings and vice versa, i.e. the core formal and semantic components of words and constructions, but all recurring aspects that are associated with situated usage events. Langacker’s (2016) description of such events spells out these aspects: units emerge from usage events – instances of language use in the full detail of their contextual apprehension – by the reinforcement of recurring commonalities. One recurring feature is the very fact that the speaker and hearer are interacting by using the language in question. Hence the ground (the interlocutors, their interaction, and its circumstances) figures at least peripherally in the import of every unit. Indeed, abstracted units can incorporate any facet of the speech situation common to the usage events giving rise to them, such as the following: age, gender, and status of the interlocutors; their social relationship; nature of the occasion; degree of formality; attitudinal, emotive, and affective factors; and the language (or conceived linguistic variety) employed. (Langacker, 2016, p. 469) A scene from the well-known romantic comedy Notting Hill starring Julia Roberts as Anna Scott and Hugh Grant as Will Thacker may serve to illustrate this. The “ground” is the scene, set in Will’s bookshop in Notting Hill, London. Anna, a famous movie star, has come to see Will to propose a longer-term relationship following two occasions where she let him down. Will denies her proposal, referring to their different backgrounds and to the risk of undergoing further and irreparable emotional damage. Before leaving, Anna drops the frequently quoted line: “I am also just a girl, standing in front of a boy, asking him to love her”. A visualization of a rich conception of this situated usage event is given in Figure 5.2. The main components of usage events are:

• the utterance itself; • the speaker and hearer including their communicative goals, mental representations of meanings, emotions and social characteristics;

• the situational context as well as the wider socio-cultural context;

Usage in Dynamic Usage-Based models 93

co-semiosis setting: bookshop social relations: lovers activity type: sorting out relationship communicative goal: persuade Will speaker meaning: ‘I am in love with you and not so Speaker: special after all’ Anna Scott speaker emotion: love social characteristics: female, American, famous actor

situational context Utterance I am also just a girl, standing in front of a boy, asking him to love her. socio-cultural context male-female love affair Western society US vs. UK glamour vs. everyday ‘bloke’

communicative goal: resist Anna hearer meaning: ‘she is very special after all’ hearer emotions: love, Hearer: Will Thacker lack of trust, awareness of disappointment social characteristics: male, English, runs a book shop

co-semiosis

FIGURE 5.2  Illustration

of “rich” situated usage event

• the process of co-semiosis, i.e. the joint activity of working towards a

mutual belief of mutual understanding, based on perception and projection of all other components.

The “recurring commonalities” that become conventionalized and entrenched can be described along the four dimensions introduced above:

• symbolic: the regularities and association linking the forms of content words such as girl, stand, boy or love to meanings; • syntagmatic: the regularities and associations reflected in recurrent sequences such as I am … a girl, standing in front of or asking him to; • paradigmatic: the regularities and associations connecting oppositions such as girl vs. boy or him vs. her; • contextual-social: the regularities and associations related to all components of the situated usage event, e.g. the deictic reference of I to the speaker, the humble self-reference of Anna as just a girl, the social relations and shared history between speaker and hearer and the highly special activity type.

From the perspective of DUB approaches, it is important to emphasize two points here. First, co-semiosis at the utterance level in any situated usage event relies on the numerous associations that are made to the here and now as well as the past to process an intended message. All these associations can be sedimented in entrenched and conventionalized FUMMs (as is underlined by the term usage in the notion of Form-Usage-MeaningMappings). Second, the utterance component relies on conventions and associations that are much more specific and idiosyncratic than is suggested

94  Usage in Dynamic Usage-Based models

by the traditional notion that linguistic knowledge consists of grammatical and lexical knowledge. This specificity, too, can relate to all aspects of situated usage events, from the components of the utterance itself to all contextual aspects. Once more, it is worth quoting Langacker: Native speakers control an immense inventory of conventional expressions and patterns of expression enabling them to handle a continuous flow of rapid speech. While they can certainly be included, I am not referring to lexical items of the sort found in dictionaries, nor even to recognized idioms. At issue instead are particular ways of phrasing certain notions out of all the ways they could in principle be expressed in accordance with lexicon and grammar of the language. These units can be of any size, ranging from standard collocations to large chunks of boilerplate language. These can be fully specific or partially schematic, allowing options in certain positions. (Langacker, 2008, p. 84) Taken together, the notion of usage discussed so far and its relation to conventionalization and entrenchment outlines three key aspects of language learning:

• the mission of language learning is ambitious: for a learner, be it L1, L2, or

Ln, in order to become proficient in the language of a target speech community, it is not enough to learn words and grammatical rules. Instead, it is essential to become so familiar with the conventionalized ways of phrasing certain notions in particular situated contexts that they become entrenched and can be used in a continuous flow of communication; • the affordances that are available for language learning are rich and variable: learners can recruit affordances from all four dimensions of regularity and association in a very eclectic manner. For example, to “learn” the phrase many happy returns, a fairly simple contextual mapping of the given chunk to the recurrent function and context of birthday congratulations is both sufficient and helpful. For learning that it is conventional to say something like she devoured the book, a more complex pattern of symbolic, paradigmatic, syntagmatic and pragmatic associations is required, and again also helpful, for understanding the metaphorical motivation and meaning of the verb devour in this context; • language learning unfolds in an individual, experience-based, incremental and piecemeal manner: learning comes down to shaping – by experience and resulting entrenchment – the vast associative network that hosts all linguistic knowledge. The construction of this network happens in various places at the same time, using all types of available information, with increasing connections and resonance within the network.

Usage in Dynamic Usage-Based models 95

And each learner will of course construct their own network on the basis of their usage experience and a wide range of other cognitive-affective factors (e.g. age, motivation, attention span, etc.). In the next section, we will illustrate these points and support them with evidence from empirical studies. 5.4 Development over time from a Dynamic Usage-Based perspective

From the EC-Model it is clear that learners need repetition of similar utterance activities before strong associations in all four dimensions have been formed and can become routinized. This process is iterative and yet dynamic. Each new “exposure” to a similar event is slightly different because situated usage events are never identical. This is not only because wordings, pronunciations and contexts differ, but also because the learning environment keeps changing over time with interlocutors such as teachers and peers adapting to each other over time. Learners’ associative networks are constantly under construction, hence the prerequisites for learning never stay the same. Thus, what a learner “picks up” from the input and how they use it depends on “initial conditions” such as whether it is their L1 or, in the case of L2 and Ln learning, their age, proficiency, L1, willingness to invest energy and motivation at the time. With regard to L1, as Tomasello (2003) points out, very young children will first use their social-cognitive skills such as pattern-finding and intention-reading to discover FUMMs. When they start to speak, they will usually start with isolated items or small chunks such as “wanna go” or “whassa” (holophrases), but eventually they recognize the repeated sequential patterns and build up increasingly complex and abstract associative patterns as linguistic representations. Language acquisition is thus a bottom-up process based on an inventory of highly specific, item-based schemas that develop from pivot-like structures in a piecemeal fashion over the early childhood years (Tomasello, 2003). Contextual associations to situated usage events play a central role in the early development of the symbolic and syntagmatic associations subserving the meanings and forms of words and simple patterns. Paradigmatic associations are crucial for the ability to apply the important principle of contrast (Clark, 1987) and for constructing low-level schemas (in cooperation with syntagmatic associations). As pointed out above, the process of L1 learning is not linear but highly variable. For example, in a two-year longitudinal case study of a young German boy, it was found that he used many different plural forms of different words within a few weeks and sometimes even within one recorded session such as Voge-n, Vogel-n and Vögel-n as the plural for Vogel “bird”

96  Usage in Dynamic Usage-Based models

(target: Vögel), and Huhn-e, Hühn-e and Huhn-er for Huhn “chicken” (target: Hühn-er) before he settled on the target forms (Verspoor & Behrens, 2011). Apparently, his associative network offered a large number of contact points before the patterns of symbolic, syntagmatic and paradigmatic associations subserving the conventionalized adult variant became entrenched as an attractor in the network. The fact that children may use many different forms before they settle on a conventionalized target form has been common knowledge, but Thelen and Smith (1994) point out that such variability in human development is actually functional and essential. They argue that development is an individual, rather erratic, discovery process. The learner must discover, try out and practice each part of the process themselves, and this is accompanied by a great deal of trial and error, referred to as “variability”. They argue that variability is especially large during periods of rapid development in some subsystems because at that time the learner explores and tries out new strategies or modes of behavior that are not always successful and may therefore alternate with old strategies or modes of behavior (cf. Verspoor et al., 2021). This supports the idea that resonance can come from all parts of the network and in the form of all types of associations and that such multi-source resonance is helpful on the path toward the entrenchment of the target patterns. Moving to L2 learning, we can illustrate this variable process in more detail with a study originally conducted by Cancino et al. (1978) and discussed in terms of variability and variation by Verspoor et al. (2011). Cancino et al. (1978) traced the natural untutored acquisition of English negative constructions longitudinally for about ten months. Six native Spanish speakers of three different age groups who had been in the US for less than three months were interviewed twice a month in their homes. The main question was whether L2 development shows the same general four stages as those that had been described for L1 development: Stage 1: Stage 2: Stage 3: Stage 4:

No-V constructions, where the negative particle is sentence-external: e.g. no singing song, not the sun shining, Carolina no go play (a non-target construction) Don’t V constructions, where the negative is placed within the sentence: e.g. I don’t hear (a target construction) or He don’t swim (a non-target construction) Aux-neg constructions, where auxiliaries are used to form the negative (especially isn’t and can’t). For instance, You can’t tell her (a target construction) Analyzed do constructions, where grammatical constructions of “do” are used to form the negative (do not, doesn’t, does not, didn’t, did not). For instance One night I didn’t even have the light (a target construction)

Usage in Dynamic Usage-Based models 97

The authors calculated the proportion of each negating device used with a verb to the total number of negatives in any construction with nouns, adjectives or verbs. The results showed that even though in general the sequence was indeed from Stage 1 > 2 > 3 > 4 for the four younger learners, the older learners did not reach Stage 4. But more interestingly, each learner showed variability in the use of the constructions and each learner showed different patterns. We will illustrate this process with Jorge’s (13) data. Figure 5.3 shows that Jorge goes through the four stages observed in L1 learning, but not in clear, distinct stages. All construction types already occur at Time 1 and constructions of the different stages wane, wax and overlap. Especially early on there is a greater degree of variability in the use of the Stage 1 and 2 constructions as clear peaks for the No-V and Don’t V constructions show. From the perspective of the EC-Model, these findings can be explained as follows. It is likely that Jorge picked up some syntagmatically fixed Don’t V negations right from the start. The best candidates are the most frequent ones such as I don’t know, I don’t think or I don’t want to (unfortunately we do not have access to the original data to confirm this). For other main verbs, he started off by relying on the most frequent, formally stable and simple associative anchors for negating, i.e. the forms no and not. While these Stage-1 and Stage-2 types remain frequent – with some peaks and troughs perhaps reflecting local routinization processes – target utterances associated with Stages 3 and 4 start to pick up gradually as Jorge begins to jorge 80

No V don't V aux-neg analyzed don't

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0

5

FIGURE 5.3  Jorge’s

10

15

20

25

(13) development of negative constructions (from Verspoor et al., 2011, p. 66)

98  Usage in Dynamic Usage-Based models

form more abstract combinations of syntagmatic and paradigmatic associations (corresponding to “schemas”). Pragmatic associations to negation contexts are very likely to play a role throughout this development and could also explain the frequency peaks in the graph. Overall, the data reflects an incremental and nonlinear process of building up associative connections, first in a piecemeal and later in an increasingly organized manner, as the relevant parts of the associative network are fleshed out. The claim that learners each have their own unique developmental trajectories, showing high degrees of variability and changes in variability patterns has been corroborated by a great number of longitudinal, processbased studies with dense L2 data (cf. Bulté, 2013; Bulté & Housen, 2018; Byrnes, 2009; Caspi, 2010; Larsen-Freeman, 2006; Murakami, 2013; Tilma, 2014; van Geert, 2008; Verspoor et al., 2008; Vyatkina, 2012; Lesonen et al., 2018, 2020, 2021). In line with Thelen and Smith’s proposal that variability is highly functional, it has also been found that high initial within-subject variability tends to be positively related to subsequent learning, and such learning reflects the addition of new strategies, greater reliance on relatively advanced strategies already being used, improved choices among strategies, and new ways to execute existing strategies (cf. Verspoor & de Bot, 2021). Another line of developmental studies within a DUB perspective has examined “stages” to see if some linguistic subsystems such a lexicon or syntax tend to develop before others. In a few small group studies, some general trends concerning the interaction between lexical and syntactic variables have been established through computer simulation (cf. Lowie et al., 2011). In an attempt to explore such developmental patterns in a crosssectional study, Verspoor et al. (2012) worked with holistically scored texts (ranging from 1 to 5) to represent phases in the developmental process from absolute beginner to intermediate. Each text was coded for a great number of variables representing subsystems of the language (types of sentences, types of error, use of different tenses, use of chunks and frequency range of words) and indeed it was found that in different phases, the subsystems developed differentially, confirming that development is nonlinear and difficult to predict precisely. The findings from this study were confirmed in Verspoor et al. (2021), who traced the development of 22 similar learners in a similar high school context over one academic year with up to 23 data points per learner. The study showed nonlinear growth in all variables with a great amount of intra-learner variability and no individual learner developed in exactly the same manner. However, using a generalized additive model (GAM), they showed that lexical measures tended to develop before syntactic ones for most learners. To summarize, learning a language is an individual experiential process in which all cognitive and emotive forces play a role. The learning is a

Usage in Dynamic Usage-Based models 99

bottom-up piecemeal process with lots of trial and error until FUMMs are routinized and entrenched. 5.5 DUB implications for L2 learning and instruction

From both the usage-based model and complex-dynamic systems theory, several aspects relevant to L2 learning and instruction can be deduced. The most important one is that language learning is not systematic and rule-based but associative. Repeated exposure and use of similar utterances in similar situated usage events is needed so that conventionalized FUMMs can be comprehended and produced frequently enough to become routinized. Our discussion of situated usage events has shown that associations need to be rich and meaningful. In real life, situated usage events are always multi-dimensional and often multi-modal. Taking the Notting Hill scene as an example, we have seen that an utterance like “I am also just a girl, standing in front of a boy, asking him to love her” would have very little communicative potential out of its actual context without the shared history of the participants. Moreover, the posture, the gaze and the gestures are all needed to make sense of the communicative intentions of the participants. Information of this type has become sedimented in the meanings and functions of the little word just. So the more learners have heard and used this word in comparable contexts, the better its form, meaning and contextual profile can be entrenched. Thus, learners will benefit from having the opportunity and being able to pay attention to utterances in actual situated usage events, which are preferably multi-modal, to be able to detect and entrench all the associations reflecting forms, meanings, usage tendencies and restrictions as well as social implications. Because DUB principles call for meaningful exposure within actual situated usage events, the principles align very much with strong versions of a communicative language teaching (CLT) approach (Widdowson, 1978 Candlin, 1976; Hymes, 1972) in that it relies on real communicative acts to stimulate the development of the language system itself in a “using to learn” approach (Howatt, 1984). There are, however, some points of difference because of the contemporary views on language and learning then and now. Rather than viewing language as being based on rules that are in turn derived from innate abstract principles of structure, the EC-Model and DUB approaches view language learning as primarily habit-driven. Therefore, early on “drilling” may be useful, but drills should not focus on the mechanical rehearsal of isolated elements but on rich FUMMs (cf. Rousse-Malpat et al., 2022). By offering similar linguistic constructions in similar communicative contexts, form-usage-meaning associations can emerge, routinize and entrench.

100  Usage in Dynamic Usage-Based models

Research in usage-based accounts of L2 learning has focused on the roles of frequency, salience and contingency (N. Ellis, 2008). Frequency effects have been attested in many L1 and L2 studies and are a consequence of repeated exposure to meaningful input and language use (cf. N. Ellis, 2002; Tomasello, 2003). Indeed, as  Langacker (2008) points out, becoming a fluent speaker involves a prodigious amount of actual learning. Salience can be achieved by trying to create joint attention, for example by adding a gesture or other visual clue, emphasizing and carefully articulating a part of a construction. Contingency is a particularly complex issue since it combines frequency and variability, e.g. in the teaching and learning of argument-structure constructions (Ellis & Ferreira-Junior, 2009; Römer et al., 2020). What is the ideal balance and proportion of fixed input of highly typical instantiations of a pattern (e.g. she gave him the book) as opposed to varied input including rare instantiations (e.g. she fedexed me the document or she whatsapped me the picture)? Tolerance for contingency, and benefit from contingency, can be achieved by offering language in a range of meaningful, preferably multi-modal contexts. Phrases or longer multi-word sequences as basic units help learners to routinize specific and variable syntagmatic associations in order to learn which words and classes of words belong together. Gestures and visuals can also be considered symbols which increase the benefits of contingency. These views are in line with Krashen (1981), who characterized a good teacher as someone who can make input comprehensible to a non-native speaker, regardless of their level of competence in the target language by means of scaffolding by providing extra-linguistic support in the form of realia and pictures. As in the early days of communicative language teaching, DUB approaches suggest that meaningful exposure is a first prerequisite in language learning (Long, 1985). Thus, learners need to listen and/or read carefully and understand what is being said or written before producing language creatively. And if language is produced at early stages, it may be better to repeat, imitate and reuse what has been heard in meaningful contexts (Larsen-Freeman, 2012) than to ask learners to use the language creatively. Another well-known factor is that cognitive and emotive resources will always play a role in language use and learning. Therefore, the general DUB principles actually support Krashen’s original ideas (Krashen, 1981) in regarding language acquisition as a subconscious process not unlike the way a child learns language, as learners will develop a “feel” for correctness and “pick-up” a language. What theory implies, quite simply, is that language acquisition, first or second, occurs when comprehension of real messages occurs, and when the acquirer is not “on the defensive” … Language acquisition does not require extensive use of conscious grammatical rules, and does not

Usage in Dynamic Usage-Based models 101

require tedious drill. It does not occur overnight, however. Real language acquisition develops slowly, and speaking skills emerge significantly later than listening skills, even when conditions are perfect. The best methods are therefore those that supply “comprehensible input” in low anxiety situations, containing messages that students really want to hear. These methods do not force early production in the second language, but allow students to produce when they are “ready”, recognizing that improvement comes from supplying communicative and comprehensible input, and not from forcing and correcting production. (Krashen, 1981, pp. 6–7) Truly communicative language teaching approaches in which the language is used as a medium of instruction, such as Content Language Integrated Learning, bilingual programs, immersion programs, but also the comprehension approach, have proven to be quite effective, most probably because they allow for a great deal of exposure to meaningful language use in which the language is a means to an end in a reasonable communicative context. However, many foreign language programs in the world resort to traditional translation approaches with a great deal of explicit grammar teaching, which goes at the expense of using the language meaningfully (Lightbown & Spada, 2013). Fortunately, there are also strong communicative methods that focus on FUMMs that have proven to be effective. Even though DUB theory had not been established when CLT approaches emerged in the 1970s, its principles are very much in line with versions of communicative approaches that focus on meaning or form (Long, 2000) and are meaning-based (Lewis, 1993; Verspoor & Winitz, 1997). Also storytelling methods, such as the Accelerated Integrated Method (AIM) originally developed by Maxwell (2001) with added visuals, gestures and pared-down language lend themselves well to teaching beginners. Several longitudinal studies (RousseMalpat et al., 2022; Gombert et al., 2022) have shown the effectiveness of such methods after three and six years. In addition, modern media, and especially film, can be used to provide authentic exposure within a social and cultural context that can be repeated and elaborated upon as needed. Because there are so many visuals and language is embedded in a natural context, the learner can make plentiful mental elaborations and probably remember the expressions better (Anderson & Reder, 1979). Verspoor and Hong (2013) showed such a movie approach to be more effective in increasing general proficiency than its more traditional communicative counterpart, which included a focus on grammar. Irshad et al. (2019) showed that a computer version of the approach was more effective than both the traditional communicative approach and the teacher-fronted movie approach, probably because students could go at their own speed. Also, the Task Based

102  Usage in Dynamic Usage-Based models

Languge Teaching (TBLT) paradigm would lend itself very well to such exposure by means of pre-tasks and a focus on form, rather than forms. For example, R. Ellis (2009), has emphasized the importance of social interaction, usage-based learning, and implicit or incidental acquisition. 5.6 Conclusion

The EC-Model shows how language usage occurs in situated usage events, which are multi-dimensional. It is not just the utterance that gives meaning, but the whole context, the past shared history, the gestures, posture and eye-gaze used in the here and now with many socio and cognitive forces playing a role at the same time. It is in using similar utterances in similar usage events that utterances can be conventionalized in speech communities and entrenched in individuals, and therefore, using language is learning it. However, as language consists of a large array of conventionalized utterances that have a certain meaning in a certain context, young children or L2 learners need to be exposed to them frequently, preferably in a meaningful, multi-dimensional context to be able to make strong associations in all dimensions and remember and re-activate them. Because of limitations in cognitive resources, the process of routinization and entrenchment is piecemeal, with lots of trial and error. As far as the notion of language itself is concerned, what we have said about the role of usage does not exactly make it easier to grasp what language is. At the end of his book, Schmid (2020) defines the linguistic system as “a multidimensional dynamic contingency space populated by multidimensionally competing co-semiotic potentialities afforded by the interaction of speakers’ usage activities and social and cognitive processes under the influence of a wide range of forces” (Schmid, 2020, p. 348). Overly and needlessly complex as this definition seems to be, it may now – i.e. against the backdrop of this paper – be understood as an attempt to do justice to the amazing dynamicity and variability of language and its implications for language development and learning. Discussion questions

1. What do you think it means to say that “language is inherently dynamic and variable”? What evidence is used in this chapter to support this claim? 2. Take another look at Figure 5.1 showing the Tinguely machine of how language works. What is the main difference between conventionalization and entrenchment? Give examples to support your answer. 3. When thinking about language teaching, DUB approaches align themselves with strong versions of a communication language-teaching approach. Why do you think that is the case?

Usage in Dynamic Usage-Based models 103

4. Schmid (2020, p. 348) defines “language” as follows: “a multidimensional dynamic contingency space populated by multidimensionally competing co-semiotic potentialities afforded by the interaction of speakers’ usage activities and social and cognitive processes under the influence of a wide range of forces”. In your own words, explain this definition of language. What are the main ideas that this definition expresses? Can you agree with this definition? References Anderson, J. R., & Reder, L. M. (1979). An elaborative processing explanation of depth of processing. In L. S. Cermak & F. I. M. Craik (Eds.), Levels of processing in human memory (pp. 385–404). Erlbam. Barlow, M., & Kemmer, S. (Eds.). (2000). Usage-based models of language. CSLI Publications. Bulté, B. (2013). The development of complexity in second language acquisition: A dynamic systems approach. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Brussels. Bulté, B., & Housen, A. (2018). Syntactic complexity in L2 writing: Individual pathways and emerging group trends. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 28(1), 147–164. Bybee, J. L. (1985). Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form. Benjamins. Bybee, J. L. (2010). Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge University Press. Byrnes, H. (2009). Emergent L2 German writing ability in a curricular context: A longitudinal study of grammatical metaphor. Linguistics and Education, 20(1), 50–66. Cancino, H., Rosansky, E., & Schumann, J. (1978). The acquisition of English negatives and interrogatives by native Spanish speakers. In E. M. Hatch (Ed.), Second language acquisition: A book of readings (pp. 207–230). Newbury House. Candlin, C. N. (1976). Communicative language teaching and the debt to pragmatics. In I. C. Rameh (Ed.), Georgetown University roundtable on language and linguistics (pp. 237–256). Georgetown University Press. Caspi, T. (2010). A dynamic perspective on second language development. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. http://irs​.ub​.rug​.nl​/ppn​/329338412 Clark, E. V. (1987). The principle of contrast: A constraint on language acquisition. In B. MacWhinney (Ed.), Mechanisms of language aquisition (pp. 1–33). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Croft, W. (2001). Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford University Press. Croft, W. (2009). Toward a social cognitive linguistics. In V. Evans & S. Pourcel (Eds.), New directions in cognitive linguistics (pp. 395–420). Benjamins. Ellis, N. (2002). Frequency effects in language processing: A review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(2), 143–188. Ellis, N., & Ferreira-Junior, F. (2009). Construction learning as a function of frequency, frequency distribution, and function. The Modern Language Journal, 93(3), 370–385.

104  Usage in Dynamic Usage-Based models

Ellis, N. C. (2008). Usage-based and form-focused language acquisition: The associative learning of constructions, learned attention, and the limited L2 endstate. In P. Robinson & N. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition (pp. 382–415). Routledge. Ellis, R. (2009). Task-based research and language pedagogy. In K. Van den Branden, M. Bygate, & J. Norris (Eds.), Task-based language teaching: A reader (pp. 109–129). John Benjamins. Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. University of Chicago Press. Goldberg, A. E. (2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford University Press. Gombert, W., Keijzer, M., & Verspoor, M. (2022). Structure-based Versus Dynamic Usage-based Instruction: L2 French Writing skills after six years of instruction in high school. Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics, 11. https://doi.org/10.51751/ dujal10935. Hilpert, M. (2019). Construction grammar and its application to English (2nd ed.). Edinburgh University Press. Howatt, A. P. (1984). The history of English language teaching. Oxford University Press. Hymes, D. H. (1972). On communicative competence. In J. B. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds.), Sociolinguistics: Selected readings (pp. 269–293). Penguin. Irshad, M., Keijzer, M., Wieling, M., & Verspoor, M. (2019). Effectiveness of a dynamic usage based computer assisted language program. Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics, 8(2), 137–162. Krashen, S. D. (1981). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. English Language Teaching Series. Prentice-Hall International (UK) Ltd. Kretzschmar, W. A. J. (2015). Language and complex systems. Cambridge University Press. Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. I: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford University Press. Langacker, R. W. (1988). A usage-based model. In B. Rudzka-Ostyn (Ed.), Topics in cognitive linguistics (Vol. 50, pp. 127–163). Benjamins. Langacker, R. W. (2008). Cognitive grammar as a basis for language instruction. In P. Robinson & N. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition (pp. 66–88). Routledge. Langacker, R. W. (2000). A dynamic usage-based model. In M. Barlow & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Usage-based models of language (pp. 1–63). CSLI. Langacker, R. W. (2016). Working toward a synthesis. Cognitive Linguistics, 27(4), 465–477. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2006). The emergence of complexity, fluency, and accuracy in the oral and written production of five Chinese learners of English. Applied Linguistics, 27(4), 590–619. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2012). On the roles of repetition in language teaching and learning. Applied Linguistics Review, 3(2), 195–210. Lesonen, S., Steinkrauss, R., Suni, M., & Verspoor, M. (2020). Lexically specific vs. productive constructions in L2 Finnish. Language and Cognition, 12(3), 526–563. Lesonen, S., Steinkrauss, R., Suni, M., & Verspoor, M. (2021). Dynamic usagebased principles in the development of L2 Finnish evaluative constructions. Applied Linguistics, 42(3), 442–472.

Usage in Dynamic Usage-Based models 105

Lesonen, S., Suni, M., Steinkrauss, R., & Verspoor, M. (2018). From conceptualization to construction in Finnish as an L2. Pragmatics and Cognition, 24(2), 212–262. Lewis, M. (1993). The lexical approach (Vol. 1, p. 993). Language Teaching Publications. Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (2013). How languages are learned (4th ed.). Oxford University Press. Long, M. H. (1985). Task-based language teaching. In K. Hyltenstam & M. Pienemann (Eds.), Modelling and assessing second language acquisition (pp. 77– 101). Multilingual Matters. Long, M. H. (2000). Focus on form in task-based language teaching. In E. Shohamy & R. D. Lambert (Eds.), Language policy and pedagogy: Essays in honor of A. Ronald Walton (pp. 179–192). Benjamins. Lowie, W. M., Caspi, T., Van Geert, P., & Steenbeek, H. (2011). Modeling development and change. In M. H. Verspoor, K. De Bot, & W. Lowie (Eds.), A dynamic approach to second language development: Methods and techniques (pp. 99–122). Benjamins. Maxwell, W. (2001). Evaluating the effectiveness of the accelerative integrated method for teaching French as a second language. Unpublished Master thesis. University of London Institute in Paris, Paris. Murakami, A. (2013). Individual variation and the role of L1 in the L2 development of English grammatical morphemes: Insights from learner corpora. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Cambridge University, UK. Römer, U., Skalicky, S. C., & Ellis, N. C. (2020). Verb-argument constructions in advanced L2 English learner production: Insights from corpora and verbal fluency tasks. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 16(2), 303–331. Rousse-Malpat, A., Steinkrauss, R., Wieling, M., & Verspoor, M. (2022). Communicative language teaching: Structure-based or dynamic usage-based? Journal of the European Second Language Association, 6(1), 1–14. Schmid, H. J. (2015). A blueprint of the entrenchment-and-conventionalization model. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association, 3(1), 3–25. Schmid, H. J. (2016). Why cognitive linguistics must embrace the social and pragmatic dimensions of language and how it could do so more seriously. Cognitive Linguistics, 27(4), 543–557. Schmid, H. J. (Ed.). (2017a). Entrenchment and the psychology of language learning: How we reorganize and adapt linguistic knowledge. Walter de Gruyter. Schmid, H. J. (2017b). A framework for understanding linguistic entrenchment and its psychological foundations. In H. J. Schmid (Ed.), Entrenchment and the psychology of language learning: How we reorganize and adapt linguistic knowledge (pp. 7–36). Walter de Gruyter. Schmid, H. J. (2017c). Linguistic entrenchment and its psychological foundations. In H. J. Schmid (Ed.), Entrenchment and the psychology of language learning: How we reorganize and adapt linguistic knowledge (pp. 435–452). Walter de Gruyter. Schmid, H. J. (2020). The dynamics of the linguistic system: Usage, conventionalization, and entrenchment. Oxford University Press. Thelen, E., & Smith, L. (1994). A dynamic systems approach to the development of cognition and action. MIT Press.

106  Usage in Dynamic Usage-Based models

Tilma, C. (2014). The dynamics of foreign versus second language development in Finnish writing. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen/University of Jÿvaskyla. Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Harvard University Press. Van Geert, P. (2008). The dynamic systems approach in the study of L1 and L2 acquisition: An introduction. The Modern Language Journal, 92(2), 179–199. Verspoor, H. M., & Behrens, H. (2011). Dynamic systems theory and a usagebased approach to second language development. In M. H. Verspoor, K. de Bot, & W. Lowie (Eds.), A dynamic approach to second language development: Methods and techniques (pp. 25–38). Benjamins. Verspoor, M., & Hong, N. T. P. (2013). A dynamic usage-based approach to communicative language teaching. European Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 22–54. Verspoor, M. (2017). Complex dynamic systems theory and L2 pedagogy: Lessons to be learned. In L. Ortega & Z. Han (Eds.), Complexity theory and language development: In celebration of Diane Larsen-Freeman (pp. 143–162). Benjamins. Verspoor, M., & de Bot, K. (2021). Measures of variability in transitional phases in second language development. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 60(1), 85–101. Verspoor, M., & Winitz, H. (1997). Assessment of the lexical-input approach for intermediate language learners. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 35(1), 61–75. Verspoor, M., De Bot, K., & Lowie, W. (Eds.). (2011). A dynamic approach to second language development: Methods and techniques (Vol. 29). John Benjamins Publishing. Verspoor, M., Lowie, W., & de Bot, K. (2021). Variability as normal as apple pie. Linguistics Vanguard, 7(s2), 20200034. Verspoor, M., Lowie, W., & Wieling, M. (2021). L2 developmental measures from a dynamic perspective. In B. Le Bruyn & M. Paquot (Eds.), Learner corpus research meets second language acquisition (pp. 172–190). Cambridge University Press. Verspoor, M., Lowie, W. M., & van Dijk, M. (2008). Variability in L2 development from a dynamic systems perspective. Modern Language Journal, 92(2), 214–231. Verspoor, M., Schmid, M. S., & Xu, X. (2012). A dynamic usage-based perspective on L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(3), 239–263. Vyatkina, N. (2012). The development of second language writing complexity in groups and individuals: A longitudinal learner corpus study. The Modern Language Journal, 96(4), 576–598. Widdowson, H. G. (1978). Teaching language as communication. Oxford University Press.

6 COGNITIVE-LINGUISTIC APPROACHES TO SLA AND USAGE Han Luo

6.1 Introduction: what is Cognitive Linguistics?

Cognitive Linguistics (CL) is a relatively new approach to the study of language that emerged in the 1970s as a reaction against the dominant generative grammar and truth-conditional semantics. Instead of a single, closely articulated theory, CL is a broad theoretical and methodological enterprise (Evans, 2012). Early leading scholars in CL include Charles Fillmore (1975), George Lakoff (1987, 1990), Ronald Langacker (1987, 1990), and Leonard Talmy (1975). In the CL view, language is seen as a product of physical interaction with the world mediated by human conceptualization rather than a well-defined set of arbitrary symbols generated by an innate algorithmic device (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980; Langacker, 1987). Moreover, cognitive linguists believe that some of the main assumptions underlying the generative approach to syntax and semantics are not in accordance with the empirical evidence in linguistics, psychology, and other fields (Lakoff, 1987). In contrast, CL is guided by the so-called Cognitive Commitment (Lakoff, 1990), which “represents the view that principles of linguistic structure should reflect what is known about human cognition from the other cognitive and brain sciences, particularly psychology, artificial intelligence, cognitive neuroscience, and philosophy” (Evans, 2012, p. 130). Three major hypotheses guide the CL approach to language (Croft & Cruse, 2004, p. 1): 1) language is not an autonomous cognitive faculty; 2) grammar is conceptualization; and 3) knowledge of language emerges from language use. The first hypothesis reflects the other primary commitment of CL, i.e., the Generalization Commitment, which emphasizes that the nature and principles that constitute linguistic knowledge are an DOI: 10.4324/9781032668475-6

108 

Cognitive-linguistic approaches

outcome of general cognitive abilities (Lakoff, 1990; Evans, 2012). In the CL view, “language is an integral part of human cognition” (Langacker, 1987, p. 12) rather than a completely separate encapsulated module of mind with its own domain-specific learning mechanism. Thus, CL is committed to openly investigating “how the various aspects of linguistic knowledge emerge from a common set of human cognitive abilities upon which they draw” (Evans, 2012, p. 131). In other words, CL denies “an autonomous, special-purpose innate human capacity for language” (Croft & Cruse, 2004, p. 2). Rather, CL believes that the cognitive processes that govern language use are in principle the same as other cognitive abilities. The second hypothesis views grammar as a result of human conceptualization of world experience. In the CL view, language is seen as a product of interacting with the world, mediated by the precise nature of our bodies and our unique neuro-anatomical architecture (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980). This hypothesis has two layers of meaning. First, grammar, like lexical items, derives from physical interaction with the world and thus has conceptual import. In other words, grammar is meaningful in nature. In CL, “the fundamental unit of grammar is a form-meaning pairing or symbolic unit” (Evans, 2012, p. 132), also known as a construction. The study of grammar is the study of the full range of units that make up a language, ranging from the fully lexical to the wholly schematic. Instead of establishing a clear-cut distinction between semantics and syntax, cognitive linguists view the language system as a lexicon-grammar continuum (Langacker, 1987, 1990). Second, language does not directly mirror the objective world but reflects human conceptualization of reality. The meaning of grammar does not reside solely in the inherent properties of the entity or situation it describes but also involves the way we choose to portray this entity or situation mentally. For example, a lexical choice between “stingy” and “thrifty” reflects two different ways of construing ostensibly the same situation, with “stingy” representing a negative assessment against willingness to share and “thrifty” indicating a positive assessment of capability in resource management (Evans, 2012). The nature of the relationship between language, mind, and experience is of great significance to CL, which is illustrated in Figures 6.1 and 6.2. The two figures illustrate how reality becomes the experienced world, which, in turn, gives rise to concepts and conceptual structures, i.e., networks of interrelated concepts in our mind as we attempt to organize our conceptualization of reality. The whole process of conceptualization is subsequently reflected in language, a tool for construing experience and communicating information. Language, composed of signs that take certain forms and meanings, is based on the concepts and conceptual structures resulting from human perception of the world.

Cognitive-linguistic approaches 109

Conceptualization

World

Human conceptualizer Experienced world

Concepts/categories

Concepts in language

Pure thoughts

Signs Form

Meaning

FIGURE 6.1  Cognitive

model of language (conceptualization highlighted) (adapted from Dirven & Verspoor, 1998, p. 15)

World

Human conceptualizer

Concepts and Language

Experienced world

Concepts/categories

Concepts in language

Pure thoughts

Signs Form

Meaning

FIGURE 6.2  Cognitive

model of language (concepts and language highlighted) (adapted from Dirven & Verspoor, 1998, p. 15)

In Figure 6.1, “conceptualization” is highlighted to indicate that language is a reflection of human conceptualization (i.e., higher-order cognitive processing), and that language does not directly refer to the world but to the conceptualization of the experienced world by means of concepts and categories. In Figure 6.2, the part that links concepts to language is highlighted to show that the language system interfaces with the conceptual

110  Cognitive-linguistic approaches

system. It is also important to note that there are thoughts that have no corresponding realizations in language as represented by “pure thoughts”. In the CL view, language is experientially based, embodied, and mediated by human conceptualization. Thus, an objectivist truth-conditional view of meaning is regarded as too simplistic. Meaning should also be seen as related to the subjective construal of entities and events in the world. CL views language as a system that directly reflects human conceptualization, “to study language is to study patterns of conceptualization” (Evans & Green, 2006, p. 20). Central to the third hypothesis is the belief that language is usage-based. In the CL view, linguistic knowledge of semantics, syntax, morphology, and phonology is built up from our experience of specific occasions of use in a bottom-up fashion. Grammatical rules of language are thought to be acquired in the inductive process of abstraction and schematization from re-occurring linguistic expressions. The linguistic system is, therefore, a massive and highly redundant inventory of conventional constructions or symbolic units where both abstract rules and specific expressions are stored together for language use (Langacker, 1987). The three basic tenets of CL are interrelated and have important implications for language acquisition and pedagogy. The first hypothesis equates language acquisition with general learning and views any type of learning as involving similar cognitive processes. It follows that first and second language acquisition are not fundamentally different. The usage-based conception of language gives rise to the theory that language knowledge (e.g., grammatical rules) is extracted inductively from language input and use. Thus, language acquisition involves a large amount of implicit learning. The grammar-as-conceptualization view sees language forms at various levels of abstraction as motivated and meaningful, which forms the basis of the CL-inspired approach to L2 instruction (e.g., Littlemore, 2009; Tyler, 2012). This approach intends to reduce “the perceived arbitrariness of the foreign language system” (Taylor, 1993, p. 219) through teaching (explicit, implicit, or a combination of both). As I see it, the two significant contributions of CL to SLA are 1) the usage-based theory of language acquisition (i.e., how does implicit language learning occur from usage?) and 2) the CL-inspired approach to L2 instruction (i.e., how does teaching reduce the arbitrariness of L2 learning?). The following sections of this chapter will first introduce Langacker’s usage-based model of language, which lays the foundation for the usagebased theory of language acquisition, and then move to explain how usage leads to L2 learning in this model, followed by a discussion on whether usage is sufficient for L2 learning, which naturally leads to the CL-inspired approach to L2 instruction.

Cognitive-linguistic approaches 111

6.2 Langacker’s Cognitive Grammar: a dynamic usage-based model

Langacker (1987) coined the term “usage-based model” in his pioneering work Foundations in Cognitive Grammar. In the following years, he defined this term in more detail and described Cognitive Grammar as instantiating a dynamic usage-based model of language (Langacker, 1988, 1991, 1999, 2000). This model gives substantial importance to “the actual use of the linguistic system and a speaker’s knowledge of this use” (Langacker, 1987, p. 494). Thus, general grammatical rules are not prioritized over specific instances of usage; the specific and idiosyncratic elements of the language system (e.g., lexical items, idioms) are no longer relegated to the periphery, but form the basis of linguistic inquiry. The usage-based model also has a profound impact on the methodological assumption about what kinds of data to use in linguistic research (Kemmer & Barlow, 2000). Influenced by the usage-based conception, CL has an honorable tradition of paying respect to naturally occurring language data or usage data (Gisborne & Hollmann, 2014). Langacker’s usage-based model of language has three characteristics: it is maximalist, non-reductive, and bottom-up. The usage-based conception is maximalist in the sense that it views the linguistic system as “a massive, highly redundant inventory of conventional units” (Langacker, 1988, p. 131). General grammatical rules and idiosyncratic linguistic expressions co-exist in this inventory. Lexicon, morphology, and grammar form a continuum of conventional units. Moreover, there is no clear-cut distinction between linguistic and encyclopedic knowledge. This is because the meaning of a linguistic expression does not reside in a purely linguistic representation but involves access to a potentially vast body of encyclopedic knowledge. For example, the lexical item “red” means something quite different in “red ink” and “red squirrel”. As Evans (2012) insightfully points out, “any instance of use constitutes a distinct usage-event that may activate a different part of the encyclopedic knowledge potential to which a lexical item facilitates access” (p. 132). In the usage-based model, redundancy is not seen as a problem, but a true representation of psychological reality. The issue of reductionism is concerned with the relation between rules and specific expressions which conform to the rules. The usage-based model of language views rules as schemas abstracted from specific expressions. The usage-based conception is non-reductive by including both schemas and instantiating expressions in the grammar. In this view, both schemas and specific expressions that instantiate the schemas are conventional units, which are of equal importance in the inventory. For example, for regular plural forms in English, the schema N + s and its instantiations (e.g., dogs, birds, books) co-exist in the grammar. On the one hand, rules or schemas

112  Cognitive-linguistic approaches

capture the pertinent generalization, but are not conceived as constructive devices computing specific expressions. Rather, schemas just serve as a categorizing function by providing the minimal specifications to evaluate whether an expression is a valid instantiation of a given pattern (Langacker, 1988). On the other hand, instantiating expressions of a schema are “cognitive entities in their own right whose existence is not reducible to that of the general patterns they instantiate” (Langacker, 2000, p. 2). It is common for instantiating expressions to have more precise and fully articulated meanings than anything predictable just from the schema and the component morphemes. For example, an “eraser” is a particular type of object with specific properties, not just “something that erases” as captured by the schema V + er. The usage-based model of language also features a bottom-up orientation. In this view, rules (also known as patterns or schemas) are extracted inductively from overtly occurring expressions through the process of schematization. Thus, rules are simply templatic schemas that are imminent in their instantiations and arise from actual usage. Langacker (2000) characterizes rules or schemas as “reinforced commonalities with the potential to influence subsequent processing” (p. 59). Moreover, Langacker also believes that speakers may differ in terms of the degree of schematization they achieve. It is also not guaranteed that speakers can invariably arrive at the highest-level schemas that the data would support. Thus, a speaker’s linguistic inventory likely consists of schemas at various levels, and low-level schemas tend to be more important for creating novel expressions than highly abstract schemas (Langacker, 1988). The goal of a linguistic theory is to properly characterize a speaker’s knowledge of language. To conform to the maximalist, non-reductive, and bottom-up character of the usage-based approach, a language is defined as “a structured inventory of conventional linguistic units” in Cognitive Grammar (Langacker, 1988, p. 130). Moreover, Langacker (2000) adopts the network model to describe this inventory, in which “structures with varying degrees of entrenchment, and representing different levels of abstraction, are linked together in relationships of categorization, composition, and symbolization” (p. 5). In Cognitive Grammar, linguistic categories are, in general, rather complex. A complex category can be described as a network where nodes with varying degrees of cognitive salience are connected by categorizing relationships, such as extension (i.e., the relationship between a prototype and its extensions) and elaboration (i.e., the relationship between a schema and its instantiations). Thus, a speaker’s linguistic knowledge system has the shape of a complex interrelated network. In this network, symbolic units of various types are represented as interlinking nodes. When a linguistic expression is used, it involves the activation of a sub-network. An example of such a mental network is illustrated

Cognitive-linguistic approaches 113

in Figure 6.3. In neuro-cognitive terms, symbolic units or constructions thus have the status of complex mental “activation-sets” (Langlotz, 2006, p. 79). Notably, this network is not static, but dynamic because “linguistic structures and relationships reside in cognitive processing, identified as neurological activity” (Langacker, 2000, p. 6). A linguistic unit is simply a “cognitive routine” sufficiently well entrenched to be elicited as an integral whole, and knowledge of a complex linguistic category ultimately reduces to the coordinated firing of neurons (Langacker, 1987). The usage-based model of language is characterized as dynamic also in the sense that “usage events are crucial to the ongoing structuring and operation of the linguistic system” (Kemmer & Barlow, 2000, p. ix). A speaker’s linguistic knowledge is not fixed, but subject to reshaping with language use. Langacker further suggests that the formation of the linguistic system can be ascribed to a few basic cognitive processes such as comparison, categorization, schematization, and integration. Repeated applications of such processes in many domains and at many levels of organization are able to “afford a unified account of phenomena traditionally handled separately and in very different ways” (Langacker, 2000, p. 3). In other words, the usage-based model of language achieves a high degree of conceptual unification. As an example, take transitive English particle verbs (e.g., pick up, figure out, put down). The English particle verb, as a linguistic form standing between lexicon and syntax along the continuum of symbolic units, represents a pivotal interface between syntax and semantics and displays rich linguistic complexity. The syntax of particle verbs attracts linguists’ attention mainly for two reasons: 1) the Verb + Particle structure is rare outside of the Germanic family, which poses a syntactic oddity in the language world; 2) transitive particle verbs can take two possible alternating

NP Verb NP Particle

NP Verb Particle NP

NP Verb NP Aspect Particle

NP Verb NP Path Particle

NP Verb NP State Change Particle

Aspect Event

Motion Event

State Change Event

He blows the candle out

NP Verb NP up He picks a pen up

He picks up a pen

He picks up a disease

He eats the cake up

FIGURE 6.3  Mental

representation of transitive particle verbs (adapted from Luo, 2019, p. 88)

114  Cognitive-linguistic approaches

orders: the continuous order (e.g., pick up the pen) and the discontinuous order (e.g., pick the pen up). The semantic complexity of particle verbs is manifested in a wide range of idiomaticity (e.g., break up has eight different meanings based on the Merriam-Webster dictionary). In the usage-based model, the verb-particle syntactical pattern is seen as a schema inductively abstracted from specific expressions and co-exists with their linguistic instantiations. Moreover, the different meanings of a particle verb are linked together through semantic extension. Thus, in the mental network consisting of a speaker’s knowledge of English particle verbs, various linguistic aspects of English particle verbs co-exist and are interrelated with one another through different types of relationships. Vertically, the mental network of particle verbs is organized in hierarchies of different levels of schematicity. Horizontally, extensions and their prototypes are linked to each other with different degrees of similarity. Notably, the linguistic complexities of the particle verb (i.e., the verb-particle schema, the two alternating ways of particle placement, and the semantic extension of idiomatic meanings) are represented as important nodes and relationships within this activation set. Figure 6.3 attempts to sketch the major aspects of the mental representation of transitive particle verbs with the understanding that the real mental network may be too complex to be captured in a static, two-dimensional image. In the CL view, language does not reflect the objective world directly but is seen as a product of human conceptualization of world reality. It follows that the syntactic and semantic complexities associated with English particle verbs are all results of human conceptualization, which provides a unified framework for analyzing the syntax and semantics of English particle verbs. The language-as-conceptualization view of CL entails that the study of the Verb + Particle syntax, the particle placement with transitive particle verbs, and the idiomaticity of particle verbs involves studying patterns of conceptualizations at various levels realized in the three linguistic manifestations of particle verbs. More specifically, the study of Particle + Verb syntax involves studying the conceptual content encoded in this construction. The study of particle placement demonstrates how the conceptual content is construed in two different ways. The study of the idiomaticity of particle verbs is to reveal the role of cognitive processes in motivating semantic extension at various levels. 6.3 How does usage lead to L2 learning?

Traditionally, linguists tend to advocate for a separation of language use (performance) from the more abstract knowledge of language structure (competence). In contrast, CL does not draw a line between language knowledge and language use; instead, knowledge of language is seen as

Cognitive-linguistic approaches 115

constructed through usage events. In the CL view, becoming a fluent speaker in L1 or L2 involves “a prodigious amount of actual learning” (Langacker, 2000, p. 2). A usage event is defined as “the pairing of a vocalization, in all its specificity, with a conceptualization representing its full contextual understanding” (Langacker, 2000, p. 9). To put it simply, usage events are “situated instances of the language user either understanding or producing language to convey particular meaning in a given communicative situation” (Tyler, 2017, p. 73). In Langacker’s usage-based model, a speaker’s language knowledge (i.e., an inventory of conventional units, also known as constructions) emerges gradually from numerous instances of such usage events in a bottom-up fashion. This view has two important implications for language acquisition. First, the learner “learns language from particular utterances in particular contexts, and builds up increasingly complex and abstract linguistic representations from these” (Lieven & Tomasello, 2008, p. 168). This indicates that even in the case of L1 acquisition, children do not come with innate, specifically syntactic skills, but rely on general cognitive and interactive skills for language learning. Second, linguistic knowledge is learned and represented in the form of units or constructions (De Ruiter & Theakston, 2017). Instead of first learning words and then learning how to combine them together with syntactical knowledge as predicted by generativists, language learning starts with whole units or constructions, i.e., form-function pairings, from the very beginning to achieve communication goals (Tomasello, 2007, p. 1100). Empirical studies in L1 and L2 acquisition have provided ample evidence for this usage-based view of language learning (see Luo, 2021 for a detailed review). Since language learners acquire linguistic knowledge, to a large extent from the language they hear, another very important implication of the usage-based model is the important role of input in language acquisition. The most studied aspects of language input are frequency effects (e.g., Bybee, 2008) and prototype effects (e.g., Ellis & Ferreira-Junior, 2009). As Littlemore and Juchem-Grundmann (2010) have pointed out, the usage-based view of language learning is actually “not dissimilar to traditional theories concerning the role of input, interaction and output” (p. 1) as it sees language knowledge as being built from “instances of a speaker’s producing and understanding language” (Kemmer & Barlow, 2000, p. viii). The unique contribution of CL to the usage-based view lies in “a detailed description of the cognitive processes that are at work in language and thought enabling people to extract language knowledge from language use” (Littlemore & Juchem-Grundmann, 2010, p. 1). These cognitive processes have the potential to explain the ways in which language knowledge can emerge from usage.

116  Cognitive-linguistic approaches

In order to demystify how usage leads to language learning, it is important to understand the cognitive process of entrenchment, also known as “routinization”, “automatization”, and “habit formation” (Langacker, 2000). As discussed previously, Langacker (1990) describes the language system as “an inventory of conventional units” (p. 15). In the CL view, a linguistic unit is not generated from grammatical rules, but a cognitive routine that can be activated, stored, and accessed as an integral whole (Evans & Green, 2006, p. 501). The following statements from Langacker (2000) help explain this perspective further: The occurrence of psychological events leaves some kind of trace that facilitates their reoccurrence. Through repetition, even a highly complex event can coalesce into a well-rehearsed routine that is easily elicited and reliably executed. When a complex structure comes to be manipulable as a “pre-packaged” assembly, no longer requiring conscious attention to its parts or their arrangement, I say that it has the status of a unit (pp. 3–4). Thus, a thoroughly mastered, fully acquired linguistic structure is a sufficiently well-entrenched cognitive routine (i.e., a unit) as a result of neurological activity, i.e., the coordinated firing of neurons. The formation of such cognitive routines consists of the entrenchment process, which is conditioned by and realized through usage events. Linguists are particularly interested in how knowledge of grammar emerges from usage events. In Langacker’s Cognitive Grammar, grammatical patterns are seen as abstracted from specific instances through the schematization process. Following the rejection of an autonomous syntax, Langacker (1990) replaces the idea of syntactic rules with the notion of constructional schemas. A constructional schema is “a symbolic unit that emerges from a process of abstraction over more specific units called instances” (Evans & Green, 2006, p. 504). Moreover, symbolic units, irrespective of their degrees of complexity and schematicity, are stored together in the human mind. Thus, constructional schemas and their instances exist simultaneously in the linguistic system at the speaker’s disposal. Take the constructional schema N + s illustrated in Figure 6.4 as an example. Linguistically, the plural grammatical rule N + s is a constructional schematization of all regular plural nouns, such as dogs and trees. Conceptually, this grammatical rule reflects human observation and conceptualization of things in the world. The linguistic N-class schema reflects the concept THING, which is schematized over all things experienced. The linguistic form -s packages the concept PLUR AL, which is based on the observation that things like dogs and trees are many in number. Thus, the two concepts are combined to mean A NUMBER OF THINGS, realized

Cognitive-linguistic approaches 117

THING

PL

N

-S

QUAGMIRE quagmire

DOG dog

PL -s

TREE tree

FIXED EXPRESSIONS FIGURE 6.4  Plural

PL

-s

PL -s

NOVEL EXPRESSION

formation (adapted from Langacker 1990, p. 263)

linguistically as N + s. Although constructional schemas and syntactic rules are two fundamentally different concepts, constructional schemas, similar to syntactic rules, can function as a template to sanction actual occurring expressions and generate novel ones (Langacker, 1987, 1990, 1999). Constructional schemas can help language speakers judge the grammaticality of an expression on the basis of a categorization process. If the structure of an utterance produced by a speaker can be categorized as an instance of an existing schema, it is then well-formed; otherwise, it is ill-formed (Evans & Green, 2006, p. 501). As illustrated in Figure 6.4, the constructional schema N + s can be used to sanction the use of actually occurring regular plural nouns and act as a template for generating novel plural nouns such as quagmires. Notably, the schematization process functions at various levels and thus a speaker’s linguistic inventory likely consists of constructional schemas at various levels of abstraction as shown in the mental representation of transitive particle verbs (See Figure 6.3). Langacker (2000) points out that there is no guarantee that every speaker can arrive at the highest-order schema supported by its instances in the input. For those who can, it is not the end of grammar learning as a speaker’s knowledge of grammar also resides in an understanding of the relationships between related constructional schemas. According to Lieven and Tomasello (2008), children are able to abstract a fully schematic construction for some high-frequency constructions such as the English transitive as development proceeds. Full syntactic schematicity, however, is not the final stage of children’s grammatical development as the child still needs to abstract the relations between constructions. When the child is able to transform an utterance in one construction to another related construction (e.g., from a declarative to a wh-question), this is evidence

118  Cognitive-linguistic approaches

that an abstraction of relations between constructions has occurred (Lieven & Tomasello, 2008, p. 171). Similarly, children who have fully acquired English particle verbs are able to understand and use the two alternating orders of this construction properly in specific contexts (i.e., He picks the pen up versus He picks up the pen). As Luo (2017, 2019) has argued, these two alternations of English particle verbs encode the same conceptual scene but reflect two different ways of construing the scene. The speaker(s) who first created and used the two alternating orders relied on the process of construal to package the same conceptual scene in two different ways. The process of construal also enables children to understand the two ways of expressions when they first appeared in the input and to make the first attempt to use them in given contexts. This same process then plays an important role in helping them extract the relationships between the two alternating orders through numerous usage events and apply the extracted, implicit knowledge in the usage events that ensue. Linguists are equally interested in how semantic knowledge emerges from usage events. In CL, meaning is not seen as a static, discrete thing that can be packaged by language, but is viewed as a process. Moreover, meaning construction is equated with conceptualization, “a process whereby linguistic units serve as prompts for an array of conceptual operations and the recruitment of background knowledge” (Evans et al., 2007, p. 9). As Langacker (1987) states, “linguistic expressions are not meaningful in and of themselves, but only through the access they afford to different stores of knowledge that allow us to make sense of them” (p. 155). Since words (and other linguistic units) are only triggers for providing access to the network of various knowledge systems, it then makes no sense for the process of meaning construction to distinguish between linguistic knowledge and encyclopedic knowledge. This view is termed as the encyclopedic view of word meaning in the CL literature (e.g., Langacker, 1987; Tyler & Evans, 2003). In usage events, a speaker needs to make use of various types of resources (e.g., cognitive processes, linguistic knowledge, world knowledge) to constantly engage in meaning construction in order to understand messages and communicate thoughts. In cognitive semantics, polysemy is a heavily studied linguistic phenomenon whereby a linguistic unit is associated with multiple senses. In the CL view, our knowledge of word senses forms radial semantic networks, in which the core or basic senses sit in the center and more figurative meanings radiate out towards the margins (Littlemore & Juchem-Grundmann, 2010). Moreover, the figurative meanings of a linguistic unit are not arbitrary, but semantically extended from the basic sense. Studies have shown that semantic extension is motivated by a variety of cognitive processes such as metaphor and metonymy (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980; Tyler & Evans, 2003). Langacker (2000) uses a simple case of semantic extension, i.e., the

Cognitive-linguistic approaches 119

extension of mouse to indicate a piece of computer equipment, to explain how metaphor motivates semantic extension in usage events. When a speaker, for the first time, faces a usage event in which mouse was used in reference to a computer device, metaphor (i.e., the cognitive process of seeing one thing in terms of another) makes it possible for him or her to extract the resemblance between a type of rodent and the computer device on the desk and invoke the conventional unit (i.e., mouse designating a type of rodent) to categorize the novel usage. In other words, metaphor is a cognitive process that allows the speaker to comprehend and/or produce the novel usage by relating to the conventional unit. Metonymy is a cognitive process that allows a speaker to use one thing to refer to another closely related concept. For example, “Hollywood” can be used to refer to the American film industry and “Wall Street” to America’s financial services sector. Like metaphor, metonymy can motivate novel usage and semantic extension. Thus, it is more than logical to think that such cognitive processes are able to help language learners extract knowledge of the categorizing relationships between a linguistic unit’s basic meaning and extended meanings through repeated usage events. As discussed previously, Langacker (2000) has suggested that the usagebased model of language achieves a high degree of conceptual unification, resulting in cognitive assemblies of enormous complexity through repeated applications of just a few basic cognitive processes in different combinations at many levels of organization. This set of cognitive processes, including comparison, categorization, pattern finding, and blending, are also thought to be involved in language learning to extract language knowledge from usage events (Littlemore, 2009). The above-mentioned schematization process is a special case of pattern finding or abstraction, whereas the processes of construal, metaphor, and metonymy are special cases of comparison. Meanwhile, schematization and comparison, in all domains of language structure, work in combination with the process of categorization in which “established structures are used for assessing novel structures” (Langacker, 2000, p. 39). Take the learning of English particle verbs as an example. To fully grasp English particle verbs, a speaker needs to establish a mental network consisting of various nodes and relationships that give rise to conventional units (see Figure 6.3). The most important nodes and relationships in this network correspond to the linguistic complexities associated with particle verbs: the verb-particle structure, the two syntactic orders of transitive particle verbs, and multiple (idiomatic) meanings of specific particle verbs. The schematization process helps the speaker to abstract particle verb schemas at various levels of specificity from numerous usage events. These schemas, in combination with the categorization process, function as templates to create and evaluate novel expressions. The process of construal helps the speaker to extract the relationship between

120 

Cognitive-linguistic approaches

the two highest-order schemas of transitive particle verbs (i.e., the two ways of particle placement) from usage events, resulting in implicit knowledge that two alternating orders reflect two different ways of construing the same conceptual scene. Various cognitive processes that motivate semantic extension (e.g., metaphor, metonymy) allow the speaker to figure out, from numerous usage events, the radial nature of a given particle verb’s semantic networks, i.e., the relationships between the basic meaning of the particle verb and its extended (idiomatic) meanings. 6.4 CL-inspired approaches to L2 instruction

Mounting empirical evidence in L1 and L2 acquisition has demonstrated that language knowledge can emerge from usage events. Indeed, children successfully acquire their L1 from numerous usage events through pattern finding and intention-reading skills (Tomasello, 2003). A natural question at this point would be: is understanding and/or producing L2 (i.e., usage) enough to ensure success in L2 learning as children do in L1 acquisition? Although L2 learning involves very similar cognitive processes as L1 acquisition, it is important to note that “the kind of linguistic input received by children learning their first language is very different from that received by adults learning their second language” (Littlemore & Juchem-Grundmann, 2010, p. 3). Therefore, instruction is needed to compensate for L2 learners’ input-poor environment (Holme, 2010a). Another significant difference between L1 and L2 learning lies in the fact that L2 learners come to the task of language learning with their L1 having already been acquired (Jarvis & Pavlenko, 2008; McManus, 2021). As language is a product of interacting with the physical world through conceptualization, a given language reflects certain ways of viewing things. It is thus common for L1 and L2 to encode different ways of conventionally conceptualizing events and scenes, indicating that L2 learners often need to overcome their L1 conceptualization patterns and repackage their thoughts in a slightly different way when expressing themselves in L2. These observations seem to indicate that usage (which is not sufficient in the second language context in the first place) needs to be complemented with instruction (explicit, implicit, or a combination of the two) to ensure successful L2 learning. There has been a consensus among scholars that the very foundations of CL make it well suited for shedding light on language pedagogy (Pütz, 2007; Tyler, 2017). For example, Langacker (2008) views three basic notions of CL: the centrality of meaning, the meaningfulness of grammar, and its usage-based nature as providing a useful basis for language instruction. Littlemore (2009) focuses on eight inextricably linked concepts in CL: construal, categorization, encyclopedic knowledge, metaphor, metonymy, embodiment, motivation, and Construction Grammar, explaining

Cognitive-linguistic approaches 121

how they relate to second language learning and teaching and give rise to possible new ways of language instruction. As I see it, CL-inspired approaches to L2 instruction center around the notion of linguistic motivation, which refers to the fact that it is sometimes possible to propose explanations for the way a given language standardly packages content (Boers, 2018). Since language results from human conceptualization of reality of the world, many aspects of language are motivated rather than arbitrary in that “they are explainable in terms of how they relate to our everyday experience of the world” (Littlemore, 2009, p. 10). This fact has clear and far-reaching implications for second language learning and teaching. One of the most significant contributions that CL has made to second language pedagogy is that it reduces perceived arbitrariness by offering explanations of linguistic motivation at various levels, ranging from form-form to form-meaning to meaning-meaning relationships in language (Boers & Lindstromberg, 2006). In terms of linguistic motivation underlying form-form relationships, Luo’s (2017, 2019) analysis of the two ways of particle placement with transitive English verbs serve as an example. In this CL account, the continuous order (e.g., He picked up the pen) designates the holistic construal of an agentive motion event whereas the discontinuous order (e.g., He picked the pen up) reflects the sequential construal of the same conceptual scene. In CL, construal is a pervasive phenomenon, defined as “the way a speaker chooses to ‘package’ and ‘present’ a conceptual representation, which in turn has consequences for the conceptual representation that the utterance evokes in the mind of the hearer” (Evans & Green, 2006, p. 536). Thus, varying but related syntactic constructions constitute one of the linguistic representations of human beings’ capability of mentally construing a conceived situation in alternate ways (Goldberg, 1995, 2006). Construal can be employed to explain the differences and relations between “my dad gave my sister a computer” and “my dad gave a computer to my sister”. Although both sentences describe the same situation, the first profiles the object being given, i.e., “the computer” whereas the second attaches importance to the recipient, i.e., “my sister”. Similarly, construal can also explain why it may be more in our interest to say “one of the glasses got broken” rather than “we broke one of your glasses” when reporting an accident (Littlemore, 2009, pp. 13–14). In this example, the first sentence puts emphasis on the state of the glasses whereas the second invites the listener to pay attention to who caused the glasses to break. CL-oriented instruction that explains the conceptual motivation (i.e., the role of construal) behind such parallel syntactic constructions tends to be more effective than traditional pedagogy treating them as unmotivated, arbitrary constructions governed by meaningless grammatical rules (Achard, 2008). Notably, in addition to speaker choice on how to represent events, construal also operates at a second level:

122 

Cognitive-linguistic approaches

“languages themselves have inbuilt, conventional ways of construing events and phenomena that are at times impossible to avoid” (Littlemore, 2009, p. 14). This means learning a second language often involves learning to see the world and present phenomena from slightly different perspectives, and that is exactly why many scholars believe L2 construal patterns deserve explicit instruction (e.g., Littlemore, 2009). The linguistic motivation of form-meaning relationships actually lies at the heart of Langacker’s usage-based model of language: like lexical items, grammar is also characterized as symbolic units with semantic import, which gives rise to a fundamental claim of CL, i.e., the meaningfulness of grammar. Thus, the learning of grammar is thus “a matter of grasping the semantic ‘spin’ it imposes, a far more natural and enjoyable process than sheer memorization” (Langacker, 2008, pp. 72–73). The goal of grammar instruction then boils down to finding the optimal means of teaching the meaning (i.e., conceptual import) of grammar. The notion of Construction Grammar (CG) is a CL theory related to this fundamental claim, which posits that constructions are the basic units of language (Goldberg, 1995, 2006). Scholars have focused on exploring the role of two features of Construction Grammar in the second language classroom (Littlemore, 2009). First, grammatical constructions carry their own meanings, independent of the words they contain. The meanings of grammatical constructions are not arbitrary, but rather a result of human conceptualization of world experience. For example, the caused-motion construction (e.g., She sneezed the napkin off the table) corresponds to the Caused-Motion Event (Goldberg, 1995) as experienced in the real world. Although “sneeze” typically does not carry the meaning of manipulative causation, we can easily interpret the sentence as a caused-motion event because the caused-motion constructional schema is meaningful in itself. The explicit teaching of the meanings of abstract grammatical constructions may counterbalance an L2 learner’s low exposure to the constructions and thus facilitate L2 acquisition (Boers, 2018). Second, like lexical items, the meanings of grammatical constructions also exist in radial categories. For example, the prototypical meaning of the verb-particle syntax in English corresponds to the Motion Event, which can be semantically extended to the State Change Event and Aspect Event (Luo, 2019). Scholars thus suggest that L2 learners should start the use of a path-breaking verb in a construction in its prototypical meaning (Holme, 2010a). Existing empirical research (e.g., Holme, 2010b) has provided limited but encouraging evidence for the effectiveness of CG-inspired pedagogical interventions in the second language classroom. Motivated meaning-meaning relationships are well demonstrated in the linguistic phenomenon, i.e., polysemy. As discussed previously, it is very common for linguistic units to have multiple meanings. In the traditional view, polysemy is largely arbitrary and poses immense challenges for L2 learners

Cognitive-linguistic approaches 123

and teachers. However, in the CL view, the various senses of a word are interrelated to form a semantic network, in which the abstract senses of a word are semantic extensions of the basic sense, systematically motivated through various cognitive processes such as metaphor, metonymy, profiling, vantage point, pragmatic strengthening, and framing (Luo, 2019). Many scholars (e.g., Boers & Linstromberg, 2006; Lakoff, 1987) believe that learning the motivation behind the systematicity of the semantic extension processes can facilitate the learning of less transparent meanings of linguistic expressions. For example, Boers’ (2000a, 2000b) experiments have demonstrated that enhanced metaphorical awareness promotes the retention of new figurative expressions. Kövecses (2001) has shown that the learning of idioms is facilitated by an apprehension of their metaphorical motivation. Kurtyka (2001) has suggested that the teaching of verb-particle combinations is aided by cognitive semantic descriptions explicating that the choice of particle is always motivated by a semantic rationale. Language scholars have also explored a variety of ways to teach the connections between the core sense and the extended senses in the polysemy networks, for example, by presenting multiple meanings of words in terms of radial categories (Verspoor & Lowie, 2003), using diagrams and graphics to illustrate semantic extensions (Tyler et al., 2011), or utilizing diagram-based explanations via a computer-based tutorial system (Wong et al., 2018). Numerous studies have attested to the effectiveness of applying CL-based analysis of polysemous meanings to second language learning and teaching. 6.5 Conclusion

This section intends to summarize CL approaches to SLA and usage by directly answering three questions: 1) what counts as usage? 2) how does usage lead to L2 learning? 3) what is the L2 learning task? Cognitive linguists have been interested in the relationship between linguistic description and language learning from the very beginning due to the very foundations of CL (e.g., Taylor, 1993). First, the usage-based principle lies at the heart of the connection between CL and SLA. In the usage-based model of language, knowledge of language emerges from usage, which refers to situated instances of comprehending and producing language. Second, the cognitive processes that we employ when dealing with and learning languages are viewed as the same as those involved in other areas of cognition. In this view, L1 and L2 acquisition are not fundamentally different. A significant contribution of CL to linguistic study is a detailed description of the cognitive processes that are at work in language and thought, which allow language speakers to extract language knowledge from usage events. Such cognitive processes operate across all areas of language and all levels of language acquisition, including but not limited to the process of entrenchment, the processes of meaning

124 

Cognitive-linguistic approaches

construction, schematization, categorization, comparison (e.g., metaphor, metonymy, construal), and integration. Third, CL sees language as a product of physical interaction with the world mediated by human conceptualization. Thus, many aspects of language are conceptually motivated and amenable to instruction (explicit, implicit, or a combination of both). The linguistic motivation at various levels (i.e., form-form, form-meaning, meaning-meaning) has the potential to remove the arbitrariness from language teaching and bring about CL-inspired approaches to L2 instruction. The pedagogical effectiveness of this approach has received empirical support. In CL, the linguistic system is defined as a massive, highly redundant inventory of conventional units. Thus, everything that contributes to the development of such an inventory is considered the L2 learning task, whether it is implicit learning from usage events or explicit learning from instruction. Discussion questions

1. There has been a consensus among scholars that the very foundations of Cognitive Linguistics (CL) make it well suited for shedding light on second language acquisition (SLA). Why do you think this is the case? What are the main contributions of CL to SLA and language pedagogy? 2. What is the usage-based theory of SLA? Please use at least one example in your L2 learning experience to explain to what degree you agree or disagree with the usage-based theory of SLA. 3. What is the most difficult linguistic phenomenon or grammar in your L2 learning or teaching experience? Is this linguistic phenomenon completely arbitrary or is it possible to provide some explanations as to why it is used as it is? In what way does this linguistic phenomenon reflect human conceptualization of the world? 4. What is the CL-inspired approach to L2 instruction? What concepts in CL are utilized in this approach and in what way? Choose a lexical item with multiple meanings (e.g., over, up, down) and try to figure out how the more abstract senses of this lexical item are semantically extended from the basic sense by using concepts such as metaphor and construal. How would an L2 teacher make use of such knowledge in teaching this lexical item to L2 students? References Achard, M. (2008). Teaching construal: Cognitive pedagogical grammar. In P. Robinson & N. C. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition (pp. 432–455). Routledge. Boers, F. (2000a). Enhancing metaphoric awareness in specialized reading. English for Specific Purposes, 19(2), 137–147.

Cognitive-linguistic approaches 125

Boers, F. (2000b). Metaphor awareness and vocabulary retention. Applied Linguistics, 21(4), 553–571. Boers, F. (2018). Exploring linguistic motivation. In J. I. Liontas (Ed.), TESOL encyclopedia of English language teaching (pp. 1–6). Wiley. Boers, F., & Lindstromberg, S. (2006). Cognitive linguistic applications in second or foreign language instruction: Rationale, proposals and evaluation. In G. Kristiansen, M. Archard, R. Dirven, & F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Current applications and future perspectives (pp. 305–355). Mouton de Gruyter. Bybee, J. (2008). Usage-based grammar and second language acquisition. In P. Robinson & N. C. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition (pp. 216–236). Routledge. Croft, W., & Cruse, D. A. (2004). Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge University Press. De Ruiter, L., & Theakston, A. (2017). First language acquisition. In B. Dancygier (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 59–72). Cambridge University Press. Dirven, R., & Verspoor, M. (1998). Cognitive exploration of language and linguistics. John Benjamins. Ellis, N. C., & Fernando-Junior, F. (2009). Construction learning as a function of frequency, frequency distribution, and function. Modern Language Journal, 93(3), 370–386. Evans, V. (2012). Cognitive linguistics. WIREs Cognitive Science, 3, 129–141. Evans, V., Bergen, B. K., & Zinken, J. (2007). The cognitive linguistics enterprise: An overview. In V. Evans, B. K. Bergen, & J. Zinken (Eds.), The cognitive linguistics reader (pp. 2–36). Equinox. Evans, V., & Green, M. (2006). Cognitive linguistics: An introduction. Edinburgh University Press. Fillmore, C. (1975). An alternative to checklist theories of meaning. Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 1, 123–131. Gisborne, N., & Hollmann, W. B. (2014). Theory and data in cognitive linguistics. John Benjamins. Goldberg, A. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago University Press. Goldberg, A. (2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford University Press. Holme, R. (2010a). Construction grammars: Towards a pedagogical model. AILA Review, 23, 115–133. Holme, R. (2010b). A construction grammar for the classroom. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 48(4), 355–377. Jarvis, S., & Pavlenko, A. (2008). Crosslinguistic influence in language and cognition. Routledge. Kemmer, S., & Barlow, M. (2000). Introduction: A usage-based conception of language. In M. Barlow & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Usage-based models of language (pp. i–xxvii). CSLI Publications. Kövecses, Z. (2001). A cognitive linguistic view of learning idioms in an FLT context. In M. Pütz & S. Niemeier (Eds.), Applied cognitive linguistics II: Language pedagogy (pp. 87–115). Mouton de Gruyter.

126 

Cognitive-linguistic approaches

Kurtyka, A. (2001). Teaching English particle verbs: A cognitive approach. In M. Pütz & S. Niemeier (Eds.), Applied cognitive linguistics II: Language pedagogy (pp. 29–54). Mouton de Gruyter. Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things. University of Chicago Press. Lakoff, G. (1990). The invariance hypothesis: Is abstract reason based on imageschemas? Cognitive Linguistics, 1(1), 39–74. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press. Langacker, R. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar, volume 1. Stanford University Press. Langacker, R. (1988). A usage-based model. In B. Rudzka-Ostyn (Ed.), Topics in cognitive linguistics (pp. 127–161). John Benjamins. Langacker, R. (1990). Concept, image and symbol. Mouton de Gruyter. Langacker, R. (1991). Foundations of cognitive grammar, volume 2. Stanford University Press. Langacker, R. (1999). Grammar and conceptualization. Mouton de Gruyter. Langacker, R. (2000). A dynamic usage-based model. In M. Barlow & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Usage-based model of language (pp. 1–37). CSLI Publications. Langacker, R. W. (2008). Cognitive Grammar as a basis for language instruction. In P. Robinson & N. C. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition (pp. 66–88). Routledge. Langlotz, A. (2006). Idiomatic creativity: A cognitive-linguistic model of idiomrepresentation and idiom-variation in English. John Benjamins. Lieven, E., & Tomassello, M. (2008). Children’s first language acquisition from a usage-based perspective. In P. Robinson & N. C. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition (pp. 168–196). Routledge. Littlemore, J. (2009). Applying cognitive linguistics to second language learning and teaching. Palgrave Macmillan. Littlemore, J., & Grundmann, C. J. (2010). Introduction to the interplay between cognitive linguistics and second language learning and teaching. AILA Review (Special Issue), 23(1), 1–6. Luo, H. (2017). English transitive particle verbs: Particle placement and idiomaticity. Cognitive Linguistic Studies, 4(2), 330–354. Luo, H. (2019). Particle verbs in English: A cognitive linguistic perspective. Springer. Luo, H. (2021). Cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition. In J. Taylor & X. Wen (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 556–567). Routledge. McManus, K. (2021). Crosslinguistic influence and second language learning. Routledge. Pütz, M. (2007). Cognitive linguistics and applied linguistics. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 1139– 1159). Oxford University Press. Talmy, L. (1975). Figure and ground in complex sentences. Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 1, 419–430. Taylor, J. (1993). Some pedagogical implications of cognitive linguistics. In R. Geiger & B. Rudzka-Ostyn (Eds.), Conceptualizations and mental processing of language (pp. 201–223). Mouton de Gruyter. Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Harvard University Press.

Cognitive-linguistic approaches 127

Tomasello, M. (2007). Cognitive linguistics and first language acquisition. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 1092–1112). Oxford University Press. Tyler, A. (2012). Cognitive linguistics and second language learning: Theoretical basics and experimental evidence. Routledge. Tyler, A. (2017). Second language acquisition. In B. Dancygier (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 73–90). Cambridge University Press. Tyler, A., & Evans, V. (2003). The semantics of English prepositions: Spatial scenes, cognition and the experiential basis of meaning. Cambridge University Press. Tyler, A., Mueller, C., & Ho, V. (2011). Applying cognitive linguistics to learning the semantics of English prepositions to, for, and at: An experimental investigation. Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 8, 181–205. Verspoor, M. H., & Lowie, W. (2003). Making sense of polysemous words. Language Learning, 53(3), 547–586. Wong, M. H. I., Zhao, H., & MacWhinney, B. (2018). A cognitive linguistics application for second language pedagogy: The English preposition tutor. Language Learning, 68(2), 438–468.

7 USAGE IN ISLA FROM A PROCESSINGBASED PERSPECTIVE Ronald P. Leow

7.1 Introduction

The concept of “usage” has been investigated in the instructed second language acquisition or ISLA literature for several decades and typically subsumed within a global usage-based perspective of second or foreign language (L2) learning in several strands of research that include the formal instructed setting (e.g., social/sociocultural, cognitive-interactionist, cognitive linguistics). The overriding tenets of a usage-based approach to language learning are that, contrary to Chomskyan postulations of an innate disposition to acquire a language (Chomsky, 1957), it is (1) inputdependent, (2) communicative or meaning-based in nature, (3) co-exists with other speakers of the language in some social or interactional setting, (4) involves learner cognitive engagement, and (5) language knowledge is derived from language use. What is noteworthy is that the second language acquisition (SLA) theoretical underpinnings track relatively closely to those postulated for child first language (L1) acquisition in a naturalistic setting (e.g., Langacker, 1988; Tomasello, 2003). In addition to the primary role of communication and its subsequent input (argued to shape language) in language learning, variables such as, for example, frequency, experience, the integral roles of comprehension and production, the emergence of linguistic representations versus being viewed as fixed entities, and statistical learning are also postulated to play important roles in the learning process (e.g., N. Ellis & Wulff, 2015; Kemmer & Barlow, 2000). L2 learning, from a usage-based approach, is also assumed to take place from a dual social-cognitive perspective, that is, engagement in a social, DOI: 10.4324/9781032668475-7

Usage in ISLA 129

conversational setting allows L2 learners’ cognitive processes to be activated when influenced by and responding to the characteristics of a given usage event (e.g., Roehr-Brackin, 2015; Eskildsen, 2009). Several strands of ISLA research have directly or indirectly referenced the role of usage in L2 learning, albeit from different notions of what comprises usage in the literature. For example, usage appears to be (1) language use or production as being embedded in the full performance (speaker-listener) during a communicative social/sociocultural (e.g., Hall, 2019; Lantolf & Thorne, 2006) or interactional event (e.g., Long, 1996) within which L2 exposure is postulated to drive language use, (2) the source of knowledge of language (a product) derived from such exposure when viewed from a usage-based linguistics perspective (e.g., Divjak, 2019; N. Ellis, 2020), (3) a product derived from data gathered from an analysis of the linguistic features or the type of L2 input (e.g., patterns, frequency etc.) produced during language communication (e.g., N. Ellis et al., 2016; Wulff & Gries, 2019) or from learner corpora (see Tracy-Ventura & Paquot, 2021 for a review), (4) performance of a specific activity or task designed to promote a specific type of processing behavior (e.g., DeKeyser, 2015), (5) conditions under which language learning can be promoted (e.g., McManus, 2021; Suzuki et al., 2019), and so on. To situate a processing-based perspective of usage in ISLA, this chapter first succinctly reports the main tenets of the theoretical underpinnings of several usage-based approaches to L2 learning. A processing-based account of usage in ISLA is then introduced from three perspectives, namely, contextual (regarding differential affordances provided by naturalistic vs. instructed settings), the type of processing assumed in these two contexts, and methodological (product-oriented vs. process-oriented). Given the formal instructed setting, a suggestion is made to broaden the definition of usage to include language use in both modalities (oral and written). An existing theoretical model (Leow, 2015) and its offshoot Feedback Processing Framework (Leow, 2020) are identified to elucidate the relationship between language use, cognition, and L2 learning from both an SLA usage-based and ISLA processing-based perspective. Several methodological issues also are identified that future research may need to address. In this chapter, language is defined as the principal method of human communication, consisting of grammatical rules and words, and conveyed by speech and writing. 7.2 Usage-based approaches to language learning in ISLA

Usage-based approaches to L2 learning in ISLA have tracked closely to the theoretical underpinnings and postulations offered by those in child L1 literature (e.g., Langacker, 1988; Tomasello, 2003), namely, language

130  Usage in ISLA

learning is viewed as taking place in social interactions in which L2 learners share their experience and practice with the L2 (Jing-Schmidt, 2018), and that language knowledge is derived from language use (Divjak, 2019; N. Ellis, 2020). For example, N. Ellis and Wulff (2015), from a cognitivelinguistics perspective, provide several constructs derived from L1 usagebased approaches, namely, (1) constructions that are pairings of form and meaning or function that are the essential units of language representation, (2) associative language learning that involves learning these constructions via learning the association between form and meaning or function, (3) rational language learning that is closely associated with learners’ mental model of their language tied to their experience of language at any given time, (4) exemplar-based learning that occurs as the learner’s language system compares constructions with previous encounters of the same or similar exemplar in order to retrieve the correct interpretation, and (5) emergent relations and patterns that view language learning as a gradual process in which language emerges as a complex system from the interaction of cognitive learning mechanisms with the input. According to N. Ellis (2020), language meaning is grounded in learners’ experience and their physical embodiment that represents the world in particular ways. Language comprises thousands of constructions or form-meaning mappings that are conventionalized in the speech community and entrenched as language knowledge in the learners’ minds. Schematic constructions emerge from the conspiracy of memories of particular exemplars that language users have experienced (cf. Chapter 5 for further elaboration). From a sociocultural perspective, researchers have mainly relied on the Vygotskian (1978) sociocultural theory premised on child acquisition, the centrality of language as a “tool for thought”, or a means of mediation, in mental activity, and his concept of the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD). According to Vygotskian theory, consciousness plays a role in humans’ ability to regulate problem-solving and achieve what they want to do and anticipate doing (goals), with respect to why they want to do it (motives) and how they want to do it (chosen operations or means) (Lantolf & Appel, 1994). Lantolf and Appel report three types of regulations: (1) object-regulated (focused on a specific object), (2) other-regulated (focusing on other people), and (3) self-regulated (orientation to one’s own mental activity to independently carry out an activity). All three types of regulation are mediated by language, which in turn mediates all mental activities that include three types of speech, namely, private (audible to the self), social (shared with others), and inner (inaudible to the self) speeches. ZPD is the domain of knowledge or skill where learning can most productively take place but where the learner is incapable of independent functioning to achieve such knowledge or skill unless assisted. ZPD is best viewed, then, as a collaborative activity between an expert and a novice, with the former

Usage in ISLA 131

shaping the cognitive development (or levels of knowledge) of the latter. This temporal, fine-tuned expert assistance is referred to in the literature as scaffolding (Wood et al., 1976). From a cognitive perspective, two major theoretical underpinnings may be found in Long’s (1996) Interaction Hypothesis and, to a lesser extent, DeKeyser’s (2015) Skill Acquisition Theory. The Interaction Hypothesis centers itself on the facilitative adjustments that a native or expert speaker of a language may offer a novice language learner during social, communicative interactions. The hypothesis views the negotiation for meaning and feedback that arise during semantically contingent speech as the primary trigger and driver of SLA and links the linguistic environment and input features with learners’ cognitive factors such as selective attention and their developing L2 processing capacity (Long, 1996). Unlike the sociocultural and interactional usage-based approaches to L2 learning, Skill Acquisition Theory does not view usage as taking place in a social or interactional setting but more as language use or practice developing different types of learner knowledge in an instructed setting. Skill Acquisition Theory addresses the learning process L2 learners follow in order to gain a new skill and explains how explicit or declarative L2 knowledge becomes proceduralized over time until it is converted into implicit or procedural knowledge (DeKeyser, 2015). This process is commonly referred to within (I)SLA as the acquisition of declarative knowledge, proceduralization, and automatization stages (see Anderson, 1982). The learning process begins with a learner acquiring declarative knowledge about a skill (language). Once enough knowledge about a skill has been acquired, typically associated with much cognitive effort, the process of forming a behavior where declarative knowledge is transformed into procedural knowledge during proceduralization begins. Once their declarative knowledge is proceduralized, the learner can retrieve specific information with less dependence on declarative knowledge and, consequently, less cognitive effort. A great deal of meaningful, contextualized practice is required to develop spontaneous and fluid speech and to achieve procedural knowledge (DeKeyser, 2015)1 (cf. Chapter 8 for further elaboration). 7.3 The role of cognition in usage-based approaches

Usage-based approaches to L2 learning underscore the important role of cognition during language use. In order to situate where the cognitive processes postulated to be involved during usage take place, it is instructive to briefly review the cognitive processes identified by L1 usage-based approaches to play a role in the use and development of L2 linguistic structures. Bybee (2010) identifies four cognitive processes, namely, (1) categorization that involves the identification of exemplars belonging to

132  Usage in ISLA

some specific type, (2) the notion of chunking that takes in L2 data via repetition or practice, (3) analogy that involves mapping an existing structural pattern onto a new instance, and (4) cross-modal association or the cognitive ability to make form-meaning connections. She also mentions the role of rich memory that allows for the storage of detailed information derived from experience, although she does not elaborate on the type of processing emanating from this memory. Related to the storage and organization of structures in the learner’s mental inventory is the cognitive process called entrenchment (e.g., Langacker, 1987) that addresses the role of repeated activation in strengthening memory traces or learner representations. In SLA, from a cognitive-linguistics perspective, language is intrinsically linked to human cognition and also to processes of attention, perception, memory, learning, schematization, and categorization (N. Ellis, 2015). Like L1 usage-based approaches to language learning, N. Ellis underscores the important role of cognition during usage that allows “the remembering of utterances and episodes, the categorization of experience, the determination of patterns among and between stimuli, the generalization of conceptual schema and prototypes from exemplars, and the use of cognitive models, metaphors, analogies, and images in thinking” (p. 49). Sociocultural theory provides a more global view of the L2 learning process being guided by the same general learning mechanisms applicable to language and other forms of knowledge and skill. The process is first social before becoming individual (inter-mental to intra-mental), and controlled by the learners’ active constructions of their individual learning environments shaped by their own goals and operations (Mitchell et al., 2013). A cognitive-interactionist hypothesis views learning as being derived from the relationship between external (e.g., the linguistic environment and input features) and internal (e.g., selective attention and L2 processing capacity) factors (Long, 1996). On the other hand, Skill Acquisition Theory views learning as being derived from practice that leads to the conversion of declarative knowledge to procedural knowledge. The cognitive processes assumed to take place during the social or interactional events include processes (e.g., categorization, analogy, chunking, cross-modal association, entrenchment) that are typically associated with early processing stages (Input or Intake processing) if we agree with the typical coarse-grained framework of the learning process: Input > Intake > Internal system > Output What cognitive processes are employed at a later stage (Output) or during language production or use remain relatively unknown and unreported.

Usage in ISLA 133

7.4 Usage in ISLA from a processing-based perspective

Before a processing-based perspective of usage in ISLA is discussed, it is useful to cite Javadi and Kazemirad’s (2020) recent and succinct description of L2 usage-based approaches as the assumption that all linguistic knowledge is constructed based on the input and the major part of language learning takes place implicitly and incidentally during meaning-focused input processing. These approaches are input-dependent and experience-driven and consider language learning as a complex adaptive system which involves multidimensional social and cognitive processes that interact in time and space. (p. 477) What stands out in such a definition of a usage-based approach to L2 learning are two major features, namely, the type of learning context (naturalistic vs. formal settings) and the type of processing (implicit vs. explicit) that may need to be considered when attempting to address the role of usage in instructed L2 learning from a processing-based perspective. In addition, the methodological approach to operationalize or measure the construct learning (product vs. process) warrants further consideration. 7.4.1 Type of learning context

With regard to the type of learning context, as pointed out in Leow (2019a) and Leow and Cerezo (2016), the naturalistic and formal settings do not share the same affordances. The context or social environment described in usage-based approaches to L2 learning reflects clearly the naturalistic setting in which first, second, third, etc. language acquisition takes place. This environment is natural in the sense that the language (or languages, as in the case of bilingualism, etc.) to be acquired is used for communication between the speakers of that language. It possesses all of the cultural, pragmatic, and social ingredients that assist in developing one’s membership in this community, and the amount of exposure to and interaction with the language(s) are arguably ideal and unparalleled for natural acquisition. (Leow, 2019a, p. 487) That this social context is clearly significant for children’s cognitive development is also an undebatable issue in the child L1 educational literature (e.g., Piaget, 1995; Vygotsky, 1978). However, most L2 learners (including the typical adult participant population employed in ISLA research)

134  Usage in ISLA

are exposed to the L2 in an instructed environment, which is well known for its impoverished semi-artificial setting, be it the formal classroom with its teacher or via hybrid/blended, digital, or online learning courses (e.g., edX, Duolingo, Rosetta Stone). Whereas exposure in the naturalistic setting is ideal for the usage-based approaches to L2 learning, with its focus on speaking and listening for communicative meaning-based purposes, the instructed setting promotes the so-called traditional four skills of listening, reading, writing, and speaking or a combination thereof within a relatively short period of time. More importantly, this context for (adult) L2 learners is usually situated within a language curriculum driven by learning components and outcomes for the L2 learners underscored by the attainment of a passing grade (Leow, 2019). Extrapolating the tenets of usage-based approaches to L2 learning to this type of population in the instructed setting, then, may be quite a stretch given that the quantity of input, language use, and exposure is typically described as being inadequate and opportunities to extract language from the L2 are very limited if viewed from a usage-based perspective (see Huensch, 2019; McManus & Bluemel, 2022). Consequently, the experience obtained in a naturalistic setting over a long and extended period of time for statistical or implicit learning or acquisition of frequent items in the L2 input to emerge is quite the opposite of what is experienced in an instructed setting that is also guided by a teacher, textbook, homework, and a grade. 7.4.2 Type of processing

Similarly, how data in the L2 input are processed and produced in these two contexts may present quite a challenge to the tenets of usage-based approaches to L2 learning when applied to an instructed setting (ISLA). As noted in their postulations, the interaction and communication between L2 learners are natural and the type of processing is implicit or aligned with statistical learning or acquisition, which is associated with a tremendous amount of exposure to and interaction with the L2. From a processing perspective, it is easily noted that, in a naturalistic L1 environment where such exposure and interaction with the L1 are ideal and unparalleled, the process of implicit learning, statistical learning, or acquisition is effortless, with a minimal amount of cognitive or mental effort or level of awareness. The type of processing in the instructed setting is more of an explicit nature given the conditions under which the L2 is learned (e.g., the formal setting, textbook, homework, learning outcomes, grade, etc.) (Leow, 2015, 2018). Viewed from this processing-based perspective and the context in which L2 learners are typically exposed to and interact with the L2, extrapolating some tenets of usage-based approaches to L2 learning in ISLA may be quite challenging to uphold.

Usage in ISLA 135

7.4.3 A methodological perspective of measuring the construct of L2 learning derived from usage: process vs. product

Many of the interpretations of the role of usage in L2 learning have centered on the output or knowledge processing stage of the L2 learning process, which logically situates the term usage as part of language use or production. For example, to arrive at the evidence of their respective theoretical postulations, sociocultural and cognitive-interactionist researchers have mainly asked L2 learners to participate in a collaborative or interactive task or activity. They record, transcribe, and code participants’ oral productions and use these data to make assumptions about the role of usage or language use in L2 learning. Given that Vygotskian ISLA researchers view L2 learning as “a process that involves gradually appropriating the L2 to make it into our own tool for self-regulation and thinking” (Ortega, 2009, p. 220), they look, for example, for instances of types of regulation to address the construct of learning. Cognitive-interactionist researchers place much interest in the type of feedback provided during the negotiation of meaning in communicative interactions and, consequently, investigate potential L2 learning based on whether L2 learners are capable of producing accurate utterances after such feedback. The Skill Acquisition Theory strand has employed specific language tasks (including comprehension and written production assessment tasks) or experimental conditions (e.g., the provision of pre-practice linguistic information) usually in a pretest – practice – posttest design to address any potential role of practice in subsequent L2 learning. At the same time, what is explicitly included in participation in such an event, be it social, interactional, or pedagogical, are both knowledge/output processing and input processing that individually incorporate some level of cognitive processing. As noted above, the cognitive processes assumed to take place during these social events are more related to earlier stages of the L2 learning process (input/intake processing) although empirical process data are usually not addressed or reported in usage-based research. There is also a dearth of empirical process data on actual language production (knowledge/output processing) and robust empirical evidence of the relationship between usage and L2 learning given the social-cognitive makeup of what should comprise the concept of usage. Indeed, despite the cognition aspect of usage-based approaches to L2 learning, it is observed that most empirical ISLA studies situated within such an approach appear to rely more on the product (e.g., corpus, interactional, or production) data than how L2 learners both provide the L2 output (as speaker) and process the L2 input (as listener) while engaging in language production or use. In other words, learning appears to be viewed (operationalized or measured) primarily more from a product-oriented rather than a process-oriented perspective.

136  Usage in ISLA

7.4.4 Related methodological issues

There are several challenges related to the strand of research promoting a usage-based approach to L2 learning in ISLA. These may be due to nebulous definitions, operationalizations, or measurements of what counts as usage, learning, and frequency, the overall lack of empirical support for several cognitive processes postulated for L2 learning during usage, and for the relationship between usage and L2 learning. As observed, usage may be interpreted differentially in the literature while learning in some instances appears to be more of an individual process or product than a universal one. Frequency also appears to be problematic, especially in an instructed setting. How many instances of some targeted linguistic item in the L2 input is necessary for learning to take place or for item learning to proceed to system learning? Note that frequency in usage-based learning is premised on L2 learners processing (mainly implicitly) embedded “rules” of language, which are structural regularities that emerge from learners’ extended internal analyses of the distributional characteristics of the language input at all levels of analysis (from phonology, through syntax, to discourse). Yet in most instructed settings, adult L2 learners follow a more explicit exposure to such rules (in their textbooks and workbooks, and by their teachers) together with formal practice given the time constraints of this setting. Arguably, this formal setting can clearly provide a more focused exposure to specific L2 linguistic forms and structures via a combination of both aural and written input together with both oral and written production, but the learning process is more explicit than implicit. The concept of frequency is also subsumed in daily life events (thousands of instances, according to N. Ellis, 2020) that are not possible in an instructed setting for learners attending L2 classes a few hours weekly. In addition, in the usage-based social and communicative events, how is frequency obtained if the focus of the event is message sharing or meaning-based? Finally, while several cognitive processes have been proposed to support the role of cognition in usage-based learning, most of them are not supported by a process-oriented approach but by product data gathered in the L1 environment and, in many cases, specifically related to child acquisition (cf. the statistical learning data of children by Saffron and her colleagues, e.g., Saffran et al., 1996) or the recent interest in L2 learner corpora (a product), albeit with several limitations that include size regarding, for example, frequency, and having a more descriptive than explanatory nature (McEnery et al., 2019). 7.5 Redefining the concept of usage in ISLA from a processing-based perspective

If one were to consider the relatively limited affordances offered by instructed settings, the type of processing (explicit learning) that permeates

Usage in ISLA 137

such settings, and curricular considerations, then the concept of usage in ISLA may need to be redefined within these parameters. There is no doubt that practitioners want their L2 learners to use the L2 for communicative purposes outside the formal setting, so the concept of usage should involve both language use or production and input/intake processing of the raw L2 input provided in such interactions together with any potential feedback. In other words, usage is embedded in the production of the message the L2 learner wants to share with others together with how exposure to the L2 response (input), including feedback, is processed subsequently. In an ISLA context, then, given that L2 learners are required to share their messages in both spoken and written modalities, the concept of usage should not only focus on language use as oral production but also include written production (as in written compositions). Most language curricula include a writing component aligned with the learning outcomes of the language courses. Including both production modalities suggests a broadened definition of usage in ISLA as all instances in which L2 learners in this instructed setting are sharing messages with others in both modalities. Both modalities, also aligned with the definition of language in this chapter, provide exposure to L2 input, which may contain instances of feedback (positive or negative), that allows cognitive processes to be activated in response. 7.6 Theoretically accounting for the role of usage in ISLA from a processing-based perspective

If the definition of usage in ISLA is accepted as the sharing of messages in the L2 from a dual profile of language use (both oral and written) and cognitive engagement, we can observe that Leow’s (2015) Model of the L2 Learning Process in ISLA together with his Feedback Processing Framework (Leow, 2020) may provide theoretical underpinnings for this ISLA strand of research. The Model and Feedback Processing Framework may theoretically account, from both a current SLA usage-based (implicit learning) and ISLA processing-based (explicit learning) perspective, for what takes place during usage at both the later stage of knowledge processing (language use or production) and at the earlier stage of input/intake processing of the L2 input received during interaction. Leow’s Model is already premised on the cognitive processes (e.g., roles of attention, awareness, activation of prior knowledge, hypothesis testing, rule formulation, metacognition, etc.) together with how L2 learners process new or old L2 input or output (e.g., depth of processing) assumed to play a role during language learning at both the earlier (input/intake) and later (knowledge/output) stages of the L2 learning process (cf. Leow, 2015). It is also noteworthy that the cognitive processes postulated during the stages of language learning in his

138  Usage in ISLA

model appear to overlap with several of those postulated in current usagebased approaches to L2 learning. Given that language use is situated at the knowledge processing stage of his Model, this stage is first examined followed by a theoretical processing-based explanation of exposure to any new L2 data in the communicative event. Regarding any potential feedback (positive or negative) embedded in the L2 input, his Feedback Processing Framework provides a cognitive explanation for the roles of both oral and written feedback in L2 learning in direct relation to how L2 learners or writers process such feedback. 7.6.1 The knowledge processing stage

According to Leow, the knowledge processing stage (e.g., assigning phonological features to the L2 in oral production, monitoring production in relation to learned grammar, etc.) occurs in his Model between the L2 developing system and what is produced by the learner. He postulates that depth of processing and potential level of awareness may also play a role at this stage (as in earlier input or intake processing stages) together with the ability to activate (appropriate) knowledge. As L2 learners’ fluency and accuracy of their L2 production improve, the speed of activation and appropriateness of knowledge may be observed. This process aligns with Bybee’s (2007) result of entrenchment at this later stage: “In addition, each instance of use further automates and increases the fluency of the sequence, leading to fusion of the units” (p. 324). Leow also points out that the representation of the L2 learning process (from input > intake > internal system > knowledge processing) is not viewed as linear given that learners’ production may also serve as additional input. Learners may monitor what they produce or use potential feedback provided by an interlocutor based on what they have just produced as confirmation or disconfirmation of their L2 output. They may reinforce their current knowledge or restructure their current interlanguage depending upon the depth of processing or level of awareness. 7.6.2 The input processing stage

During usage, L2 learners may be exposed to two types of L2 input, namely, new or old linguistic information in the L2 input that may be processed initially during the input processing stage, situated in his Model between the input and the intake processing stages of the L2 learning process. New information taken in (attended, detected, or noticed intake) is initially stored in working memory. This stage is largely dependent upon the level of attention (peripheral, selective, or focal) paid to such information by the

Usage in ISLA 139

learner and may be accompanied by depth of processing, cognitive registration, and level of awareness. 7.6.3 The intake processing stage

Any intake further processed in working memory takes place at the stage of intake processing where several of Leow’s postulated cognitive processes overlap with several of those suggested by usage-based researchers to account for the role of cognition during usage. Depending upon the depth or level of processing and/or cognitive effort, the intake may be processed one of two ways: It may be accompanied by minimal datadriven processing (cf. Robinson, 1995) that allows the data to be entered into learners’ L2 developing system encoded as a non-systemized chunk of language (cf. Gass, 1997). Not much cognitive effort has been expended in such processing. Subsequent exemplars not accompanied by higher levels of processing may follow this path, forming a collection of encoded discrete data or entities lodged in learners’ L2 developing system. This process overlaps with Bybee’s (2010) notion of chunking that takes in L2 data via repetition and practice and the overall usage-based perspective of implicit or statistical learning or acquisition taking place in language use during social and communicative events (e.g., N. Ellis, 2020; Kemmer & Barlow, 2000). Intake further processed can also be accompanied by relatively higher levels of processing such as consciously encoding and decoding the linguistic information (cf. Hsieh et al., 2016) and conceptually driven processing (cf. Leow, 1998; Robinson, 1995), processes arguably prevalent in instructed settings. This stage may be accompanied by higher levels of awareness that keep the L2 data alive in working memory in order to facilitate its potential entry and incorporation into the learners’ systemized grammatical system (cf. Leow, 2001; Sachs & Suh, 2007). The first exemplar is cognitively linked to the potential activation of prior knowledge of some old related linguistic data that are used to facilitate the encoding and decoding of the linguistic information contained in the preliminary intake (cf. Leow, 1998; de la Fuente, 2016). This process is relatively similar to the role of memory and categorization that involves the identification of exemplars as belonging to some specific type (Bybee, 2010; N. Ellis, 2015). This initial conceptually driven processing necessitates a higher depth of processing accompanied by a higher level of awareness. Repeated activation of prior knowledge of the same linguistic data will result in a reduction of the level of awareness and depth of processing required to process the L2 data (cf. Bergsleithner, 2019; Calderón, 2013). This type of processing appears to resemble the process of entrenchment that addresses the role of repeated activation: “Each token of use of a

140  Usage in ISLA

word or sequence of words strengthens its representation and makes it more easily accessed” (Bybee, 2007, p. 324). As the second or more exemplars are taken in, intake processing may be viewed from two perspectives: Activation of old (as described above) or new data. Conceptually driven processing allows learners to reinforce or restructure previous new internalized information lodged in the system-learning component (cf. Leow, 1998). With respect to new data at this stage, linguistic unsystemized data recently stored in the L2 developing system may be reactivated by further exposure to the same or related linguistic data (cf. Leow, 1998). Depending upon the depth of processing or amount of cognitive effort and/or levels of awareness, this activation may lead to either implicit or explicit systemized learning of the L2 information, which is then stored in the grammatical component within the L2 developing system . A low level of processing may potentially lead to implicit restructuring, if necessary, of the L2 information and implicit systemized learning. Implicit systemized learning resembles statistical learning or the notion of analogy that involves mapping an existing structural pattern onto a new instance (Bybee, 2010), which is also referred to as the ability to generate systemized knowledge into new exemplars sharing the same underlying structure. However, as pointed out by Leow (2015), this kind of processing depends heavily on many factors that include the provision of large amounts of exemplars in meaningful contexts and quite a long period of time to process, internalize the exemplars, and have the knowledge available for subsequent usage. The ideal environment for such processing is logically the naturalistic setting for such usage-based learning. With regard to explicit learning, associated with the type of processing occurring in the instructed setting, as the depth of processing increases to include hypothesis testing and rule formulation (cf. Hsieh et al., 2016), so too does the potential level of awareness increase: From awareness at the level of noticing > awareness at the level of reporting > to awareness at the level of understanding (cf. Leow, 2001). The combination of prior knowledge activation, depth of processing, and potential higher level of awareness allows the linguistic data to be explicitly learned or restructured if necessary and stored in the grammatical component within the L2 developing system. Awareness at the level of understanding (Schmidt, 1990) and subsequent automatization of the linguistic data via subsequent multiple exposures and meaningful practice (DeKeyser, 2015) will lead to a sharp reduction in the level of cognitive effort required to process the relevant linguistic data in the L2 input or produce it, which may lead to a less important role for awareness and depth of processing during both the intake and knowledge processing of previously learned linguistic data (cf. Bergsleithner, 2019; Calderón, 2013).

Usage in ISLA 141

7.6.4 L2 developing system

What is stored in the L2 developing system, then, are two kinds of product or stored linguistic knowledge, namely, unsystemized (discrete linguistic data) and systemized (internalized or learned) data. This separation of internalized data in the system is reminiscent of Gass’s (1997) postulation and accounts for item-versus-system learning. Accuracy of the product is not of importance at this point but there is a correlation between higher levels of awareness (cf. Leow, 2001; Rosa & Leow, 2004) or depth of processing (e.g., Adrada-Rafael, 2017; Leow et al., 2019b) and more accuracy. While there is ample empirical evidence for the cognitive processes postulated by this model for the intake processing stage (e.g., reported instances of hypothesis testing, rule formulation, activation of prior knowledge, and metacognition together with depths of processing and levels of awareness) in several strands of research, there is a paucity of studies that have investigated the knowledge processing stage where language use occurs. There are currently a few process-oriented studies in ISLA that can provide some data on cognitive processes employed by L2 learners during written production tasks (e.g., see Cerezo et al., 2016 and Zhuang, 2019 for a computer-based learning task, and Bergsleithner, 2019 for a narrative writing task) and while responding to written corrective feedback (Leow et al., 2022). All these studies, employing think-aloud protocols to tap into learner cognitive processes during L2 written production, also reported instances of hypothesis testing, rule formulation, activation of prior knowledge, and metacognition together with differential depths of processing and levels of awareness. Absent are studies that have addressed cognitive processes employed by L2 learners during oral production, which may present a methodological challenge to gathering such concurrent data. 7.6.5 Feedback Processing Framework

To address any potential processing of feedback during usage, Leow’s (2020) Feedback Processing Framework, premised on his 2015 Model, states that any feedback on learners’ output is the L2 information that learners need to minimally pay attention to for feedback intake (attended, detected, or noticed) to enter into the learner’s working memory. How learners cognitively process the feedback (if at all) in relation to the current learner knowledge or interlanguage is reported in the Feedback Processing stage. According to Leow, information in the feedback further processed at this stage, whether with a low or high depth of processing or level of awareness, allows for reinforcement of accurate prior knowledge or, based on corrective feedback, for the potential of restructuring previously learned inaccurate knowledge stored in the learners’ Internal System. The new restructured information (accurate or still inaccurate) then replaces or joins the original

142  Usage in ISLA

knowledge in the Internal System, which raises the possibility of co-existence of both accurate or inaccurate forms or structures in the Internal System. This knowledge is then available for the Knowledge Processing stage. Learners subsequently producing inaccurate output represents a potential absence or low depth of prior processing of the corrective feedback provided or not much confidence in the newly restructured knowledge if the feedback was indeed internalized. Immediate accurate production of the L2 error is assumed to represent the L2 knowledge (as a chunk of language/ item learning or systemized learning) the learner has at that point in time in their internal system. Subsequent usage may indicate whether a complete accurate restructuring did take place (as in system learning) or whether such restructuring was temporary or immediate or reflective of item learning. In other words, accurate performance was evidenced immediately after the feedback was provided but over time learners reverted back to their previous inaccurate interlanguage. Whether feedback is indeed processed by L2 learners may depend on several cognitive processes and variables that include activation of appropriate prior knowledge, hypothesis testing, rule formulation, metacognition, and depth of processing and/or levels of awareness. 7.7 Conclusion

Viewing usage-based approaches to L2 learning from a processing-based perspective reveals several issues that may need to be seriously considered if such usage is pertinent to the instructed setting (ISLA). It was pointed out that the theoretical underpinnings of L2 usage-based approaches overlap quite a bit with those postulated for L1 acquisition, especially child acquisition, that occur in optimal learning or acquisition conditions. This theoretical overlap, with regard to both language use and the role of cognition, may lack robust empirical support, especially from a processing-based perspective, when the learning context (naturalistic vs. instructed) and the type of processing (implicit vs. explicit) evidenced in the two contexts are carefully considered. It was noted that there is more of a product-oriented perspective to measuring the construct of learning during usage as opposed to a processoriented one. Several issues were identified that future research may need to address, including clearer definitions and operationalizations or measurement of what counts as usage, the need to view the construct of learning not only as a product but also as a process, which entails the use of concurrent data elicitation procedures (e.g., think-aloud protocols, eye-tracking, etc.) to address the overall lack of empirical support for several cognitive processes postulated for L2 learning during usage, a clearer description of what counts as frequency, and more robust studies that address the relationship between usage and L2 learning.

Usage in ISLA 143

It was also observed that the concept of usage may need to be redefined and broadened to include language use in both modalities (oral and written) in the instructed setting. An existing theoretical model (Leow, 2015) and his accompanying Feedback Processing Framework (Leow, 2020) were identified to elucidate the relationships between language use, cognition, and L2 learning from both an SLA usage-based and ISLA processing-based perspective. Discussion questions

1. Given the proposal to broaden the concept of usage in ISLA to include both spoken and written modalities, how does this proposal impact current research premised on an SLA usage-based approach to L2 learning? 2. Language use is clearly situated at the knowledge processing stage of Leow’s (2015) Model and investigation of the cognitive processes involved at this stage during usage is clearly warranted. While it is methodologically easier to gather concurrent data during written production, how can similar data be gathered during oral production to address the relationship between usage and L2 learning? 3. In usage-based approaches to L2 learning, the relationships between usage, cognition, and L2 learning remain to be empirically supported (see 2 above for methodological reasons). However, if the argument that explicit learning predominates in the instructed setting in both written and oral production, would data gathered during written production reflect that produced during oral production or would modality be an issue? In other words, can concurrent data on written production predict the cognitive processes (assumed to contribute to L2 learning) that take place during language use? Note 1 Some researchers have also attempted to document the development of knowledge in more contextualized instructed settings (e.g., Sato & McDonough, 2019) and even in a study abroad context (McManus et al., 2021).

References Adrada-Rafael, S. (2017). Processing the Spanish imperfect subjunctive: Depth of processing under different instructional conditions. Applied Psycholinguistics, 38(2), 477–508. Anderson, J. R. (1982). Acquisition of cognitive skill. Psychological Review, 89(4), 369–406. Bergsleithner, J. M. (2019). The role of prior knowledge in depth of processing during written production: A preliminary investigation. In R. P. Leow (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of second language research in classroom learning (pp. 104–118). Routledge.

144  Usage in ISLA

Bybee, J. (2007). Frequency of use and the organization of language. Oxford University Press. Bybee, J. (2010). Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge University Press. Calderón, A. (2013). The effects of L2 learner proficiency on depth of processing, levels of awareness, and intake. In J. Bergsleithner, S. Frota, & J. Yoshioka (Eds.), Noticing: L2 studies and essays in honor of Dick Schmidt. University of Hawaii, National Foreign Language Resource Center. Cerezo, L., Caras, A., & Leow, R. P. (2016). Effectiveness of guided induction versus deductive instruction on the development of complex Spanish “gustar” structures: An analysis of learning outcomes and processes. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38(2), 265–291. Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. De Gruyter Mouton. De la Fuente, M. J. (2016). Explicit corrective feedback and computer-based, form-focused instruction: The role of L1 in promoting awareness of L2 forms. In R. P. Leow, L. Cerezo, & M. Baralt (Eds.), Technology and L2 learning: A psycholinguistic approach (pp. 171–197). De Gruyter Mouton. DeKeyser, R. M. (2015). Skill acquisition theory. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition (pp. 94–112). Routledge. Divjak, D. (2019). Frequency in language: Memory, attention and learning. Cambridge University Press. Ellis, N. C. (2015). Cognitive and social aspects of learning from usage. In T. Cadierno & S. W. Eskildsen (Eds.), Usage-based perspectives on second language learning (pp. 49–73). De Gruyter Mouton. Ellis, N. C. (2020). Usage-based theories of construction grammar: Triangulating corpus linguistics and psycholinguistics. In J. Egbert & P. Baker (Eds.), Using corpus methods to triangulate linguistic analysis (pp. 239–267). Routledge. Ellis, N. C., Römer, U., & O’Donnell, M. B. (Eds.). (2016). Usage-based approaches to language acquisition and processing: Cognitive and corpus investigations of construction grammar. Wiley. Ellis, N. C., & Wulff, S. (2015). Usage-based approaches to SLA. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Second language acquisition research series: Theories in second language acquisition (pp. 75–94). Routledge. Eskildsen, S. W. (2009). Constructing another language: Usage-based linguistics in second language acquisition. Applied linguistics, 30(3), 335–357. Gass, S. M. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Lawrence Erlbaum. Hall, J. K. (2019). The contributions of conversation analysis and interactional linguistics to a usage-based understanding of language: Expanding the transdisciplinary framework. The Modern Language Journal, 103(S1), 80–94. Hsieh, H.-C., Moreno, N., & Leow, R. P. (2016). Awareness, type of medium, and L2 development: Revisiting Hsieh (2008). In R. P. Leow, L. Cerezo, & M. Baralt (Eds.), A psycholinguistic approach to technology and language learning (pp. 131–150). De Gruyter Mouton. Huensch, A. (2019). The pronunciation teaching practices of university-level graduate teaching assistants of French and Spanish introductory language courses. Foreign Language Annals, 52(1), 13–31. http://dx​.doi​.org​/10​.1111​/flan​.12372 Javadi, Y., & Kazemirad, F. (2020). Usage-based approaches to second language acquisition: Cognitive and social aspects. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 11(3), 473–479.

Usage in ISLA 145

Jing-Schmidt, Z. (2018). Computational and corpus methods for usage-based Chinese language learning: Toward a professional multilingualism. In X. Lu & B. Chen (Eds.), Computational and corpus approaches to Chinese language learning (pp. 13–31). Springer. Kemmer, S., & Barlow, M. (2000). Introduction: A usage-based conception of language. In M. Barlow & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Usage-based models of language. CSLI Publications. Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar. Volume I, theoretical prerequisites. Stanford University Press. Langacker, R. W. (1988). A usage-based model. In B. Rudzka-Ostyn (Ed.), Topics in cognitive linguistics (pp. 127–161). John Benjamins. Lantolf, J. P., & Appel, G. (1994). Vygostkian approaches to second language research. Ablex. Lantolf, J., & Thorne, S. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. Oxford University Press. Leow, R. P. (1998). The effects of amount and type of exposure on adult learners’ L2 development in SLA. Modern Language Journal, 82(1), 49–68. Leow, R. P. (2001). Attention, awareness and foreign language behavior. Language Learning, 51(S1), 113–155. Leow, R. P. (2015). Explicit learning in the L2 classroom: A student-centered approach. Routledge. Leow, R. P. (2018). Explicit learning and depth of processing in the instructed setting: Theory, research, and practice. Studies in English Education, 23(4), 769–801. Leow, R. P. (2019a). From SLA > ISLA > ILL: A curricular perspective. In R. P. Leow (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of second language research in classroom learning (pp. 483–491). Routledge. Leow, R. P., Donate, A., & Gutierrez, H. (2019b). Textual enhancement and L2 development: A depth of processing perspective. In R. P. Leow (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of second language research in classroom learning (pp. 317– 330). Routledge. Leow, R. P. (2020). L2 writing-to-learn: Theory, research, and a curricular approach. In R. M. Manchón (Ed.), Writing and language learning: Advancing research agendas (pp. 95–117). John Benjamins. Leow, R. P., & Cerezo, L. (2016). Deconstructing the “I” and “SLA” in ISLA: One curricular approach. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 6(1), 43–63. Leow, R. P., Thinglum, A., & Leow, S. (2022). WCF processing in the L2 curriculum: A look at type of WCF, type of linguistic item, and L2 performance. To appear in Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 12(4), 653–675. Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–467). Academic Press. McEnery, T., Brezina, V., Gablasova, D., & Banerjee, J. (2019). Corpus linguistics, learner corpora, and SLA: Employing technology to analyze language use. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 39, 74–92. McManus, K. (2021). Examining the effectiveness of language-switching practice for reducing cross-language competition in L2 grammatical processing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 24(1), 167–184.

146  Usage in ISLA

McManus, K., & Bluemel, B. (2022). Instructional practices in English-Chinese and English-Spanish kindergarten dual language immersion classrooms. In How special are early birds? Foreign language teaching and learning (pp. 145–164). https://langsci​-press​.org​/catalog​/ book​/360 McManus, K., Mitchell, R., & Tracy-Ventura, N. (2021). A longitudinal study of advanced learners’ linguistic development before, during, and after study abroad. Applied Linguistics, 42(1), 136–163. Mitchell, R., Myles, F., & Marsden, E. (2013). Second language learning theories (3rd ed.). Routledge. Ortega, L. (2009). Understanding second language acquisition. Hodder Education. Piaget, J. (1995). Sociological studies. Routledge. Robinson, P. (1995). Attention, memory and the ‘noticing’ hypothesis. Language Learning, 45(2), 283–331. Roehr-Brackin, K. (2015). Long-term development in an instructed adult L2 learner: Usage-based and complexity theory applied. In T. Cadierno & S. W. Eskildsen (Eds.), Usage-based perspectives on second language learning (pp. 182– 206). De Gruyter Mouton. Rosa, E. M., & Leow, R. P. (2004). Awareness, different learning conditions, and second language development. Applied Psycholinguistics, 25(2), 269–292. Sachs, R., & Suh, B. R. (2007). Textually enhanced recasts, learner awareness, and L2 outcomes in synchronous computer-mediated interaction. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 197–227). Oxford University Press. Saffran, J. R., Aslin, R. N, & Newport, E. L. (1996). Statistical learning by 8-month-old infants. Science, 274(5294), 1926–1928. Sato, M., & McDonough, K. (2019). Practice is important but how about its quality? Contextualized practice in the classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 41, 999–1026. Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129–158. Suzuki, Y., Nakata, T., & DeKeyser, R. (2019). Optimizing second language practice in the classroom: Perspectives from cognitive psychology. The Modern Language Journal, 103(3), 551–561. Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Harvard University Press. Tracy-Ventura, N., & Paquot, M. (2021). The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and corpora. Routledge. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press. Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problemsolving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89–100. Wulff, S., & Gries, S. Th. (2019). Particle placement in learner language. Language Learning, 69(4), 873–910. Zhuang, J. (2019). Computer-assisted guided induction and deductive instruction on the development of complex Chinese ba structures: Extending Cerezo et al. (2016). In R. P. Leow (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of second language research in classroom learning (pp. 391–406). Routledge.

8 SKILL ACQUISITION THEORY Learning-to-use and usage-for-learning SLA Yuichi Suzuki

8.1 Introduction

In usage-based approaches to second language (L2) acquisition, usage refers to exposure to a new language in a “communicatively-rich human social environment” (Ellis & Larsen-Freeman, 2006, p. 577). While such immersive experience is essential for L2 acquisition, it is important to recognize the significant time and effort that must be invested in the learning process before being able to use a L2 for learning. In many foreign language classrooms, for instance, many practical constraints (e.g., limited instruction such as a few class hours per week, large variations in individual student achievement) impose obstacles to learning solely through usage (e.g., exposure, communication). Due to such restricted input environments, in earlier stages of learning, many classroom learners struggle to develop the basic skills needed to communicate in the L2. This is a central dilemma that I would like to tackle in this chapter: an L2 must be mastered by usage, which is in turn only possible if learners possess a certain level of L2 mastery so that usage drives acquisition. While extensive and extended input exposure and communicative experience promote L2 acquisition (usage-for-learning), it is equally important to expound on how learners develop the capacity for using complex building blocks of language (learning-to-use). Cognitive-psychology research on skill acquisition indicates that efficient execution of complex skills requires rich domain-specific memory or mental representations known as “knowledge” (Anderson et al., 2004). Accordingly, in the context of L2 acquisition, it is also important DOI: 10.4324/9781032668475-8

148  Skill acquisition theory

to identify the types of knowledge representations that underlie accurate and fluent skills in L2 use. Different types of knowledge are formed in memory through various means of practice, a construct that has attracted theoretical interests in SLA and Applied Linguistics (e.g., DeKeyser, 2007; Suzuki, 2023). Skill acquisition theory (DeKeyser, 2020) accounts for how L2 practice changes knowledge structures underlying accurate and fluent skills. It also informs the effective ways in which learners can learn to use their L2 skills in sheltered environments (e.g., classrooms) and through using skills in experience-rich environments (e.g., study abroad). In what follows, I first explain the key constructs of skill acquisition theory focusing on the relationship between knowledge building and skill development. Using skill acquisition theory as a guide, I then present the refined concept of “practice” for optimizing instructed L2 learning with the aim of accelerating “learning to use” and promoting a smooth transition to “usage for learning” processes in both instructed and immersion settings. 8.2 Key tenets of skill acquisition theory

The basic theoretical constructs underpinning skill acquisition theory originate from various strands of psychology research that explicate how people develop a variety of cognitive and psychomotor skills required for performing diverse activities such as driving, game-playing, problem-solving, and sports. Skill acquisition theory stipulates the existence of three distinctive learning phases denoted as cognitive−associative−autonomous (e.g., Fitts & Posner, 1967) or encoding−solving−responding (Tenison & Anderson, 2016). Most notably, the adaptive control of thought-rational (ACT-R) theory put forward by Anderson et al. (2004) has been particularly influential in the application of skill acquisition theory in SLA research (DeKeyser, 2020). According to this view, L2 skill acquisition involves three learning phases that draw on two distinct types of knowledge—declarative and procedural. This dual-knowledge perspective permeates every aspect of L2 knowledge including the development of phonological, lexical, grammatical, and pragmatic knowledge. 8.2.1 Declarative and procedural knowledge

An execution of accurate and fluent skills requires the effective application of declarative and procedural knowledge (DeKeyser, 2017, 2020). As shown in Table 8.1, these two systems are distinguished in terms of behavioral and neurological aspects, resulting in different learning processes. Declarative knowledge reflects one’s conceptual understanding of something, whereas procedural knowledge pertains to the way a certain behavior is performed.

Skill acquisition theory 149 TABLE 8.1  Declarative and Procedural Knowledge

Declarative Knowledge

Procedural Knowledge

Characteristics

Learning Processes

- Knowledge ABOUT something (e.g., facts, episodes, exemplars, and rules) - Verbalizable - Associated with hippocampus and medial temporal lobe structures - Knowledge of HOW something is performed (skill) - Requires limited cognitive resources and awareness - Initially associated with basal ganglia and with further involvement of prefrontal regions (premotor cortex and the inferior frontal gyrus) in subsequent stages

- Explanation and observation - Learned instantaneously but more susceptible to forgetting over time

- Requires interpretation of declarative knowledge - Learned through engaging in target behavior - Consolidated slowly but less susceptible to forgetting over time - Fine-tuned further to more automatic processing

Skill acquisition typically commences with the procurement of declarative knowledge, which is used to compile procedural knowledge for using a specific skill or exhibiting a desired behavior. For instance, learners are taught how to form different types of English wh-questions (e.g., “What does your mother say?” or “Who stole your wallet?”) by their teacher who explains the relevant rules, as well as through perusal of grammar reference books. This knowledge can be episodic (e.g., the teacher explaining that “who” should be followed by a verb) and semantic (e.g., the provision of correct patterns such as “who + verb + object?”). Learners then need to draw on this declarative knowledge to form a procedural representation of wh-question sentences. From a neurocognitive perspective, declarative memory (e.g., information stored in specific brain regions such as the hippocampus and medial temporal lobe) supports the initial rapid learning of new information (Henke, 2010). Owing to these specific processes underlying learning, declarative knowledge is short-lived and is likely to be forgotten quickly (Kim et al., 2013). Conversely, procedural knowledge is formed and consolidated slowly through repeated engagement in target behavior, allowing a skill to be learned in the basal ganglia (Ullman, 2020). Once procedural knowledge is established, it can give rise to fine-tuning or automatization through extensive experience and can become more resistant to forgetting or skill loss (Kim et al., 2013).

150  Skill acquisition theory

8.2.2 Automatization

Automatization is a slow and gradual process that leads to more accurate, faster, stable, efficient, and unconscious utilization of procedural knowledge. The simplest description of automatization is that each component of a particular skill undergoes a similar learning trajectory as a function of practice described by a power law (e.g., Newell & Rosenbloom, 1981; see Evans et al., 2018 for a recent development). Speaking an L2 is a good example of complex skill acquisition (e.g., Levelt, 1978), consisting of higher-order (e.g., expressing communicative intentions) and lower-order subprocesses (e.g., syntactic processing, lexical retrieval, articulation). Speaking practice presumably leads to more accurate and faster executions of each lower-order subcomponent, which supports the higher-order goal of expressing communicative intentions. Although automatization can be described as the mere speeding up of existing knowledge, it also requires the integration of new knowledge into existing knowledge, as well as restructuring and solidifying knowledge representations for more fluent and efficient L2 skill use (e.g., Hui, 2020; Hulstijn et al., 2009; Lim & Godfroid, 2015; McManus & Marsden, 2019; Segalowitz & Segalowitz, 1993). In line with the aforementioned description, automatization is often characterized as a qualitative change. For instance, in the initial learning phases, learners typically rely on declarative knowledge (metalinguistic rules in particular) for L2 production and comprehension. As a result of extensive practice, their reliance on declarative knowledge gradually lessens, which leads to more fluent L2 skill that is commonly interpreted as an indication of restructuring or automaticity. These processes are also described by Kahng (2014), who demonstrated that more advanced L2 learners reported reduced reliance on declarative knowledge while speaking than less proficient learners. Another way to capture qualitative change is by assessing processing stability in conjunction with processing speed (i.e., reaction time [RT] on a given task). Processing stability is assessed by the coefficient of variance (CV), which is computed by dividing the mean standard deviation (SD) of RT for each individual by their mean RT (Segalowitz & Segalowitz, 1993). These two measures (RT and CV) have been used to study the extent to which L2 learners can use their L2 lexical and grammatical skills quickly and stably (see Hulstjin et al., 2009 for a detailed discussion). Of particular relevance to a better understanding of L2 usage, these temporal (online) measures, in conjunction with (offline) accuracy measures, are useful for the relationship between linguistic knowledge and the development of fluent and accurate L2 comprehension and production skills. For instance, Hanzawa and Suzuki (in press) have indicated that, in the English as a

Skill acquisition theory 151

foreign language (EFL) context, grammar processing speed (RT) and stability (CV), measured by a maze task, significantly predicted oral fluency development during the course of six-month instruction. Furthermore, using laboratory experiments, Hui (2020) investigated to what extent CV can capture the automatization of lexical knowledge in (decontextualized) deliberate learning and (contextualized) incidental learning settings. Using CV measures obtained via a semantic lexical judgment task (for deliberate learning) and eye-tracking data (for incidental learning), Hui revealed that the CV for deliberate learning followed an inverted U-shaped trajectory whereby an initial increase was followed by a decrease. This pattern may indicate that automatization is a dynamic process, as the initial formation of new lexical knowledge representations (resulting in greater variability) subsequently leads to more efficient processing (thereby lessening the prevalence of unstable components). Because Hui’s analysis indicated that CV for incidental learning did not follow the same trajectory, more empirical work on the utility of CV is needed to understand the development of extended learning processes that would result in automaticity. Recently, the neural correlates of automatization were examined by an fMRI study conducted by Suzuki, Jeong et al. (2023). In their study, advanced L2 Japanese learners who spent several years in an immersion setting performed a real-time grammar processing task called a word-monitoring task in the MRI scanner. The brain analyses on the detection of grammatical errors during the word-monitoring task revealed a significant positive correlation between the activation of the basal ganglia (associated with procedural knowledge) and the premotor cortex (responsible for automatic processing). This finding suggests that procedural representations are a foundation for automatizing L2 knowledge. 8.2.3 Interaction between declarative and procedural knowledge

Although procedural knowledge is the main driver of L2 skill, its acquisition often comes with the procurement of ample declarative knowledge. Furthermore, DeKeyser (2020) claims that declarative knowledge plays a “causal” role in proceduralization. Specifically, he argues that “the acquisition of declarative knowledge of a kind that can be proceduralized requires the judicious use of rules and examples. These stages cannot be skipped, reversed, or rushed” (p. 94). Because procedural knowledge needs to be automatized for fluent skill-using, it necessitates careful interpretation of declarative knowledge. Automatization requires elaborated explicit information accompanied by systematic grammar practice, especially when a grammatical structure is complex and difficult to grasp (McManus & Marsden, 2019).

152  Skill acquisition theory

However, Anderson and Fincham (1994) cautioned that it would be misleading “to argue that procedural knowledge can never be acquired without a declarative representation” (p. 1323). In fact, for certain structures in some L2 learning contexts, such as immersion classrooms, procedural knowledge can be acquired prior to declarative knowledge (Lyster & Sato, 2013). Hence, the interface between the declarative and procedural systems is “bidirectional and relative to the context of instruction” (p. 85). This interface issue between declarative and procedural knowledge can be linked to that between explicit and implicit knowledge, which has been the subject of extensive SLA research since the 1970s (e.g., Norris & Ortega, 2000). Although the declarative-procedural and the explicitimplicit distinctions do not directly correspond to the underlying neurological processes in Ullman’s declarative-procedural model (see Ullman, 2020), they share some important similarities in certain behavioral aspects. Explicit knowledge is declarative in the sense that learners are aware of and can verbalize the rules with exemplars, whereas implicit knowledge is tacit and procedural, as it supports accurate and fluent L2 skill execution (see DeKeyser, 2017 for further discussion). The interface between explicit and implicit learning and knowledge can be indirect (see, e.g., N. Ellis, 2015) and/or direct (see, e.g., Suzuki & DeKeyser, 2017). The latter—or strong interface—is purported by skill acquisition theory and is supported by the evidence yielded by a large-scale study involving 100 advanced adult learners that developed their L2 knowledge in an immersion setting, i.e., by spending time in L2-speaking countries (Suzuki & DeKeyser, 2017). The study participants took a battery of tests probing into the speeded-up explicit and implicit knowledge retrieval, as well as aptitude tests focusing on explicit and implicit learning. The findings suggest that efficient access to explicit knowledge, which was presumably made possible by the reliance on an explicit learning system, positively influenced the acquisition of implicit knowledge. Nonetheless, it should be noted that the skill acquisition theory “by no means denies a role for implicit learning” (DeKeyser, 2020, p. 96). The initial reliance on explicit learning processing (as stipulated by the declarativeprocedural-automatization stages) may gradually shift, whereby implicit learning may become the primary driver of learning mechanisms. On the other hand, the proponents of usage-based approaches also acknowledge that explicit and implicit learning are not mutually exclusive (e.g., Ellis, 2015; Tyler & Ortega, 2018); explicit (top-down, conscious) processing fine-tunes implicit-statistical learning. The unique contribution of skill acquisition theory is its focus on utilizing explicit learning processes to achieve the proceduralization and automatization of explicitly learned knowledge, rather than solely relying on implicit learning processes.

Skill acquisition theory 153

8.3 The pivotal role of practice in skill learning: bridging the gap between “learning to use” and “usage for learning”

Given that L2 usage is essential for learning, a certain skill level must be developed before L2 use. However, the way that this perceived paradox is reconciled needs to be explored in SLA. L2 learners, especially those who are only exposed to L2 in the classroom setting, often accumulate a considerable amount of fragmented, declarative knowledge before (and while) they become fluent L2 users. Of course, knowing many miscellaneous encyclopedic facts about L2 structures has little relevance for developing practical L2 skills. Indeed, no matter how elaborate and extensive it is, as knowledge about rules is gained declaratively, it never replaces the fundamental role of usage or procedural skill acquisition over prolonged practice in language experience-rich environments. What is critically needed for most L2 learners is to provide guidance to help learners engage in the target behaviors (e.g., expressing one’s intention) and establish procedural knowledge in instructed settings, which enables a smooth transition to contexts beyond classrooms (e.g., study abroad). The importance of instructional guidance is supported by empirical research in the field of psychology aiming to ascertain the relevance of skill acquisition theory (e.g., Anderson et al., 2004; Sallas et al., 2007). This idea is also linked to the growing body of research on the role of “practice” in SLA with the aim of optimizing L2 learning by applying insights from cognitive psychology (e.g., DeKeyser, 2007, 2017; Lightbown, 2019; Lyster & Sato, 2013; Suzuki, 2023; Suzuki et al., 2019). In almost all domains of human learning, practice is a key ingredient of learning. However, the concept of practice “gets a raw deal in the field of applied linguistics” (DeKeyser, 2007, p. 1). This is largely due to the association of practice with “drill and kill” in the audiolingualism era; however, practice no longer means pattern practice and drills (Lightbown, 2019). In the 21st century, the concept of practice is updated and refers to engaging in L2 activities deliberately and systematically to develop L2 knowledge and skills (DeKeyser, 2007; Suzuki, 2023). This framework of deliberate and systematic practice in SLA is useful for devising ways in which we can bridge the gap between “usage for learning” and “learning to use” processes. In classroom settings, it is often difficult to learn merely through L2 input and communication (i.e., usage), as this predominantly relies on implicit learning and requires a large amount of time that cannot be secured in typical foreign language classrooms (Marsden & Hawkes, 2023). To initiate and accelerate “usage for learning” and implicit learning processes, explicit learning should also be exploited judiciously, rather than avoided.

154  Skill acquisition theory

In this context, explicit learning processes are enhanced by incorporating retrieval practice, guided induction, imitation, reconstruction, memorization, and hypothesis testing (Suzuki, Nakata, & Rogers, 2023). For instance, engaging in the deliberate retrieval practice of lexical/multi-word items (e.g., flash-card learning) has been found to be highly beneficial for learning single and multi-word expressions (e.g. Elgort, 2011; Yamagata et al., 2023). Empirical evidence also suggests that isolated pronunciation practice involving specific language features (e.g., Li & DeKeyser, 2019), as well as grammar comprehension and production practice (e.g., Mostafa & Kim, 2020; Suzuki & Sunada, 2019), are effective and efficient methods for anchoring declarative knowledge for further proceduralization. More contextualized practice also allows learners to enhance their L2 skills while processing the rich input found in the texts by, for example, retelling stories, reading aloud, shadowing, and dictation/dictogloss activities (Suzuki, Nakata, & Rogers, 2023). All these kinds of intentional practices result in substantial learning of both declarative and procedural knowledge that form the foundation of usage. They also complement the learning process where mere communicative usage cannot be sufficiently exploited, allowing the gap between “learning to use” and “usage for learning” to be gradually narrowed. While the range of practice examples covered in the previous paragraph was relatively narrow, skill acquisition theory can also provide useful insights into a broader and more meaningful repertoire of open-ended activities in which learners use their own linguistic resources to achieve a communicative goal (DeKeyser, 2018; Lyster & Sato, 2013). During such activities, fluency development can be prioritized, especially for novice learners who need to use chunks and formulaic sequences to sustain L2 communication. One way of enhancing fluency is task repetition (Bygate, 2018). By performing the same or similar tasks with the aim of improving specific aspects of target skills, learners are given the opportunity to practice utilizing the linguistic resources that are largely familiar to them, so that they can orchestrate them more efficiently and fluently. Since prioritizing fluency during meaningful L2 practice detracts learners’ attention from accuracy (due to the lack of mental resources; e.g., Skehan, 1998), oral corrective feedback plays an essential role in providing systematic guidance for both fluency and accuracy development (Sato & Lyster, 2012). In particular, oral corrective feedback that is provided at the time when the error is made (e.g., during communicative tasks) seems more effective than delayed feedback (e.g., after communicative tasks) on grammar development (e.g., Fu & Li, 2020). This feedback immediacy allows learners to quickly grasp the declarative rules and put them into use during subsequent practice, which in turn contributes to proceduralization. Therefore, the timely provision of corrective feedback is useful for enhancing usage for learning.

Skill acquisition theory 155

These kinds of practice activities with different degrees of deliberateness and systematicity are best provided in a classroom where a teacher can ensure that learners develop procedural knowledge by providing declarative support in a timely manner (e.g., Toth, 2022). The more learners acquire functional (i.e., procedural) knowledge and skills in instructed settings, the greater that L2 development is expected from usage or communication in social environments outside the classroom. From skill acquisition theory perspectives, an optimal sequencing and integration of at-home classroom instruction and study abroad can maximize L2 development (Pérez-Vidal, 2014). Study abroad programs are likely to provide ample opportunities for proceduralization and further automatization of knowledge and skills in rich communicative contexts (e.g., DeKeyser, 2007; Faretta-Stutenberg & Morgan-Short, 2018; McManus, 2023). Here, “practice” may become almost synonymous with “usage” in the sense that using L2 in communicatively rich social environments, as Ellis (2002) opined that language acquisition “takes tens of thousands of hours of practice” (p. 175, emphasis added). In such contexts, usage can be a primary driver of L2 use and learning because there are many opportunities of spontaneous language interaction in a less explicit manner which may promote implicit learning. Indeed, previous research indicates that study abroad is most effective for oral fluency development, suggesting the development of automaticity in L2 processing (e.g., Mora & Valls-Ferrer, 2012). Skill acquisition theory thus accounts for L2 development outside as well as inside the classroom and informs the role of usage in L2 learning. In the remainder of this section, I will provide a literature review from a skill acquisition theory perspective and how it informs the effective ways in which “learn to use” and “usage for learning” can be maximized in both instructed and study abroad contexts. 8.3.1 Capitalizing on learners’ prior declarative and procedural knowledge

For L2 practice to be effective, it must capitalize on what learners know at the time of usage (i.e., their prior knowledge). As prior knowledge serves as a basis for integrating new information, it facilitates the processing of incoming information (Shing & Brod, 2016). Prior knowledge is acquired in multiple ways, including various instructional techniques discussed in the previous section. However, as stipulated by skill acquisition theory, different types of prior knowledge influence the quality of usage for learning in different ways. A large amount of declarative knowledge in L2 is derived from the formmeaning mapping of lexical items, and vocabulary is one of the strongest predictors of L2 skills (Jeon & In’nami, 2022). Larger vocabulary size (e.g.,

156  Skill acquisition theory

Webb & Chang, 2015) as well as greater lexical-processing automaticity (Elgort & Warren, 2014) serve as the foundations for higher-order reading and listening skills (e.g., inferencing, comprehension) and thus facilitate learning from usage (e.g., extensive reading and listening). For example, Webb and Chang (2015) demonstrated that prior vocabulary knowledge exerts a marked impact on vocabulary learning gains through extensive reading. In their study, EFL learners were assigned to three vocabulary size groups (small, intermediate, and large) and were required to read graded reading materials over the course of two semesters. Subsequent data analyses revealed that the pretest−posttest gains and retention increased as a function of the three prior-knowledge levels (i.e., by 28%, 45%, and 63%, respectively). In grammar teaching and learning, Sato and McDonough (2019) conducted a classroom-based longitudinal study to investigate the role of declarative knowledge in the proceduralization of wh-question constructions. As a part of their research design, over five weekly sessions, EFL learners engaged in a variety of oral interactive activities (e.g., spot-thedifference tasks) that elicited many uses of wh-questions. The findings indicated that prior declarative knowledge, measured by an offline paperand-pencil test involving the target structure, allowed the learners to use the target structure accurately in earlier communication activities and subsequently contributed to more fluent use of wh-questions. Interestingly, the production of incorrect questions during the communicative activities exerted a negative influence on the accuracy development. While slower accuracy development due to more incorrect wh-questions is not detrimental (as there were also ample opportunities to use them correctly), immediate provision of corrective feedback might have been beneficial in reducing such erroneous behaviors. Because incipient procedural knowledge needs to be strengthened to produce more accurate and quicker sentences, consistent provision of corrective feedback may sometimes be essential to prevent the automatization or entrenchment of wrong usage. Indeed, Lyster et al. (2013) claim that learners with greater prior knowledge of target linguistic forms benefit more from corrective feedback (e.g., recast) than do learners with a lower level of knowledge. The authors attribute this finding to the fact that corrective feedback offered to learners with sufficient prior knowledge triggers “association between existing knowledge structures” (p. 15). One obvious, yet much debated method for increasing prior levels of knowledge is the provision of explicit instruction such as explanations of target-grammar structures (e.g., Norris & Ortega, 2000). Here, rather than whether explicit instruction should be provided, the real question focuses on learners’ readiness and the timing of explicit instruction. For example, the EFL classroom research conducted by Li et al. (2016)

Skill acquisition theory 157

demonstrated that explicit instruction accompanied by within-task feedback was effective only for learners with adequate prior declarative knowledge for proceduralizing and automatizing their grammatical knowledge. In contrast, learners without such foundations may gain much less from using L2 in tasks even with explicit instruction and corrective feedback, pointing to the impoverished explicit learning which would manifest as learners’ inability to induce rules and integrate them with their prior declarative knowledge. While the empirical studies reviewed so far focused on classroom learners, study abroad can promote L2 learning through usage in rich social contexts. Study abroad contexts provide ample opportunities where learners can practice and get better at the skills they acquired in the classroom. In principle, a study abroad context offers 24/7 L2 practice. In reality, however, during their stay in an L2-speaking country, when classroom learners who are not linguistically ready go abroad, they realize that they cannot engage in extended communication and lose their motivation during a short sojourn (DeKeyser, 2010). Consequently, in order to take advantage of the rich social environment offered by the study abroad context, it is vital that learners possess sufficient procedural knowledge to guarantee the quantity and quality of L2 usage (e.g., Leonard & Shea, 2017). From a skill acquisition theory perspective, a solid declarative-procedural knowledge base allows learners to engage in communication during study abroad so that they can automatize what they know through extensive practice. L2 learners with more declarative and procedural knowledge can benefit more from a longer study abroad program (e.g., more than one semester) because they have a larger number of elements to automatize (DeKeyser, 2014). In order to prepare classroom learners for study abroad, it is thus beneficial to provide pre-departure instruction on linguistic skills such as pragmatic skills that are hard to acquire only through naturalistic exposure (e.g., Xiao et al., 2019). For instance, Matsumura (2022) compared the effectiveness of explicit and implicit instruction on pragmatics to Japanese L2 English learners as part of a pre-departure orientation course of a six-month study abroad program. Results showed that explicit instruction raised metapragmatic awareness and resulted in larger gains in pragmatic knowledge of speech acts (i.e., apology) that were not covered in the pre-departure instruction. Interview data from those who gained the most in the explicit instruction groups suggested that they were observant of pragmatic functions during interaction during study abroad. In sum, in order to capitalize on usage for learning, prior declarative and procedural knowledge that learners deploy for skill performance is critical across instructed and study abroad contexts.

158  Skill acquisition theory

8.3.2 Maximizing knowledge transfer

Using an L2 in a new context is challenging. Successful use of an L2 in a new context relies on the knowledge and skills acquired in previous learning contexts. Thus, it is important to maximize the transfer of knowledge from one context to another. Although research on cognitive skill acquisition and transfer in different domains such as chess, music, and working memory training abound (see, e.g., Sala & Gobet, 2017), little is currently known about the ways in which transfer across different SLA contexts can be maximized (see James, 2018 for an overview). In principle, knowledge transfer is most successfully achieved when the new and old situations share many common elements such as language, topic, task, and context (DeKeyser, 2017; Suzuki, 2023). For instance, asking for clarifications about the service of the internet and insurance require similar linguistic structures, while different lexical terminologies and phrases are needed. More broadly, when learners acquire procedural skills through communicative activities in the classroom (as opposed to instruction focusing primarily on declarative knowledge), they can function better in similar communication settings during study abroad. According to skill acquisition theory, skill transfer across these contexts depends on the degree of reliance on declarative and procedural knowledge (e.g., Suzuki & Sunada, 2019). In L2 learning, declarative knowledge is general and flexible, as it allows the learner to encode exemplars and rules for using different skills. In contrast, procedural knowledge is more specific, as it is encoded for executing a specific (sub)skill more efficiently in a specific context. For instance, the declarative rules for wh-question formation (e.g., “who + verb + object?”) can be called upon for both comprehension and production skills. Exemplars (e.g., “Who stole your wallet?”) can also be used as slot-and-frame patterns for generating similar wh-questions (e.g., “Who found your wallet?” or “Who stole your bag?”). However, comprehension and production of the same target wh-questions involve different cognitive processes that should be proceduralized, which entails the “compilation” of general declarative rules and skill-specific procedures needed for a smoother execution of skills (Taatgen & Lee, 2003). This skill-specific development highlights the importance of using procedural skills purposefully in a variety of contexts, taking advantage of the generalizability of declarative knowledge. Psychology research suggests that knowledge transfer can be maximized by increasing the variability of L2 practice contexts (Schmidt & Bjork, 1992). Evidence supporting this view was provided by Kerr and Booth (1978) more than four decades ago by demonstrating superior transfer performance in variable practice (i.e., throwing bean bags to multiple targets) relative to constant practice (i.e., throwing bean bags focusing on the same

Skill acquisition theory 159

target). In line with this finding, Kim and Tracy-Ventura (2013) found that, in the task-based L2 speaking-practice context, engaging in varied practice where three different stories were narrated (procedural repetition) led to higher syntactic complexity than when only one task was performed three times (same-task repetition). Yet, no significant improvement in oral fluency was obtained in either task-repetition group. Oral fluency development may require more constant or concentrated practice to fine-tune multiple skills underlying fluent speech. Suzuki (2021) conducted a fluency training study where they manipulated the variability/ sequence of tasks provided to EFL learners for the oral narrative tasks. Specifically, the participants engaged in monologue tasks under either a constant (Day 1: AAA, Day 2: BBB, Day 3: CCC) or a variable (Day 1: ABC, Day 2: ABC, Day 3: ABC) condition. On the transfer test using a different oral narrative task, learners assigned to the constant (blocked) practice showed greater fluency gains (higher articulation rate) than those in the variable (interleaved) practice condition. Constant practice can lead to greater transfer, in part because immediately repeating the same practice task helps learners utilize and proceduralize the same linguistic constructions, thereby enhancing their fluency. Perhaps, some levels of “overlearning” helped the learners fine-tune their speaking skills, making the knowledge immune to decay (Kim et al., 2013). Indeed, a detailed analysis based on Natural Language Processing (NLP) of Suzuki’s (2021) speech data transcripts suggests that both concrete trigrams (e.g., “behind the bicycle”) and abstract parts of speech constructions (e.g., “preposition determiner noun”) contributed to L2 speaking fluency (Suzuki et al., 2023). These trigrams are considered “constructions” in the usage-based sense, as they represent some abstractness of structures and are neither lexically specific nor too abstract. While these findings are highly informative, the content of procedural knowledge may need further scrutiny to better understand transfer and should be examined from multiple theoretical perspectives. 8.3.3 Intensive practice in the classroom and study abroad

In order to develop a robust L2 skillset, it is essential to practice one task until it can be performed successfully and then relearn it after a certain break period (Rawson & Dunlosky, 2022). However, the optimal practice distribution is still an area of ongoing research. In cognitive psychology research, several meta-analyses indicated that spaced practice (repeated practice with break intervals) is more effective than massed practice (no interval between practice trials) (e.g., Cepeda et al., 2006). This advantage of spaced practice has also been confirmed in L2 vocabulary learning through flash-card practice (see Kim & Webb, 2022 for a metaanalysis). For instance, in a computer-based vocabulary learning program,

160  Skill acquisition theory

when vocabulary practice is repeated after longer intervals (e.g., 10 minutes) in a given training session it leads to better learning than repeating them after shorter intervals (e.g., 1 minute). Beyond the domain of deliberate vocabulary practice, however, the optimal practice distribution differs greatly depending on the types of knowledge and skills involved. As a part of their laboratory study grounded in skill acquisition theory, Li and DeKeyser (2019) explored the interactions between practice distribution and the acquisition of declarative and procedural knowledge related to L2 phonological learning (i.e., Mandarin tone-word production). Their findings indicated that shorter-spaced practice (1-day interval) resulted in higher accuracy in oral picture naming tasks than longer-spaced (7-day interval) practice, suggesting that the acquisition of procedural knowledge can be enhanced by concentrated practice and such knowledge tends to be retained more effectively than declarative knowledge. In the acquisition of procedural knowledge in the sense of higher-order L2 skills, practice distribution influences different facets of speaking skills (e.g., Bui et al., 2019; Kobayashi, 2022; Suzuki & Hanzawa, 2021). Bui et al. (2019) investigated the effects of temporal intervals between two performances of the same picture description task. They found that speed fluency benefits from repetition without any spacing, whereas a 1-week interval between consecutive practices resulted in greater syntactic complexity and greater self-repair behavior. Furthermore, Kobayashi (2022) found that relative to massed practice, spaced practice (a 1-week interval) can also lead to the use of higher lexical variety in a story narration task. Unlike these studies involving only one relearning opportunity, Suzuki and Hanzawa (2021) conducted a classroom study in which EFL learners performed the same story narration task six times under a massed (six consecutive performances), a shorter-spaced (a 45-minute interval between two blocks of three performances), or a longer-spaced (a 1-week interval between the two blocks) condition. The results from an intermediate posttest using a new narrative task showed that massed practice led to a reduction in disfluent pauses but also resulted in a slower articulation rate and more self-repairs. While massed practice was beneficial to proceduralize and fine-tune the same speaking (sub)skills, its negative effects could be attributed to boredom and lack of concentration. They concluded that massed practice is a double-edged sword and needs to be used judiciously. In a broader perspective, the potential benefits of intensive practice are well-documented in L2 program research. In many foreign language classrooms where instruction hours are limited, it is a real challenge to develop solid procedural knowledge in a limited instructional time, let alone automatize knowledge and skills. Although class time is usually distributed over an extended period of time in regular L2 course (e.g., 2–3 hours per week, distributed over 6–12 years from primary to secondary schools),

Skill acquisition theory 161

concentrating substantial instruction hours into an intensive course (e.g., 20 hours per week, condensed in one semester) is an attractive option to promote the proceduralization of L2 skills. Intensive L2 programs were implemented in foreign language contexts (i.e., the target language is not spoken outside the classroom) in Quebec in Canada and Barcelona in Spain. Studies from these projects have generally indicated the advantages of intensive curricula (e.g., Muñoz, 2012 for an overview). For instance, Serrano (2011) compared two different distributions of 110 class hours in a regular curriculum (two 2-hour classes per week, distributed over the academic year) and in an intensive curriculum (five 5-hour classes per week, condensed into 4.5 weeks in the summer). The intensive curriculum resulted in higher vocabulary and grammar knowledge, as well as receptive and productive skills, among intermediate EFL learners. Both regular and intensive courses used the same textbooks that used both grammatically oriented and communicative activities encompassing four language skills. They are characterized as “quite traditional in the sense that interactive activities tend to be designed for students to practice specific grammar points or vocabulary items” (Serrano, 2011, p. 125). The advantage of intensive practice may thus be attributable to the availability of existing vocabulary and grammar knowledge among learners, allowing them to better retrieve and proceduralize the knowledge. The opportunities for “learning to use” and “usage for learning” were temporally closer and even integrated within one day, thus providing optimal practice conditions for skill acquisition. In contrast, when the interval between classes is too wide, it becomes more difficult to proceduralize and automatize existing knowledge. Intensive programs in EFL contexts show promise as indicated by a recent study by Serrano et al. (2016). They compared two groups of SpanishCatalan learners of English who participated in a 3-week study abroad program in the UK and a 4-week intensive program at home (Spain). Both groups showed similar improvements in their control of lexico-grammatical knowledge as well as in writing and speaking skills. However, the analyses revealed nuanced differences: learners in the study abroad context showed a slight advantage in lexical richness during speaking performance, while those in the home context benefited more in terms of receptive grammar knowledge. These advantages may be attributed to the different types and amounts of L2 practice provided in each context. 8.4 Major challenges and outstanding questions

A growing body of research guided by skill acquisition theory has yielded useful information regarding the relationship between skill development and practice quantity and quality in diverse L2 contexts. It however remains

162  Skill acquisition theory

unclear how much practice (or “frequency” in usage-based approach terms) is necessary to advance to automatization via the declarative−procedural− automatization stages (or result in “consolidation” in usage-based approach terms). Answering this question requires valid and reliable measurements (e.g., accuracy, RT, CV, speech fluency measures) for determining which aspects of L2 knowledge are proceduralized and automatized. At a more theoretical level, it remains unclear as to what extent explicit learning and implicit learning contribute to automatization. In addition to the quantity of practice, the quality of practice also needs to be scrutinized. Although we confined usage to socially rich communication that typically happens outside of classrooms (e.g., study abroad) in this chapter, usage-inspired or usage-based approaches to classroom instruction are an emerging area of research (e.g., Tyler & Ortega, 2018). For instance, Rousse-Malpat et al. (2022) examined the effectiveness of a strong communicative language teaching program developed by dynamic usage-based (DUB) principles for junior high school students in the Netherlands. Here, the kinds of DUB activities used in their program (e.g., chorus repeating of meaningful chunks that appeared in story) overlapped with the ones for “learning to use” that are promoted in the framework of practice in this chapter. Further research is needed to clarify the synergistic roles of practice and usage in instructed learning across different contexts. Furthermore, the quality of practice and/or usage often differs between at-home intensive courses and study abroad contexts. While intensive L2 practice in both contexts sometimes results in similar levels of L2 skill gains (Serrano et al., 2016), more research is needed to better understand the specific types of L2 experiences and how they influence L2 development. Finally, there are considerable individual differences in the capacity for declarative and procedural memory (Buffington et al., 2021). The roles of declarative and procedural memory in L2 learning seem to be moderated by proficiency (Hamrick et al., 2018) as well as at-home foreign language program and study abroad context (Faretta-Stutenberg & Morgan-Short, 2018). Researchers planning further studies should carefully collect relevant individual difference variables to account for L2 skill acquisition. 8.5 Conclusions

The importance of usage in L2 learning is undeniable. However, it is equally important to pay attention to how we become able to use an L2. Skill acquisition theory emphasizes the role of declarative and procedural knowledge representations for understanding how usage contributes to L2 development. Based on these postulates, the refined concept of practice (engaging in L2 activities deliberately and systematically) may complement the evolving construct of usage (learning from a communicatively

Skill acquisition theory 163

rich social environment) and plays an important role in explicating how L2 acquisition can progress more effectively in classroom settings and beyond. Future research should continue to investigate the relationship between practice, usage, and L2 development to deepen our understanding of SLA. Discussion questions

1. This chapter focused on multiple knowledge representations as the foundations for L2 usage and learning. This view is different from that put forth by other SLA theories. What are the advantages and disadvantages of a skill acquisition theory perspective? 2. Although there is no clear demarcation between “usage for learning” and “learning to use”, certain L2 activities may be more suited for either case. For instance, in reading skill acquisition, extensive reading is an example of “usage for learning”, while phonics instruction for learning sound-spelling relations is an example of “learning to use”. Can you offer other reading skill examples or those involving other skill types such as listening, writing, and speaking and categorize them as either “usage for learning” or “learning to use” practices? 3. Skill acquisition theory originates in cognitive psychology. To what extent are the findings obtained in this specific domain (e.g., practice distribution, transfer of learning, the role of feedback) applicable to L2 learning? References Anderson, J. R., Bothell, D., Byrne, M. D., Douglass, S., Lebiere, C., & Qin, Y. (2004). An integrated theory of the mind. Psychological Review, 111(4), 1036–1060. Anderson, J. R., & Fincham, J. M. (1994). Acquisition of procedural skills from examples. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20(6), 1322–1340. Buffington, J., Demos, A. P., & Morgan-Short, K. (2021). The reliability and validity of procedural memory assessments used in second language acquisition research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 43(3), 635–662. Bui, G., Ahmadian, M. J., & Hunter, A. M. (2019). Spacing effects on repeated L2 task performance. System, 81, 1–13. Bygate, M. (2018). Learning language through task repetition. John Benjamins Publishing Company. Cepeda, N. J., Pashler, H., Vul, E., Wixted, J. T., & Rohrer, D. (2006). Distributed practice in verbal recall tasks: A review and quantitative synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 354–380. DeKeyser, R. M. (2007). Study abroad as foreign language practice. In R. M. DeKeyser (Ed.), Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology (pp. 208–226). Cambridge University Press.

164  Skill acquisition theory

DeKeyser, R. M. (2010). Monitoring processes in Spanish as a second language during a study abroad program. Foreign Language Annals, 43(1), 80–92. DeKeyser, R. M. (2014). Research on language development during study abroad. In C. Pérez-Vidal (Ed.), Language acquisition in study abroad and formal instruction contexts (Vol. 13, pp. 313–326). John Benjamins Publishing Company. DeKeyser, R. M. (2017). Knowledge and skill in ISLA. In S. Loewen & M. Sato (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition (pp. 15–32). Routledge. DeKeyser, R. M. (2018). Task repetition for language learning: A perspective from skill acquisition theory. In M. Bygate (Ed.), Learning language through task repetition (pp. 27–42). John Benjamins Publishing Company. DeKeyser, R. M. (2020). Skill acquisition theory. In B. VanPatten, G. D. Keating, & S. Wulff (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (3rd ed., pp. 83–104). Routledge. Elgort, I. (2011). Deliberate learning and vocabulary acquisition in a second language. Language Learning, 61(2), 367–413. Elgort, I., & Warren, P. (2014). L2 vocabulary learning from reading: Explicit and tacit lexical knowledge and the role of learner and item variables. Language Learning, 64(2), 365–414. Ellis, N. C. (2002). Frequency effects in language processing: A review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 143–188. Ellis, N. C. (2015). Implicit and explicit language learning: Their dynamic interface and complexity. In P. Rebuschat (Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages (pp. 3–24). John Benjamins. Ellis, N. C., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (2006). Language emergence: Implications for applied linguistics–Introduction to the special issue. Applied Linguistics, 27(4), 558–589. Evans, N. J., Brown, S. D., Mewhort, D. J. K., & Heathcote, A. (2018). Refining the law of practice. Psychological Review, 125(4), 592–605. Faretta-Stutenberg, M., & Morgan-Short, K. (2018). The interplay of individual differences and context of learning in behavioral and neurocognitive second language development. Second Language Research, 34(1), 67–101. Fitts, P. M., & Posner, M. I. (1967). Human performance. Brooks/Cole. Fu, M., & Li, S. (2020). The effects of immediate and delayed corrective feedback on L2 development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 44(1), 1–33. Hamrick, P., Lum, J. A. G., & Ullman, M. T. (2018). Child first language and adult second language are both tied to general-purpose learning systems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(7), 1487–1492. Hanzawa, K., & Suzuki, Y. (in press). Does automaticity in lexical and grammatical processing predict utterance fluency development? A six-month longitudinal study in Japanese EFL context. Journal of Second Language Studies. Henke, K. (2010). A model for memory systems based on processing modes rather than consciousness. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 11(7), 523–532. Hui, B. (2020). Processing variability in intentional and incidental word learning: An extension of Solovyeva and DeKeyser (2018). Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 42(2), 237–357.

Skill acquisition theory 165

Hulstijn, J. H., Van Gelderen, A., & Schoonen, R. (2009). Automatization in second language acquisition: What does the coefficient of variation tell us? Applied Psycholinguistics, 30(4), 555–582. James, M. A. (2018). Teaching for transfer of second language learning. Language Teaching, 51(3), 330–348. Jeon, E. H., & In’nami, Y. (2022). Understanding L2 proficiency: Theoretical and meta-analytic investigations. John Benjamins. Kahng, J. (2014). Exploring utterance and cognitive fluency of L1 and L2 English speakers: Temporal measures and stimulated recall. Language Learning, 64(4), 809–854. Kerr, R., & Booth, B. (1978). Specific and varied practice of motor skill. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 46(2), 395–401. Kim, J. W., Ritter, F. E., & Koubek, R. J. (2013). An integrated theory for improved skill acquisition and retention in the three stages of learning. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 14(1), 22–37. Kim, S. K., & Webb, S. (2022). The effects of spaced practice on second language learning: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 72(1), 269–319. Kim, Y., & Tracy-Ventura, N. (2013). The role of task repetition in L2 performance development: What needs to be repeated during task-based interaction? System, 41(3), 829–840. Kobayashi, M. (2022). The distributed practice effects of speaking task repetition. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 32(1), 142–157. Leonard, K. R., & Shea, C. E. (2017). L2 speaking development during study abroad: Fluency, accuracy, complexity, and underlying cognitive factors. The Modern Language Journal, 101(1), 179–193. Levelt, W. J. M. (1978). Skill theory and language teaching. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 1, 53–70. Li, M., & DeKeyser, R. M. (2019). Distribution of practice effects in the acquisition and retention of L2 Mandarin tonal word production. The Modern Language Journal, 103(3), 607–628. Li, S., Ellis, R., & Zhu, Y. (2016). Task-based versus task-supported language instruction: An experimental study. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 205–229. Lightbown, P. (2019). Perfecting practice. The Modern Language Journal, 103, 703–712. Lim, H., & Godfroid, A. (2015). Automatization in second language sentence processing: A partial, conceptual replication of Hulstijn, Van Gelderen, and Schoonen’s 2009 study. Applied Psycholinguistics, 36(5), 1247–1282. Lyster, R., Saito, K., & Sato, M. (2013). Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language Teaching, 46(1), 1–40. Lyster, R., & Sato, M. (2013). Skill acquisition theory and the role of practice in L2 development. In M. García Mayo, J. Gutierrez-Mangado, & M. Martínez Adrián (Eds.), Contemporary approaches to second language acquisition (pp. 71– 92). John Benjamins Publishing Company. Marsden, E., & Hawkes, R. (2023). Situating practice in a limited-exposure, foreign languages school curriculum. In Y. Suzuki (Ed.), Practice and automatization in second language research: Perspectives from skill acquisition theory and cognitive psychology (pp. 89-118). York, NY: Routledge.

166  Skill acquisition theory

Matsumura, S. (2022). The impact of predeparture instruction on pragmatic development during study abroad: A learning strategies perspective. Study Abroad Research in Second Language Acquisition and International Education, 7, 152–175. Mora, J. C., & Valls-Ferrer, M. (2012). Oral fluency, accuracy, and complexity in formal instruction and study abroad learning contexts. TESOL Quarterly, 46, 610–641. McManus, K. (2023). Practice in study abroad contexts. In Y. Suzuki (Ed.), Practice and automatization in second language research: Perspectives from skill acquisition theory and cognitive psychology (pp. 160-178). New York, NY: Routledge. McManus, K., & Marsden, E. (2019). Signatures of automaticity during practice: Explicit instruction about L1 processing routines can improve L2 grammatical processing. Applied Psycholinguistics, 40(1), 205–234. Mostafa, T., & Kim, Y. (2020). The effects of input and output based instruction on the development of L2 explicit and automatised explicit knowledge: A classroom based study. Language Awareness, 31(1), 1–25. Muñoz, C. (2012). Intensive exposure experiences in second language learning. Multilingual Matters. Newell, A., & Rosenbloom, P. S. (1981). Mechanisms of skill acquisition and the law of practice. In J. C. Anderson (Ed.), Cognitive skills and their acquisition (Vol. 1, pp. 1–55). Erlbaum. Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417–528. Pérez-Vidal, C. (2014). Language acquisition in study abroad and formal instruction contexts. John Benjamins Publishing Company. Rousse-Malpat, A., Steinkrauss, R., Wieling, M., & Verspoor, M. (2022). Communicative language teaching: Structure-based or dynamic usage-based? Journal of the European Second Language Association, 6(1), 20–33. Rawson, K. A., & Dunlosky, J. (2022). Successive relearning: An underexplored but potent technique for obtaining and maintaining knowledge. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 31(4), 362–368. Sala, G., & Gobet, F. (2017). Does far transfer exist? Negative evidence from chess, music, and working memory training. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 26(6), 515–520. Sallas, B., Mathews, R. C., Lane, S. M., & Sun, R. (2007). Developing rich and quickly accessed knowledge of an artificial grammar. Memory and Cognition, 35(8), 2118–2133. Sato, M., & Lyster, R. (2012). Peer interaction and corrective feedback for accuracy and fluency development: Monitoring, practice, and proceduralization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34(4), 591–626. Sato, M., & McDonough, K. (2019). Practice is important but how about its quality?: Contextualized practice in the classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 41(5), 999–1026. Schmidt, R. A., & Bjork, R. A. (1992). New conceptualizations of practice: Common principles in three paradigms suggest new concepts for training. Psychological Science, 3(4), 207–217.

Skill acquisition theory 167

Segalowitz, N. S., & Segalowitz, S. J. (1993). Skilled performance, practice, and the differentiation of speed-up from automatization effects: Evidence from second language word recognition. Applied Psycholinguistics, 14(3), 369–385. Serrano, R. (2011). The time factor in EFL classroom practice. Language Learning, 61, 117–145. Serrano, R., Llanes, À., & Tragant, E. (2016). Examining L2 development in two short-term intensive programs for teenagers: Study abroad vs. “at home”. System, 57, 43–54. Shing, Y. L., & Brod, G. (2016). Effects of prior knowledge on memory: Implications for education. Mind, Brain, and Education, 10(3), 153–161. Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford University Press. Suzuki, Y. (2021). Optimizing fluency training for speaking skills transfer: Comparing the effects of blocked and interleaved task repetition. Language Learning, 71(2), 285–325. Suzuki, Y.(Ed.) (2023). Practice and automatization in second language research: Perspectives from skill acquisition theory and cognitive psychology. New York: Routledge. Suzuki, Y., & DeKeyser, R. M. (2017). The interface of explicit and implicit knowledge in a second language: Insights from individual differences in cognitive aptitudes. Language Learning, 67(4), 747–790. Suzuki, Y., Eguchi, M., & de Jong, N. (2022). Does the reuse of constructions promote fluency development in task repetition? A usage-based perspective. TESOL Quarterly, 56(4), 1290-1319. Suzuki, Y., & Hanzawa, K. (2021). Massed task repetition is a double-edged sword for fluency development: An EFL classroom study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 44(2), 536–561. Suzuki, Y., Jeong, H., Cui, H., Okamoto, K., Kawashima, R., & Sugiura, M. (2023). An fMRI validation study of the word-monitoring task as a measure of implicit knowledge: Exploring the role of explicit and implicit aptitudes in behavioral and neural processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 45(1), 109–136. Suzuki, Y., Nakata, T., & DeKeyser, R. M. (2019). Optimizing second language practice in the classroom: Perspectives from cognitive psychology. The Modern Language Journal, 103(3), 551–561. Suzuki, Y., Nakata, T., & Rogers, J. (2023). Optimizing input and intake processing: A role for practice and explicit learning. In Y. Suzuki (Ed.), Practice and automatization in second language research: Perspectives from skill acquisition theory and cognitive psychology (pp. 39-62). New York, NY: Routledge. Suzuki, Y., & Sunada, M. (2019). Dynamic interplay between practice type and practice schedule in a second language: The potential and limits of skill transfer and practice schedule. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 42(1), 169–197. Taatgen, N. A., & Lee, F. J. (2003). Production compilation: A simple mechanism to model complex skill acquisition. Human Factors, 45(1), 61–76. Tenison, C., & Anderson, J. R. (2016). Modeling the distinct phases of skill acquisition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 42(5), 749–767.

168  Skill acquisition theory

Toth, P. D. (2022). Introduction: Investigating explicit L2 grammar instruction through multiple theoretical and methodological lenses. Language Learning, 72(S1), 5–40. Tyler, A. E., & Ortega, L. (2018). Usage-inspired L2 instruction: Some reflections and a heuristic. In A. E. Tyler, L. Ortega, M. Uno, & H. Park (Eds.), Usageinspired L2 instruction: Researched pedagogy (Vol. 49, pp. 315–321). John Benjamins Publishing Company. Ullman, M. T. (2020). The declarative/procedural model: A neurobiologically motivated theory of first and second language. In B. VanPatten, G. D. Keating, & S. Wulff (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (3rd ed., pp. 128–161). Routledge. Webb, S., & Chang, A. C. S. (2015). How does prior word knowledge affect vocabulary learning progress in an extensive reading program? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 37(4), 651–675. Xiao, F., Taguchi, N., & Li, S. (2019). Effects of proficiency subskills on pragmatic development in L2 Chinese study abroad. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 41, 469–483. Yamagata, S., Nakata, T., & Rogers, J. (2023). Effects of distributed practice on the acquisition of verb-noun collocations. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 45(2), 291–317.

9 SYNTHESIZING USAGE IN SLA Kevin McManus

9.1 Introduction

This book set out to topicalize, critically review, and unpack some of the key theoretical constructs employed in contemporary discussions of usage and its role in second language (L2) acquisition. To do this, contributors from different subfields of the discipline (e.g., corpus linguistics, ethnomethodological conversation analysis, instructed second language acquisition) were invited to respond to three broad questions that cut across distinct usagebased approaches to second language acquisition (SLA): What is usage? What is the L2 learning task? What are the connections between usage and learning? This approach was adopted because conceptual and methodological questions about usage, learning, and their connections are not unique to a particular theory or approach because they cut across many traditions, theories, and approaches in the field (see Mitchell et al., 2019; VanPatten et al., 2020). In addition, allowing each contributor to reflect on the same questions can facilitate comparison and help pinpoint the nature of potential agreements and/or disagreements in terms of how we think about usage, learning, and their connections in SLA. Indeed, as discussed in Chapter 1, given that usage-based studies of SLA draw on a wide variety of research methodologies and tools (e.g., corpus linguistics, ethnomethodology, psycholinguistics), a further goal here is to understand the insights these research methodologies and tools contribute to the discipline, both individually and collectively. At the same, we also must consider the ways in which our methodological tools and decisions shape how we think about and study usage and learning. Similarly, reviewing how the usage-based DOI: 10.4324/9781032668475-9

170 

Synthesizing usage

approaches represented in this volume conceptualize and research learning is important because understanding this question influences how we design and carry out future research studies. In this chapter, my aim is to synthesize the contributions of the different chapters in terms of their discussion and critical review of the previously described three questions. Such a chapter is necessary because each contributor has, up until this point, discussed and critically reviewed usage, learning, and their connections in the field of SLA within their own approach. What is required at this point of development in the field, though, is an opportunity to draw out the main ideas among usage-based accounts. This chapter works toward that goal. 9.2 What is usage?

A common theme in this volume is that several contributors started out with Langacker’s (2016) definition of “usage” and “usage events” to frame the discussion of usage in SLA. Accordingly, usage was frequently defined as “instances of language use” in their full contextual detail, including, for instance, the age and status of the speakers, their social relationships, and the nature of the event. Langacker’s seminal definition forefronts a critical point that has been carefully unpacked in this volume: usage includes speakers’ production and comprehension of language and the broader context in which that language production and comprehension takes place. From a corpus linguistics perspective, Wulff reflected on the multiple layers of usage, all of which are very closely integrated, if not inseparable. On the one hand, there is usage as input and output (or the ambient language, see The Douglas Fir Group, 2016) that can be understood in terms of quantity (e.g., frequency, dispersion), quality (e.g., comprehensibility, relevance), modality (e.g., speaking, reading), and how these characteristics relate to a speaker’s prior knowledge/experience with language (e.g., the extent to which usage features of quantity, quality, and modality are consistent in L2 and the first language (L1) ). At the same time, a usage event always includes its “language-internal and language-external contexts”. The language-internal context refers to the linguistic context of a construction (e.g., its morphosyntactic and phonetic realization, other form-meaning pairings or constructions present before and/or after it), and the languageexternal context includes multiple and interlocking pragmatic, social, geographical, and geo-political variables (see Geeraerts, 2008). Important to Wulff’s multilayered discussion of usage is that “who says what to whom in what kind of situation shapes linguistic choices”, reinforcing the view that usage is not static because instances of language use can and do vary considerably between and within individuals. As a result, Wulff makes the clear and very important point that focusing on a single element of this

Synthesizing usage 171

definition of usage (e.g., output only or a social variable of language use only) not only misrepresents contemporary understandings of usage in the field, but doing so biases claims about a role for usage in learning. These are very important considerations for the field going forward that have implications for how we study L2 learning from a usage-based perspective. For example, to what extent does the field readily weigh these different factors in its study designs? Furthermore, considerations about how that evidence might be collected and analyzed is a nontrivial question. Gudmestad also highlights the importance of studying contextualized language use in her review of usage from a variationist sociolinguistics perspective. A core aim of this approach is to explain “the complex ways in which linguistic and social factors influence variation in language usage and development”. This understanding leads Gudmestad to conceptualize language as a “communicative code that is systematically variable and dynamic and that carries linguistic and social meaning”. In agreement with Wulff, linguistic meaning and social meaning cannot be separated: “a purely linguistic or purely social account of usage would be incomplete […] because it is through context that we are able to gather information about the constraints that shape variable usage” (see also Geeslin & Long, 2014). An emerging narrative coming from this volume, therefore, is that studying language use in isolation (e.g., via an interview, judgment tests, collections of student essays) or an aspect of the social context of language use is not sufficient to adequately study L2 development. With a focus on the ways in which speakers associate forms of language with social action, Eskildsen reviews usage from an ethnomethodological conversation analysis perspective. Consistent with many of the other accounts presented in the volume, usage is also defined as a multilayered construct involving a speaker’s production and/or comprehension of language and the full complexity of their interactional conduct, including the ways in which they employ and respond to bodily resources (e.g., gesture, gaze) as well as space, objects, and tools in the environment. For Eskildsen, usage is a “conspiracy of the linguistic material, the bodily conduct and the locally contextualized use in the ecology and materiality of the interaction that enables the interpretation of ‘talk’”. This is one reason why it can be difficult (if not impossible) to interpret instances of language use (or “talk”) in isolation. Rather, talk is given meaning through its accompanying social action. Furthermore, Eskildsen argues that this understanding of usage requires a reconceptualization of the notion of a construction: instead of thinking about constructions as “form-meaning pairings”, Eskildsen advocates for a view of constructions as relations between embodied action and expression, where expression is not linguistic only but multimodal (e.g., bodily resources, objects, and tools in the environment). In this way, an ethnomethodological conversation analysis approach topicalizes the

172 

Synthesizing usage

importance of embodied action and multimodal expression to an understanding of usage. From a dynamic usage-based perspective, Verspoor and Schmid also view usage as a multilayered construct, involving the following interacting components: (i) utterances, (ii) speakers, hearers, and their communicative goals, mental representation of meanings, emotions, social characteristics, (iii) the situational and wider socio-cultural contexts, and (iv) co-semiosis— the joint activity of working toward a mutual belief or mutual understanding. Indeed, it is these components of usage that drive the emergence and maintenance of form-usage-meaning-mappings (Verspoor, 2017), which are the building blocks of language. In this view, linguistic forms/structures are mapped onto usage-dependent meanings, which are conventionalized in speech communities and entrenched in the minds of speakers in those communities. Usage, therefore, mediates between the levels of form and meaning, and it is usage itself that helps establish communal conventions and individual representations of form-usage-meaning-mappings. It is these properties of usage events that make language inherently dynamic and variable. A connected point here is that a dynamic usage-based approach accounts for the dynamic and variable properties of language by expanding the definition of language to include a role for usage-dependent meaning (i.e., form-usage-meaning-mappings), which is less widely discussed in contemporary discussions of form-meaning mappings or constructions (see Ellis et al., 2016; Goldberg, 2019). In sum, a dynamic usage-based approach highlights that the ways in which people use linguistic forms and structures to express meaning are dynamic and variable, sharing common ground with ethnomethodological conversation analysis and variationist sociolinguistics approaches. Drawing on Langacker’s (2008, 2016) usage-based model, Luo notes that a speaker’s knowledge of language emerges from usage, defined as situated instances of comprehending and producing language and the cognitive processes involved in language comprehension and production. As a result, while a cognitive linguistics account attributes a critical role to contextualized language use in its full complexity, this approach is additionally sensitive to the interaction and co-operation of the multiple cognitive processes (e.g., entrenchment, meaning construction, categorization) that allow speakers to extract and build knowledge by repeatedly engaging in usage events, consistent with a dynamic usage-based approach. Also, language from a cognitive linguistics perspective is characterized as dynamic because no two usage events are identical (but they can share similarities) due to their full contextual detail (e.g., speakers, time, contexts). A speaker’s language knowledge (i.e., an inventory of conventional units, also known as constructions) emerges gradually from engaging in numerous instances of usage events in a bottom-up fashion. In sum, a noteworthy

Synthesizing usage 173

contribution of a cognitive linguistics approach to usage in SLA is that it attributes important roles to speakers’ cognitive processing abilities and their role in situated usage events, both of which are included in the multilayered conceptualization of usage. From a processing-based, instructed SLA perspective, Leow defines language as the principal method of human communication (see also Gudmestad, this volume), that is conveyed by speech and writing and consists of grammatical rules and words. Importantly, and consistent with some accounts presented so far, the learning of language takes place in social interactions in which L2 learners share their experiences and engage in opportunities for extended use/practice with the L2. Leow argues that this conceptualization presents challenges for learning in instructed contexts since the opportunities for meaningful social interaction and extended conversation can be limited. In addition, a speaker’s knowledge of a language is derived from their use of that language (i.e., in a bottomup fashion). Consistent with cognitive linguistics and dynamic usage-based approaches, usage is defined from a dual social-cognitive perspective that entails engagement in social, conversational settings that allow speakers’ cognitive processes to become activated when influenced by and responding to the characteristics of a given usage event. As a result, Leow conceptualizes usage as the sharing of messages from a dual profile of language use (both oral and written) and cognitive engagement. In this way, Leow assigns an important role to the cognitive processing mechanisms involved in language use because these mechanisms allow knowledge to be built by extracting information from situated usage events. Drawing on Ellis and Larsen-Freeman’s (2006) definition of usage as “exposure to a new language in a ‘communicatively-rich human social environment’”, Suzuki (this volume) reviews usage from the perspective of skill acquisition theory. In line with Leow, Suzuki notes the potential challenges and practical constraints of learning (primarily) from exposure in instructed L2 contexts (e.g., limited instructional hours, variations in individual student achievement). This is because “learners initially need to invest a tremendous amount of time and effort into the process of learning an additional language to be able to use it”, which, in turn “impose[s] obstacles to learning solely through usage (e.g., exposure, communication)”. Opportunities for learning in instructed contexts are argued to be more constrained compared to other contexts (e.g., immersion, study abroad), which, Suzuki discusses, can make learning from exposure and communication difficult for classroom-based learners. This challenge is thought to be particularly acute when (i) knowledge of language is understood to be extracted from exposure to language and (ii) development is supported by opportunities for practice. This dilemma leads Suzuki to distinguish between two types of usage: usage for learning and learning to use: “While

174 

Synthesizing usage

extensive and extended input exposure and communicative experience promote L2 acquisition (usage for learning), it is equally important to expound on how learners develop the capacity for using complex building blocks of language (learning to use).” Taken together, the chapters discussed in this section indicate many consistencies across accounts for how usage is conceptualized in the field of SLA. For example, usage is repeatedly defined as a multilayered construct that includes input, output, and opportunities for practice/rehearsal that speakers produce themselves and are exposed to, the interactional conduct of speakers that support the interpretation of talk, and the cognitive processing mechanisms required in comprehending and producing language. Although not all accounts weigh these factors similarly in how they define or study usage, it is important to note that no factor is excluded. For example, while an ethnomethodological conversation analysis approach sees interactional conduct, among others, as a particularly important factor in conceptualizing usage in SLA, it does not deny a role for cognitive processing. One outcome from this review, therefore, is that different approaches accentuate particular aspects of usage to better understand its specific contribution to learning. Such an understanding necessarily compels us to consider collaborative work more fully as we design and carry out future SLA studies. Doing so allows us to benefit from the multiple theoretical lenses and methodological tools that our discipline offers. Indeed, many chapters have discussed ways that future research needs to, and can, balance the different layers of usage to study its complexity and role more comprehensively in L2 learning. Furthermore, each contributor has made it very clear that our understanding of usage is biased and mispresented when we focus only on one element of usage (e.g., a focus on output only). At the same time, this bringing together of different perspectives on usage suggests a timely revisiting/refreshing of how we conceptualize language and usage going forward, which will be essential for advancing a usage-based program of SLA research. For example, some chapters suggested a reconceptualization or revising of contemporary conceptualizations of constructions (i.e., the building blocks of languages), typically defined as “stored pairings of form and function, including words, idioms, partially filled and fully general linguistic patterns” (Goldberg, 2003, p. 219; see also Bybee, 2010; Ellis, 2019). Eskildsen proposed a reconceptualization of constructions as relations between expression and embodied action, while Verspoor and Schmid argued that usage is needed to mediate between the levels of form and meaning/function (resulting in form-usagemeaning-mappings). Both proposals draw attention to the dynamic and variable properties of language and remind us that language is not only linguistic structure but the symbolic representation of objects and experiences (see also Luo, this volume). These reminders must encourage the field

Synthesizing usage 175

to expand how it thinks about meaning/function (i.e., not lexico-semantic only) and how it defines form (i.e., not linguistic structure only). Taking these concerns seriously and incorporating them into future theory-building and research designs will be important to achieve a unified definition for usage in the field. 9.3 What is the L2 learning task?

This section brings together the views from the different chapters about “learning”, focusing on the ways in which the different accounts conceptualize learning and what they consider the L2 learning task to involve. As noted in Chapter 1, this is a nontrivial question that has been historically overlooked in the field, in part due to the separation of linguistics and learning theory following Chomsky’s (1959) review of Skinner’s (1957) book Verbal Behavior (for discussion, see Divjak, 2019). As arguably one of the most influential book reviews in the social sciences, Chomsky’s review is broadly understood to have majorly stunted theory-building and empirical research into language learning theory (e.g., the conditions/factors that support language development, how learning proceeds, and how learning translates into current and future behavior), positing instead that innate knowledge (or a Universal Grammar) must explain language acquisition. Even though Chomsky’s ideas about language learning have been contested for decades (e.g., Lakoff, 1990), it has taken some time for SLA researchers to refocus attention on the ways in which the properties of language, prior language knowledge and experience, and cognitive processing mechanisms explain L2 learning outcomes (Ellis, 2006; MacWhinney, 1992). Today, understanding these phenomena takes center stage in usage-based explorations of language learning (Ellis & Wulff, 2020) and it is to these ideas that we now turn. Starting with Wulff’s discussion of learning from a usage-based construction grammar perspective (Goldberg, 2006), the object (or end-point) of learning “is a structured inventory of form-meaning pairs or constructions”, including “knowledge of the properties of constructions, which other constructions they combine with, and how they do so”. Developing this type of knowledge is needed to support the efficiency and stability of (language) processing (or automatization, see Suzuki, this volume) and helps increase fluency. This is because knowledge about the properties of constructions can allow learners to predict or anticipate upcoming information (for examples, see Dussias et al., 2013; Kaan & Grüter, 2021). In addition, Wulff notes that while formal approaches to SLA (e.g., White, 2003) have focused attention more on questions of the initial stages of learning and ultimate attainment, usage-based approaches have focused to a greater extent on “understanding how language development unfolds

176 

Synthesizing usage

over time”. In other words, there is now less of a focus in the field on documenting some of the ways that learner populations might differ with respect to L1 speakers. Of greater interest, for Wulff, is in documenting how a speaker’s use of language changes over time and is influenced/supported by language-internal and language-external contexts. This is one reason usage-based researchers advocate for longitudinal research designs (see also Verspoor & Schmid, this volume), which can offer insights into the dynamicity and nature of language use as it unfolds. Wulff also notes that an important change in the field comes from the value/importance now attributed to studies of how speakers actually use/produce language (rather than a focus on detections of ungrammaticality, for instance). To this end, Wulff notes that formal approaches have traditionally focused on “the unconscious knowledge one has of their language(s) […] in contrast, usage-based linguistics has considered performance data a much more direct reflection of the learning process and the mechanisms underlying it”. This is arguably an important change for the field of SLA. At the same time, this change is thought to be one reason why corpus linguistics has made an important contribution to usage-based SLA research (Gries, 2018; Schönefeld, 1999). Building on these recent shifts in the field, Gudmestad discusses how studying the ways in which L2 speakers acquire variability contributes to our understanding of learning in SLA. In doing so, she distinguishes between Type I and Type II variation. Briefly, Type I variation refers to variability “that is present along the developmental trajectory”, which has been traditionally referred to as targetlike and nontargetlike use (e.g., three children vs. three childrens). Type II variation, however, refers to “variation that is found in the target language, which means that two or more targetlike forms are in variation with each other among native speakers” (e.g., wordinternal, intervocalic /d/ in Spanish as found in words like cada “each”; see Kanwit & Solon, 2023; Solon et al., 2018). Given these different types of variation, the target of the L2 learning task is also going to be different, representing a helpful distinction for the field. In terms of Type I variation, for example, the learning task involves phasing out or eliminating nontargetlike usage (e.g., three childrens). From a Type II perspective, however, the learning task involves developing “sensitivity to variability in the input [as represented in the target community of speakers] and to develop the ability to mirror these same variable patterns”. Additional components of the Type II learning task involve recognizing the “linguistic and extralinguistic constraints” that influence language use. Therefore, although the aim of the L2 learning task differs according to the type of variationist approach adopted, both approaches agree that L2 learning involves shifting the incorporation of variability into language use: reducing variability from a Type I perspective but increasing variability from a Type II perspective. In

Synthesizing usage 177

both cases, these conceptualizations of learning involve learners detecting variability in their own language use (and acting on it) as well as attending to the social and linguistic factors that influence language use. As in variationist sociolinguistics approaches, dynamic usage-based perspectives also highlight the importance of variability in conceptualizing learning. From a dynamic usage-based approach, variability characterizes the iterative and dynamic features of usage events that learners repeatedly participate in. In this account, learning is conceptualized as a bottom-up, piecemeal process that begins with an inventory of specific, item-based schemas (or constructions, see also Wulff) and is supported by repeated engagement in usage events. However, even though exposure to similar usage events can give rise to similar schemas/constructions (e.g., transitive constructions like Trish gave Lottie a cookie), the word choices, pronunciations, and contexts used across usage events necessarily vary. It is this understanding, therefore, that usage events are inherently variable that supports learning and characterizes learning as an iterative yet dynamic process. In other words, regularly participating in similar usage events that necessarily vary over space and time is what supports learning. A further consequence of this understanding is that language development is variable within and between individuals, indicating that no two individuals will develop identical L2 abilities because their participation in usage events cannot be the same. It should also be noted that this approach to studying usage strongly advocates for longitudinal research designs with a case-study approach to document inter- and intra-individual variation. In these ways, a dynamic usage-based approach makes an important contribution to how we think about the L2 learning task, emphasizing key roles for repetition and variability in usage events that are key to supporting learning. These ideas about what learning is and how learning can be supported are well represented in cognitive linguistics approaches too, albeit with a slightly different focus. For example, Luo notes that a speaker’s ability to grow an inventory of constructions is supported by a series of cognitive and interactive skills, none of which are unique or specialized for language learning, but that are used to support the learning of language. Indeed, a repeatedly discussed point in Luo’s contribution is that the abilities that humans bring to the task of learning a language are the same abilities used in all types of learning (see also Wulff). However, since the learning of language is not a uniquely cognitive endeavor, cognitive linguistics approaches forefront critical roles for the language input in language learning. This is because the quality and quantity of a learner’s exposure to language determines what information can be extracted from it to develop L2 knowledge and abilities (Bybee, 2010; Ellis & Ferreira-Junior, 2009). To this end, Luo notes (following Littlemore & Juchem-Grundmann, 2010) that conceptualizing (language) learning in this way is not all that different from learning

178 

Synthesizing usage

theories focusing on roles for input, output, and interaction. This is because L2 knowledge is built from “instances of a speaker’s producing and understanding language” (Kemmer & Barlow, 2000, p. viii). As a result, the contribution of cognitive linguistics to work in this area lies in exploring and understanding the cognitive processes involved in language use that allow speakers to build knowledge from language use. Understanding the cognitive mechanisms involved in these processes have the potential to explain how language knowledge can emerge from usage. Therefore, even though a cognitive linguistics approach includes multiple similarities with the previously discussed accounts, it does, however, focus on the cognitive processes available and used to support L2 learning. Furthermore, and in agreement with Gudmestad, and Verspoor and Schmid, learning is an experiencedriven process because the potential for learning to take place depends on the types of experiences a learner finds themselves in, which determines the types of input available for L2 development. This understanding can help explain why the outcomes of learning can be diverse despite similar opportunities for use. Thus far, the discussion has conceptualized learning as the building of an inventory of constructions that emerge gradually over time, in a bottom-up fashion, by drawing on cognitive processing mechanisms to extract information from opportunities to engage in similar but not identical usage events. These ideas are also represented in ethnomethodological conversation analysis approaches, albeit with a slightly shifted focus. For example, Eskildsen’s discussion of learning involves conceptualizing cognition as a socially shared, publicly visible phenomenon, entailing that cognition is studied and understood through peoples’ observable behaviors. This means that the object of learning is represented in social action (i.e., using resources that allow others to interpret talk). As discussed by Eskildsen, longitudinal case studies of situated talk that document how embodied resources are used to support the use of linguistic resources have suggested close connections between the emergence and use of expression and embodied meaning(s). For this reason, learning from an ethnomethodological conversation analysis perspective involves navigating local ecologies, attending to and learning to interpret other people’s behaviors, and using semiotic resources that are regularly revised/refreshed to act, behave, and respond in ways that make sense to other people. In other words, an aim of the L2 learning process involves working out the resources (linguistic and non-linguistic) that can be used for particular social actions (e.g., humor) as well as when to use them, where to use them, and how to use them to interpret and contextualize talk. Even though the focus of attention in an ethnomethodological conversation analysis approach might, on the surface, appear somewhat different from those previously discussed, there is considerable common ground among them when we dig deeper.

Synthesizing usage 179

For example, all are agreed that participation in usage events (or communication) is required but not sufficient for L2 learning to take place. In addition, speakers must also develop a range of resources, linguistic and non-linguistic, that are built in a bottom-up, piecemeal fashion, by interacting, monitoring, and interpreting what goes on in those usage events. In all cases, L2 abilities emerge through and for communication supported by multiple (cognitive) resources that do not exclusively serve the purpose of language learning. These are some of the main ideas well represented in the contributions so far. Moving to considerations about learning from instructed SLA perspectives, Leow (this volume) reviews conceptualizations of learning from a processing-based perspective (Leow, 2015, 2020). In particular, Leow takes issue with accounts that extend input-focused approaches of learning to classroom contexts given that instructed classroom contexts tend to offer fewer opportunities for engaging in rich, highly interactive, inputdriven opportunities for language use when compared to other contexts (e.g., “naturalistic” contexts; but see Eskildsen, this volume). Indeed, Leow argues that the specific affordances and opportunities for learning typically available in instructed classroom contexts result in learning that is more explicit in nature. As a result, L2 development in instructed classroom contexts is likely much slower and/or difficult because the limited opportunities for meaningful interaction hamper the development of more implicit L2 processing skills that underpin fluent and automatic L2 behaviors (see also Suzuki, this volume). This perspective leads Leow to question conceptual and methodological aspects of input-driven approaches to L2 learning for investigating L2 development in instructed classroom contexts. In terms of the research designs and methods used in L2 studies, for instance, Leow notes limitations to how researchers assess (or measure) learning, arguing for a need to distinguish between learning as a product and learning as a process. For example, most interpretations of learning have drawn conclusions based on analyses of output (e.g., using collaborative or interactive tasks), with less attention paid to understanding cognitive processing abilities and how these also change with experience and work together with output. As Leow sees it, these issues require further consideration before extending input-driven approaches to learning in instructed classroom contexts because the opportunities for learning through language use and interaction vary considerably across contexts. Suzuki’s contribution includes multiple points of agreement with Leow, both of which are helpful for calibrating and revising current conceptualizations of learning in instructed classroom contexts. One point particularly relevant to the present discussion, however, is the contribution a skill acquisition theory approach makes to defining learning and knowledge. This is because skill acquisition theory proposes that learning is underpinned by

180 

Synthesizing usage

different types of knowledge (e.g., declarative, procedural) and each knowledge type influences L2 use in specific ways. In light of the previous discussion (see Leow), Suzuki notes that L2 learning in instructed classroom contexts typically leads to (and sometimes ends with) the creation of fragmented, declarative L2 knowledge due to limited exposure and opportunities for interaction available in classrooms, especially for learners who use and encounter the L2 in that context only. Even though this is an essential first step in developing automatic skills in L2, encyclopedic facts about L2 structures (e.g., knowledge about verbal inflections) do not always confer benefits for developing practical L2 skills: “no matter how elaborate and extensive it is, as knowledge about rules is gained declaratively, it never replaces the fundamental role of usage or procedural skill acquisition over prolonged practice in language experience-rich environments”. In a nutshell, and in agreement with Leow, Suzuki argues that instructed contexts are particularly conducive to the development of explicit and/or declarative knowledge. The challenge, therefore, is to develop theoretically and practically viable ways to support L2 development in these contexts given the limited opportunities for interaction. To this end, Suzuki argues that guidance is critically needed to help learners engage in target behaviors (e.g., expressing one’s intention) and establish procedural knowledge in instructed settings, which can enable learners to use language in contexts beyond the classroom (e.g., study abroad, immersion context). In this way, the L2 learning task in instructed classroom contexts involves helping learners develop procedural and/or automatic knowledge of the target language, which can be achieved through guided practice. Therefore, learning from a skill acquisition theory perspective is conceptualized as a practice-driven process. Suzuki draws on his framework of deliberate and systematic practice in SLA to illustrate how to connect “usage for learning” and “learning to use” processes. Recommended classroom practices to achieve this goal include promoting explicit learning more forcefully, rather than avoiding it. Then, this knowledge can be enhanced by incorporating retrieval practice, guided induction, imitation, reconstruction, memorization, and hypothesis testing (Suzuki et al., 2023). Together, these types of intentional practice are ways to support the learning of declarative and procedural knowledge that form the foundation of usage. In sum, the contributions in this book have noted several complementary points and offered some considerations for future research based on the contexts in which they operate and the epistemological foundations they draw on. One repeated claim is that L2 learning cannot be understood as expanding the inventory of constructions or other communicative resources only. In addition, L2 learning must be understood in terms of how that inventory is employed by speakers and how and why that inventory exists and is used in the ways that it is. Furthermore, nearly all chapters

Synthesizing usage 181

are agreed that conceptualizing learning in this way necessitates that we recognize that no two usage events are the same and that this variable and dynamic property of usage is what supports development. That is, learning is not supported by trying to engage learners in identical learning opportunities, which, as many authors note, is not actually possible given the nature of usage events. At the same time, the discussion also indicates potential concerns and/or limitations about attributing too great of a role to input in conceptualizing and studying L2 learning, especially for studies of L2 learning in instructed classroom contexts. These ideas and others connected to them will be further explored in the next section dedicated to elucidating the relationships between usage and learning in SLA. 9.4 What are the connections between usage and learning?

The last key question posed to this volume’s contributors asked them to reflect on the ways in which usage and learning are connected, if at all. In doing so, we sought to better understand how different usage-based approaches to SLA theorized the relations between usage and learning. Indeed, as many authors in this volume have indicated, this is not a one-way or unidirectional relationship. Rather, the connections between usage and learning are complex, multilayered, and shift with experience. For instance, Eskildsen provided several examples of how meaning-making and embodied action can support L2 learning (e.g., Eskildsen, 2021). One example comes from Eskildsen and Wagner’s (2018) longitudinal analysis of Carlos, a classroom-based learner of English as a second language. In that study, Eskildsen and Wagner explored the potential connections between embodied conduct and the emergence of verbal productions involving “ask”, “say”, and “tell”. Their analysis showed that Carlos recycled (or re-used) numerous embodied actions present in the instructional context. Furthermore, Carlos’s use of embodied actions was accompanied by the emergence of linguistic forms. Interestingly, however, Carlos’s embodied actions and linguistic expressions were not always used together: “early in development, Carlos was more reliant on embodied conduct than in later instances, implying that the linguistic and the bodily parts need not be co-produced” (see also Eskildsen, 2021). This finding indicates a type of dynamic relationship in terms of the use and development of bodily action and linguistic expression in interaction, likely connected to and shaped by the here-and-now of particular usage events. Eskildsen’s analysis and subsequent theorization of Carlos’s development thus posed important questions about the ways in which embodied action and linguistic expression can be related. For instance, does noticing embodied actions eventually give rise to linguistic expression, is this relationship the other way round (i.e., does noticing a linguistic expression give rise to embodied action),

182 

Synthesizing usage

or is this a bidirectional relationship? It seems likely that the connections between these elements are bidirectional, dynamic, and variable depending on the precise meanings that the actions and expressions are being used to convey and the features of the usage events themselves (see also Verspoor & Schmid, this volume). Indeed, as noted by Eskildsen: “although body, grammar, and action (and materiality) are somehow connected, there is no one-to-one correlation between precise bodily conduct, linguistic construction, and social action. Bodily conduct and action accomplishment seem tightly interwoven”. This idea that meaning-making is not static is a recurring theme throughout the volume and in usage-based accounts more generally (e.g., Suzuki, this volume; Verspoor & Schmid, this volume). Better understanding such questions, however, will require the field to engage in more longitudinal research designs that allow us to study not only the relationships among different dimensions of expression and meaning-making, but also to understand how different elements of usage emerge and change (McManus et al., 2021; Verspoor et al., 2021; Wulff, this volume). Addressing these limitations in our understanding will likely promote theorization about the inter-related nature of learners’ networks of usage and the precise ways in which usage networks are inter-related, context-dependent, and context-renewing/reinforcing. From a variationist sociolinguistics approach, Gudmestad explores variability as a feature of the language input, learners’ developing L2 knowledge systems, and the ways in which the two connect using Preston’s (2000) model of interlanguage variation (see also Geeslin & Long, 2014). Preston’s model facilitates this goal by bringing together three levels: social factors (Level I), linguistic factors (Level II), and time (Level III). Using the metaphor of a coin flip (from Preston, 2000) to represent the language choices a speaker potentially has (e.g., whether to use variant x or variant y to express a particular meaning), Gudmestad discusses how the three levels (i.e., social factors, linguistic factors, and time) can impact the weight of each side of the coin. For example, if social factors and linguistic factors collectively favor the selection of variable structure x over variable structure y, then these weightings will impact use. As a result, awareness of the factors that influence the use of a variable structure is understood to also influence the learning and use of a variable structure (see also Regan et al., 2009). This account thus suggests important and direct connections between awareness and language use (see also Leow, this volume). Indeed, this is one way that variationist L2 researchers integrate dynamically driven and probabilistic approaches to the study of L2 development, consistent with other perspectives represented in this volume highlighting that L2 abilities shift constantly based on several closely intertwined factors including, but not limited to, social factors, linguistic factors, and time (see also Wulff, this volume).

Synthesizing usage 183

Verspoor and Schmid add an extra layer to this growing consensus about the constantly shifting and reinforcing connections between usage and learning in SLA. They note, for example, that “learners need repetition of similar utterance activities before strong associations in all four dimensions [of form-usage-meaning-mappings] have been formed and can become routinized”. In this way, Verspoor and Schmid highlight a key role for repetition in learning, while also noting that no utterance activity can ever be the same, but it can be similar. For example, going to buy the same loaf of bread from the same bakery every Monday over the course of one month will quite likely be similar, but time and other contextual factors will change the usage event, even if only slightly (e.g., different customers in the shop, the availability of the loaf of bread you want, the shop assistant). Variations like these prevent a repeated usage event from being identical. Verspoor and Schmid also make clear that these variations mean that learners’ L2 networks (e.g., of form-usage-meaning-mappings) are “constantly under construction, hence the prerequisites for learning never stay the same”. Therefore, repeated exposure and use of similar utterances in similar usage events is needed so that conventionalized form-usage-meaning-mappings can be comprehended and produced frequently enough to become routinized”. As a result, dynamic usage-based accounts highlight important roles for repetition, both in terms of usage and learning. In terms of explaining why usage and learning are dynamically connected, Luo notes from a cognitive linguistics perspective that this position holds because there is no separation between language use and language knowledge (see also Wulff, this volume). This is one reason why usage-based accounts see usage and learning as constantly reinforcing one another in dynamic ways. Consistent with Verspoor and Schmid, Luo also notes that entrenchment (also routinization, automatization, and habit formation) is an important cognitive process for understanding how usage and learning are connected (see also, Leow, this volume; MacWhinney, 2008; Suzuki, this volume). Indeed, as discussed by Langacker (2008, 2016), for example, regularly engaging in similar usage events leaves memory traces that facilitate their activation and retrieval for later use (Bybee, 2010). Repetition then helps routinize activation and retrieval so that their use becomes less effortful and less cognitively demanding with experience. Consider, for instance, how engaging in a new behavior (e.g., driving a new route to work) can initially be relatively demanding, requiring greater amounts of focus and attention than taking the well-rehearsed route. But the more often the new route to work is taken, the less demanding it can become. This is one reason why regularly participating in similar usage events is one way that usage can support learning. Doing so allows learners to routinize previous experiences which leads to consolidation. This is why isolated, one-off interactions are known to less readily contribute to learning.

184 

Synthesizing usage

In the contributions by Leow and Suzuki with reference to usage and learning in instructed L2 contexts (see also Luo, this volume; Verspoor & Schmid, this volume), they argue that to understand connections between usage and learning requires consideration of the cognitive processing mechanisms involved in language use and knowledge creation/ development. With regard to skill acquisition theory, for example, Suzuki discusses the need to capitalize on learners’ prior declarative and procedural knowledge to support L2 development. Indeed, a clear thread of this argument is that usage and learning constantly reinforce each other and are dependent on one another. This is because prior knowledge serves as a foundation for integrating and storing new information because it allows new information to be processed. In other words, a learner’s ability to make sense of new information is dependent on the knowledge/experience they have already accumulated, and any newly processed information can shift this prior knowledge and experience (see also McManus, 2022). This is one way in which usage and knowledge are closely intertwined (see also Eskildsen, this volume; Luo, this volume). Furthermore, different types of prior knowledge can influence the quality of usage for learning in different ways. For example, larger vocabulary sizes as well as greater lexical processing automaticity can support higher-order reading and listening skills (e.g., inferencing, comprehension) to facilitate learning from usage. This leads Suzuki to note that while a focus of usage-based L2 research has been on understanding usage (see Wulff, this volume), it is also important that L2 researchers pay attention to how learners become able to use the L2. Skill acquisition theory can help us to achieve this goal by emphasizing how deliberate and regularly repeated activities that operate on existing declarative and procedural knowledge sources can support L2 development. In sum, practice is the fundamental activity that connects usage and learning, an understanding that permeates throughout this volume. Taken together, the insights from the different accounts in this volume and their discussions of the ways in which usage and learning are connected repeatedly indicate that usage and learning exist and change in dynamic ways. Opportunities for interaction in situated usage events not only draw on prior experiences and memories, but they support and drive the creation and/or development of new experiences and memories that feed into future opportunities for usage. With usage, new networks of L2 knowledge are formed, and previously established networks are refreshed and/ or revised because knowledge is not static. These ideas are serious reasons why the study of L2 learning cannot take place using evidence collected from isolated data sources (e.g., one time mesures of L2 ability with crosssectional designs). This is one reason why future research is required that brings together insights from multiple epistemological and methodological

Synthesizing usage 185

perspectives to highlight how layers of usage and different types of learning interact, shape, and are shaped by one another. In the last section of this chapter, we take forward some of these ideas about usage, learning, and their connections to discuss future directions in usage-based SLA research. 9.5 Future directions

In light of this volume’s aim to topicalize, critically review, and unpack some of the key theoretical constructs, methodological insights, and practices employed in contemporary discussions of usage and its role in L2 learning, this final section concludes with some reflections on what we have learned through this synthesis and outlines future directions and potential challenges for the field as we move forward. This volume approached its task of better understanding usage and its role in L2 learning by clarifying and unpacking three important questions in SLA research: What is usage? What is the L2 learning task? What are the connections between usage and learning? In doing so, contributors were invited to reflect on the conceptual and methodological fundamentals that play large roles in their accounts, while also suggesting areas for future research and some challenges that will likely have to be overcome going forward. Through their critical reviews of the discipline, it has been possible to understand some of the key similarities and differences among the different accounts. Not only has this task been immensely fruitful for the future of usage-based SLA research, but it has allowed us to better understand the precise ways that usage and learning interact across different epistemological and methodological approaches. One key take-away here is that there is a large amount of common ground among these approaches, and it is to these commonalities that I briefly turn. To start, the chapters indicated lots of shared understanding about how they conceptualize usage in SLA. For example, usage was discussed as a multilayered construct that includes language input and output, opportunities for practice/rehearsal in which speakers produce and comprehend language (e.g., in speaking, writing, gesturing), the interactional conduct of speakers that support the interpretation of talk, and the cognitive processing mechanisms used in comprehending and producing language. An additional key point is that language is not understood as combinations of words and phrases only, but it refers to all forms of meaning-making and communication, or what Gudmestad referred to as a “communicative code”. An additional point here important to note is that the chapters weigh these features of usage in different ways. Indeed, this is one clear outcome of the current volume that previous work has been unable to demonstrate. It is through a careful consideration of what usage and learning are

186 

Synthesizing usage

that has allowed us to more transparently see that all elements of usage are relevant to all accounts (i.e., no account sees some element of usage as not relevant). However, what is important to note is that the different accounts bring different elements of usage into focus more sharply than others. As an example, an ethnomethodological conversation analysis approach weighs interactional conduct as very important to conceptualizing and studying usage and learning, whereas a cognitive linguistics approach weighs cognitive processing as very important to understanding these same phenomena. What is essential to take away from this discussion, though, is that an ethnomethodological conversation analysis does not deny a role for cognitive processing and a cognitive linguistics approach does not deny a role for interactional conduct. All elements of usage are relevant in all accounts, just with different weightings. Lastly, and closely related, a very strong message that came out of each chapter is that we cannot fully understand the role of usage in L2 learning by focusing on a single element of usage only (e.g., input only). Rather, to comprehensively understand what usage is and the varied ways that it can influence L2 learning requires us to increasingly adopt multipronged approaches that integrate these many and varied understandings of usage. While doing so is of course challenging, the need for increasing amounts of methodological triangulation and collaboration has been discussed as very important in SLA for a long time now (see Ellis, 2017; Mackey & Gass, 2016). This is a clear way that future research will be able to address the challenges repeatedly outlined in this volume. In terms of L2 learning, a repeated conclusion in this volume is that we need to diversify how we think about and study L2 learning. For example, while understanding L2 learning as expanding the inventory of constructions or other communicative resources can serve as a good starting point, attention must also be paid to how that inventory is employed by speakers and how/why that inventory exists and is used in the ways that it is. Asking questions about why a speaker’s language abilities look the way that they do compels us to engage in more process-oriented and longitudinal research. Indeed, as discussed by Wulff, usage-based L2 research does not find comparisons among different populations to be particularly insightful for theory development (e.g., comparing beginners to experienced L2 speakers, or comparing L2 speakers to L1 speakers). Instead, there is considerable interest in better understanding how a speaker’s L2 abilities emerge and change and what factors influence those processes. For SLA, this is a particularly exciting research focus since adult L2 learners arrive at the task of learning an additional language with considerable knowledge and experience with other languages (Jarvis & Pavlenko, 2008; McManus, 2022). A key consequence of this observation is that usage-based SLA research allows us to theorize and study how a speaker’s prior experiences using a language to communicate shape new language learning and, at the same time, how this

Synthesizing usage 187

new learning shapes how speakers use their other languages (e.g., L1). In short, usage-based SLA encourages us to think more globally about what learning is, not as multiple language systems nested together that do not interact, but very much as a tightly networked system of language knowledge that adapts to new experiences (McManus, 2022). Critically, new opportunities change the entire system and in usage-based SLA research we are interested in better understanding how those changes occur and what they look like. We cannot easily study questions like this with smallscale study designs that take snapshots of learners’ abilities at one point in time. It is only through process-oriented, longitudinal research that we can begin to understand the nature of learning. Reflections on the ways in which usage and learning are connected repeatedly noted that usage and learning not only emerge and change in dynamic ways, but they constantly influence and shape each other. This is an important point for consideration because it moves us beyond questions of exposure and frequency that have tended to dominate the field (e.g., claims that L2 speakers need greater exposure to the target language to support learning). Of course, no account denies that exposure to the target language is necessary for L2 learning, but we also understand that exposure alone is not sufficient (Divjak, 2019; Ellis & Wulff, 2020). Learners also need repeated opportunities for interaction in situated usage events. Doing so allows speakers not only to draw on existing experiences and memories (or knowledge), but this process drives the creation and/or development of new experiences and memories that feed into future opportunities for usage. With usage, new networks of L2 knowledge are formed, and previously established networks are refreshed and/or revised, since knowledge is not static. These are important points that have been made throughout the volume. A remaining question, here, though is how future SLA researchers can integrate these ideas into the study and design of future studies. As previously mentioned, doing so will require us to blend different methodological approaches that draw on rich datasets. It will also mean, quite likely, that we need to work more collaboratively so that the field benefits from multiple epistemological and methodological perspectives and tools to shed light on the role of usage in L2 learning. As previously noted, for example, one clear need is for the field to engage in more longitudinal research that would allow us to better understand how L2 abilities emerge and change. However, the aim here is not necessarily in studying language use over larger and larger time scales, but rather by increasing the number of data collection waves so that we can gain fine-grained insights into L2 use. Collecting language-use data over a period of two years at 12-month intervals, for instance, is likely less beneficial and informative for the field than more intensive data collection schedules over a shorter period of time. One approach here would involve including data collection waves that are closer

188 

Synthesizing usage

together. Also, in addition to greater intensity in the frequency of data collection in longitudinal research, there is a pressing need to enrich the types of data we collect, especially those that allow us to study the multimodal features of L2 use. Even though our field has greatly benefitted from large datasets of college student essays, we are now asking new and different questions that require us to move beyond the analysis of language production only. Collecting rich amounts of multimodal data at regular time points is needed to address future questions in usage-based SLA research. This will also speak to our growing understanding of usage and learning and multilayered constructs that shift constantly. An additional area for future investment that is particularly timely and relevant to the field concerns L2 learning in instructed contexts. As commentators in this volume have noted, instructed classroom contexts can bring their own sets of challenges given that opportunities for meaningful interaction can be reduced (when compared to immersion contexts, for example). At the same time, exposure to language and opportunities for use can also be limited in these contexts. These features, to name but a few, have been forefronted as important for future usage-based SLA research to consider in both practice and theorization. The field can capitalize on the limited opportunities learners have for L2 development in instructed contexts by providing learners with intentional and systematic opportunities for language use. Indeed, a repeated point discussed in this volume is that greater attention should be paid to finding ways to develop and exploit explicit learning opportunities in the classroom (see Leow, Luo, and Suzuki). For example, by developing learners’ awareness of the target language and intentionally practicing aspects of the target language that learners have explicit knowledge of, and also providing extended and repeated opportunities for practice that operate on learners’ prior knowledge. Not only are these recommendations supported by a growing body of L2 research evidence as discussed throughout the volume, but they are consistent with growing consensus pointing to very close relationships between awareness, usage, and learning in SLA. In closing, this volume has critically reviewed several conceptual and methodological components related to the study of usage in SLA, seeking to topicalize and reflect on the similarities as well as some of the differences among accounts that see usage as playing an important role in SLA. In addition to noting that usage is repeatedly conceptualized as a multilayered construct, usage and learning are also described as being dynamically related, influencing each other constantly. An additional insight gained from this review is that not all approaches weigh the same factors or ways of studying usage in identical ways, which is one reason why future research should blend insights from multiple approaches. Doing so will significantly enrich the study of L2 learning in the field and the role of usage in that process.

Synthesizing usage 189

Discussion questions

1. The definition of usage in SLA was noted as including many different layers. What do you consider to be the most valuable or important of these layers in your area of L2 research? 2. Why do you think many authors in this volume have strongly argued that it is very difficult, if not impossible, to isolate one element of usage (e.g., output) from the others in the study of usage in SLA? 3. What research designs and methods do you think would be particularly valuable for studying how a speaker’s knowledge and use of language changes with experience? References Bybee, J. L. (2010). Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge University Press. Chomsky, N. (1959). Verbal behavior. Language, 35(1), 26. https://doi​.org​/10​ .2307​/411334 Divjak, D. (2019). Frequency in language: Memory, attention and learning. Cambridge University Press. Dussias, P. E., Kroff, J. R. V., Tamargo, R. E. G., & Gerfen, C. (2013). When gender and looking go hand in hand: Grammatical gender processing in L2 Spanish. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35(2), 353–387. https://doi​ .org​/10​.1017​/S0272263112000915 Ellis, N. C. (2006). Selective attention and transfer phenomena in L2 acquisition: Contingency, cue competition, salience, interference, overshadowing, blocking, and perceptual learning. Applied Linguistics, 27(2), 164–194. https://doi​.org​ /10​.1093​/applin​/aml015 Ellis, N. C. (2017). Cognition, corpora, and computing: Triangulating research in usage-based language learning. Language Learning, 67(S1), 40–65. https://doi​ .org​/10​.1111​/ lang​.12215 Ellis, N. C. (2019). Essentials of a Theory of Language Cognition. The Modern Language Journal, 103, 39–60. https://doi​.org​/10​.1111​/modl​.12532 Ellis, N. C., & Ferreira-Junior, F. (2009). Construction learning as a function of frequency, frequency distribution, and function. The Modern Language Journal, 93(3), 370–385. https://doi​.org​/10​.1111​/j​.1540​- 4781​.2009​.00896.x Ellis, N. C., Römer, U., & O’Donnell, M. B. (Eds.). (2016). Usage-based approaches to language acquisition and processing: Cognitive and corpus investigations of construction grammar. Wiley. Ellis, N. C., & Wulff, S. (2020). Usage-based approaches to L2 acquisition. In B. VanPatten, G. D. Keating, & S. Wulff (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction. Routledge. Eskildsen, S. W. (2021). Embodiment, semantics and social action: The case of object-transfer in L2 classroom interaction. Frontiers in Communication, 6, 660674. https://doi​.org​/10​.3389​/fcomm​.2021​.660674 Eskildsen, S. W., & Wagner, J. (2018). From trouble in the talk to new resources— The interplay of bodily and linguistic resources in the talk of a novice speaker of English as a second language. In S. Pekarek Doehler, E. González-Martínez, &

190 

Synthesizing usage

J. Wagner (Eds.), Documenting change across time: Longitudinal studies on the organization of social interaction (pp. 143–172). Palgrave Macmillan. Geeraerts, D. (2008). Lectal variation and empirical data in cognitive linguistics. In F. J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibanez & M. S. Pena Cervel (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction (pp. 163–190). DeGruyter. Geeslin, K. L., & Long, A. Y. (2014). Sociolinguistics and second language acquisition: Learning to use language in context. Routledge. Goldberg, A. E. (2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford University Press. Goldberg, A. E. (2019). Explain me this: Creativity, competition, and the partial productivity of constructions. Princeton University Press. Goldberg, A. E. (2023). Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(5), 219–224. https://doi​.org​/10​.1016​/S1364​ -6613(03)00080-9 Gries, St. Th. (2018). Operationalizations of domain-general mechanisms cognitive linguists often rely on: A perspective from quantitative corpus linguistics. In S. Engelberg, H. Lobin, K. Steyer, & S. Wolfer (Eds.), Wortschätze: Dynamik, Muster, Komplexität (pp. 75–90). de Gruyter Mouton Jarvis, S., & Pavlenko, A. (2008). Crosslinguistic influence in language and cognition. Routledge. Kaan, E., & Grüter, T. (Eds.). (2021). Prediction in second language processing and learning. John Benjamins Publishing Company. Kanwit, M., & Solon, M. (Eds.). (2022). Communicative Competence in a Second Language: Theory, Method, and Applications. Routledge Kemmer, S., & Barlow, M. (2000). Introduction: A usage-based conception of language. In M. Barlow & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Usage-based models of language (pp. i–xxvii). CSLI Publications. Lakoff, G. (1990). Cognitive versus generative linguistics: How commitments influence results. Language and Communication, 1(1), 53–62. Langacker, R. W. (2008). Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford University Press. Langacker, R. W. (2016). Working toward a synthesis. Cognitive Linguistics, 27(4), 465–477. https://doi​.org​/10​.1515​/cog​-2016​- 0004 Leow, R. P. (2015). Explicit learning in the L2 classroom: A student-centered approach. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. Leow, R. P. (2020). L2 writing-to-learn: Theory, research, and a curricular approach. In R. M. Manchón (Ed.), Writing and language learning: Advancing research agendas (pp. 95–117). John Benjamins. Littlemore, J., & Juchem-Grundmann, C. (2010). Applied cognitive linguistics in second language learning and teaching [special issue]. AILA Review, 23, 1–78. Mackey, A., & Gass, S. M. (2016). Second language research: Methodology and design (2nd ed.). Routledge. MacWhinney, B. (1992). Transfer and competition in second language learning. Advances in Psychology, 83, 371–390. MacWhinney, B. (2008). A unified model. In P. Robinson & N. C. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition (pp. 241–371). Routledge.

Synthesizing usage 191

McManus, K. (2022). Crosslinguistic influence and second language learning. Routledge. McManus, K., Mitchell, R., & Tracy-Ventura, N. (2021). A longitudinal study of advanced learners’ linguistic development before, during, and after study abroad. Applied Linguistics, 42(1), 136–163. https://doi​.org​/10​.1093​/applin​ /amaa003 Mitchell, R., Myles, F., & Marsden, E. (2019). Second language learning theories (4th ed.). Routledge. Preston, D. (2000). Three kinds of sociolinguistics and SLA: A psycholinguistic perspective. In B. Swierzbin, F. Morris, M. Anderson, C. Klee, & E. Tarone (Eds.), Social and cognitive factors in second language acquisition: Selected proceedings of the 1999 second language research forum (pp. 3–30). Cascadilla Proceedings Project. Regan, V. Howard, M., & Lemée, I. (2009). The Acquisition of Sociolinguistic Competence in a Study Abroad Context. Multilingual Matters. https://doi​.org​ /10​.21832​/9781847691583 Schönefeld, D. (1999). Corpus linguistics and cognitivism. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 4(1), 137–171. Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. Prentice-Hall. Solon, M., Linford, B., & Geeslin, K. L. (2018). Acquisition of sociophonetic variation: Intervocalic /d/ reduction in native and nonnative Spanish. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada/Spanish Journal of Applied Linguistics, 31(1), 309–344. Suzuki, Y., Nakata, T., & Rogers, J. (2023). Explicit learning at the initial stages of SLA: Optimizing input and intake processing. In Y. Suzuki (Ed.), Practice and automatization in second language research: Perspectives from skill acquisition theory and cognitive psychology. Routledge. 39–62. The Douglas Fir Group. (2016). A transdisciplinary framework for SLA in a multilingual world. The Modern Language Journal, 100(S1), 19–47. https://doi​ .org​/10​.1111​/modl​.12301 VanPatten, B., Keating, G. D., & Wulff, S. (Eds.). (2020). Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (3rd ed.). Routledge. Verspoor, M. (2017). Complex dynamic systems theory and L2 pedagogy: Lessons to be learned. In L. Ortega & Z. Han (Eds.), Complexity theory and language development: In celebration of Diane Larsen-Freeman (pp. 143–162). Benjamins Verspoor, M., Lowie, W., & Wielang, M. (2021). L2 developmental measures from a dynamic perspective. In Bert Le Bruyn and Magali Paquot (Eds.), Learner corpus research meets second language acquisition (pp. 172–190). Cambridge University Press. White, L. (2003). Second language acquisition and universal grammar/Lydia White. Cambridge University Press.

INDEX

Note: Page numbers in italics indicate figures, and page numbers in bold indicate tables in the text. Accelerated Integrated Method (AIM) 101 action-oriented interests 51 adaptive control of thought-rational (ACT-R) theory 148 agency 7, 12 apology 55, 157 automatic knowledge, development of 11–12 automatization 18, 88, 116, 175, 183; of knowledge and skills 150–151, 155; of linguistic data 140; of processing 34; qualitative change 150; stages 131, 152, 162 behavioral aspects 148–149, 152 bilingual programs 101 bodily conduct 51, 52, 54, 55, 57–59, 171, 182 bottom-up orientation 112 “can you X”-pattern 57 caused-motion event 122 chunking, notion of 132, 139 coefficient of variance (CV) 150 cognition 57, 60; and emotive resources 100–101; role of 132; in usage-based approaches 131–132

cognitive-associative-autonomous 148 cognitive commitment 107 Cognitive-Functional Linguistics 28–29 cognitive grammar 111–114; bottom-up orientation 112; characteristics 111; language-asconceptualization 114; linguistic theory, goal of 112; reductionism 111; schemas 112; symbolic units or constructions 113; transitive particle verbs, mental representation 113, 113–114; usage-based model 111, 114 cognitive-interactionist hypothesis 131–132 cognitive-linguistic (CL) approaches 16–17, 88, 130, 132; basics of 120–121; caused-motion event 122; cognitive commitment 107; cognitive grammar 111–114; cognitive model of language 109; construal 121–122; construction 108; contribution to linguistic study 123–124; definition 107–111; generalization commitment 107–108; grammatical rules 110; hypotheses 107–108; inspired 

194 Index

approaches to L2 instruction 120–123; language, mind, and experience, relationship 108; language acquisition, contributions 110; metaphorical motivation 123; motivated meaning-meaning relationships 122–123; perceived arbitrariness 121; situated instances 123; state change event 122; tenets of 110; usage and L2 learning see usage-based view of language learning cognitive mechanisms 13, 20, 29, 178 cognitive model of language 109 cognitive process 119, 131–132; of entrenchment 116; ISLA, usagebased approaches 131–132; and L2 learning 119 cognitive-psychology research 147–148 collexemes 31 communicative language teaching (CLT) approach 16, 99–101, 162 Complex Dynamic Systems Theory 29, 99 complex statistical models 35 computer-based vocabulary learning program 159 computer version of approach 101 constraint: extralinguistic 70, 74, 76, 78, 81, 176; variationist SLA 69 construal process 118, 121–122 constructional schematization 30, 116 construction grammar 13, 26, 28, 29, 34, 40, 87, 120, 122, 175 constructions 108; CL approaches 108; DUB models 87; embodied object-transfer 54; frequency of 34; linguistic object-transfer 55–56, 56; negative 97; object-transfer 52–57; or symbolic units 113; wh-question 117, 149, 156, 158 constructs 4, 16, 17, 20, 69–71, 130, 148, 169, 185, 188 content language integrated learning 101 contingency 6, 100, 102, 103 conventionalization and entrenchment 89–92, 94, 102 conventionalized FUMMs 93, 99 conversation analysis (CA) 10, 47–51; and sociolinguistics 12–13; studies 7 corpus data: converging with other data 37–39; of landline telephone

conversations 48–49; polysemy and near-synonymy in 35–36; of sufficient size 35 corpus-linguistic approaches 13; complex statistical models 35; contemporary learner corpora 28; corpora of sufficient size 35; data 27, 35, 37–39; frequency of construction 34; ICLE, learner corpora 38; individual variation 37–39; input/output properties 33–34; metadata-enriched learner corpora 38–39; monolingual and bilingual variation 35–36; MuPDAR(F) 36; non-corpus linguists, misconceptions 37; polysemy and near-synonymy in corpus data 35–36; regression statistics, use of 39; sizable, longitudinal corpora, need for 39– 40; token frequencies 34; usage see usage; usage-based construction grammar; Zipf ’s Law 34 declarative and procedural knowledge 149: automatization 150–151; behavioral aspects 148–149; capitalizing on learners’ prior 155–157; explicit and implicit knowledge 152; interaction between 151–152; neurological aspects 148, 149 deictic-dynamic gesturing 53, 56 discourse-pragmatic structure 69 dynamic usage-based (DUB) models: AIM 101; aspects of language learning 94–95; assumptions 88; CLT approach 99; cognitive and emotive resources 100–101; constructions 87; contingency 100; conventionalized FUMMs 99; development in 95–99; EC-Model see entrenchmentand-conventionalization model (EC-Model); FUMMs 87, 93–94; gestures and visuals 100; intralearner variability 98–99; language acquisition 95; lexical and syntactic variables, interaction between 98; mission of language learning 94; negative constructions, development of 97; paradigmatic associations 95; pattern-finding and

Index 195

intention-reading 95; pragmatic associations 98; principles 69, 162; recurring commonalities 93; rich situated usage event 93; situated usage 92–93; stages, L1 development 96–97; TBLT paradigm 101–102; teacherfronted movie approach 101; usage in EC-model and DUB 92–95; variability 96

feedback processing framework 18, 129, 137, 138, 141–143 flash-card learning 154, 159 Form-Usage-Meaning-Mappings (FUMMs) 87, 88, 90, 91, 93–94, 95, 99, 101, 172, 183 frequency, concept of 136 full syntactic schematicity 117–118 FUMMs see Form-Usage-MeaningMappings (FUMMs)

embodied conduct, role of 52–54 EMCA see ethnomethodological conversation analysis (EMCA) emergentism 29 emotive-affective forces 90–91 encoding-solving-responding 148 English as foreign language (EFL) 150–151, 156, 159–161 entrenchment 16, 94, 96, 112, 132, 138, 156, 183; cognitive process of 89, 116, 123, 132, 138–139 entrenchment-and-conventionalization model (EC-Model) 16, 88–92, 95, 97, 99, 102; conventionalization and entrenchment 89–91; dimensions 90–92; emotiveaffective forces 90–91; entrenchment-feedback cycle 90; interaction of components 88–89; routinization 90; Tinguely-machine model 89 envelope of variation 69, 70–71 ethnomethodological conversation analysis (EMCA) 10, 12, 14, 57, 169, 171, 172, 174, 178, 186; action-oriented interests 51; conversation analysis 47–48; corpora of landline telephone conversations 48–49; establishment of social order 47; ethnomethodology 47; grammar 49–51; interest in people’s actions 48; language structure as designed for conversational use 48; nextturn proof procedure 48; semiotic resources 50 ethnomethodology (EM) 47, 169 European Science Foundation (ESF) 34 exemplars 130–132, 139–140, 152, 158 extralinguistic constraint 70, 74, 76, 78, 81, 176

generalization commitment 107–108 geocoding 40 gestures and visuals 100 grammatical rules 49–51, 94, 100, 110, 111, 116, 121, 129, 173 habit formation 116, 183 hypotheses 16, 30, 107–108 identity 7, 12, 37, 91 immersion programs 101 incorrect questions, production of 156 individual variation, examining 37–39 instructed classroom contexts 17–19, 179–181, 188 instructed second language acquisition (ISLA): accuracy of the product 141; automatization of the linguistic data 140; chunking, notion of 139; cognitive-interactionist hypothesis 131–132; cognitive-linguistics perspective 130; cognitive processes 131–132; entrenchment 132, 138; exemplars 139–140; feedback processing framework 129, 138, 141–143; frequency, concept of 136; input processing stage 138–139; knowledge processing stage 138, 142; learners’ internal system 141–142; learning context type 133– 134; Leow’s Model 137; memory and categorization, role of 139; methodological issues 136; model and feedback processing framework 137; physical embodiment 130; proceduralization 131; process vs. product 134; regulations, types of 130; role of usage in L2 learning 129; skill acquisition theory 131; sociocultural perspective 130; type of processing 134; ZPD 130–131

196 Index

instructional approaches, benefit from L2 research 12–13 interactional linguistics 50, 51, 58–59 interaction of components, EC-Model 88–89 International Corpus of Learner English (ICLE) 27–28, 38 intra-learner variability 98–99 knowledge: declarative and procedural 148–149, 149; of language 17, 107, 112, 114–115, 123, 129, 172, 173; processing stage 135, 138, 141, 142 language: acquisition 95, 110; -as-conceptualization 114; description 50; internal and external contexts 13, 32, 33, 170, 176; learning, aspects of 94–95; mind and experience relationship 108; -related behaviors, guided usage/ practice 7–8, 19; structure as designed for conversational use 48 learning context type 133–134 learning to use and usage for learning 153–155, 161 lectal variables 32 lexical and syntactic variables, interaction between 98 lexical bundles 31 linguistic expressions 7, 14, 47, 110, 111, 118, 123, 181 linguistic system, definition 99–102 linguistic theory, goal of 112 L2 learning task 8–11, 175–181; CA-based approaches to SLA 59; case studies of L2 usage 58–59; cognition 57, 60; in conversationanalytic perspective 10, 57–60; goal 8–9; interactional practices or linguistic/semiotic resources 58, 59; L2 acquisition 147; limits 18; local ecology, contingencies in 60; longitudinal CA-SLA 10, 58; as non-static and multi-layered process 10–11; procedural knowledge 9; situated language learning 59; skill acquisition theory perspective 9–10; sociolinguistics perspective 9; types of knowledge 148; usage-based approaches 10, 147; variationist sociolinguistics perspective, 9–12 local ecology, contingencies in 60 L2 usage, case studies of 58–59

memory and categorization, role of 139 metadata-enriched learner corpora 38–39 metaphor 15, 81, 94, 118–120, 123, 124, 132, 182 metonymy 118–120, 123, 124 mission of language learning 94 mixed-effects model 73 monolingual and bilingual variation 35–36 morphosyntactic variable structure 69 motivated meaning-meaning relationships 122–123 multimodal resources and action: EMCA 46; L2 learning see L2 learning task; talk-in-interaction 47; UBL 46 multiword expression (MWE) 50 MuPDAR(F) (Multifactorial Prediction and Deviation Analysis Using Regression/Random Forests) 36, 37 native-speaker and bilingual usage, variation in 75–76 Natural Language Processing (NLP) 159 near-synonymy 35–36 negative constructions, development of 97 next-turn proof procedure 47, 48, 51 NIH-Toolbox 38 non-targetlike patterns 76–77 object-transfer construction 52–57; embodied 54–55; linguistic 55–56, 56 open-class repair initiation 53, 53 oral fluency development 151, 155, 159 paradigmatic associations 95–96, 98 perceived arbitrariness 110, 121 phonological variable structure 69 physical embodiment 130 plural formation 116–117, 117 polysemy 36, 118, 122, 123 power 7, 26, 35, 150 pragmatic associations 94, 98 proceduralization 131, 151, 152, 154–156, 161 procedural knowledge see declarative and procedural knowledge processing speed and stability 150, 151

Index 197

process vs. product 134 psycholinguistic model of interlanguage variation 15; illustrative investigations 78–80; Level I 77–78; Level II 78–79; Level III 80; usage and learning of variation in probabilistic terms 81; verbal negation, analysis of 81 quagmires 117, 117 reaction time [RT] 150 recurring commonalities 5, 31, 92, 93 regression statistics, use of 39 regulations, types of 130 routinization 50, 59, 90, 97, 102, 116, 183 schemas 95, 98, 111, 112, 116, 117, 119, 120, 177 schematization process 116, 117, 119–120 scholarship on social dimensions 69, 74, 82 semantic knowledge, from usage events 118 semiotic resources 6, 14, 49, 50, 51, 56, 58, 59, 60, 66, 178 situated instances 16, 115, 123, 172 situated usage 16, 88–95, 99, 102, 173, 184, 187 sizable, longitudinal corpora, need for 39–40 skill acquisition theory 4, 9–12, 18, 131, 132; challenges 161–162; cognitive-psychology research 147–148; declarative and procedural knowledge 148–152; skill see skill learning skill learning: declarative and procedural knowledge 155–157; intensive practice 159–161; learning to use and usage for learning 153–155; maximizing knowledge transfer 158–159 SLA, usage in: agency, identity, and power 7; cognitive linguistics 16–17; cognitive mechanisms 13; as communicative code 15; connections between usage and learning 181–185; conversationanalysis studies 7; corpus-linguistic approaches 13; description 4–5; dynamic usage-based

perspective 15; entrenchment-andconventionalization model 16; feedback processing framework 18; interaction and social actions 1; language-internal and external contexts 13; language-related behaviors, guided usage/practice 7–8, 19; learning to use 18–19; linguistic structures and patterns 7; linguistic units, employing/ processing 8; L2 learning task 175–181; multidisciplinary 2; psycholinguistic model of interlanguage variation 15; research as input-driven 6; role in L2 learning 14; skill acquisition theory 18; theorizing usage 2; theory-building and methodological innovation 2; usage-based approach and research 3, 5, 170–175 social action, L2 grammar for 50–52, 57 social order, establishment of 47 sociocultural theory 130, 132 sociolinguistics perspective 9, 171 standard deviation (SD) 150 state change event 122 Statistic Canada’s 2016 Canadian Census Profile 40 symbolic units or constructions 113 talk-in-interaction 47, 51 target-language environment 72, 74, 75 Task Based Language Teaching (TBLT) paradigm 101–102 teacher-fronted movie approach 101 theory-building and methodological innovation 2 Tinguely-machine model 89 token frequencies 34 transitive particle verbs, mental representation 113, 113–114 type I variation, L2 learning 67–68, 176; acquisitional challenge 77; contrasts with the target 76; nontarget-like patterns 76–77 type II variation, L2 learning 14, 15, 68–78, 82, 176; developmental trajectory using cross-sectional data 76; native-speaker and bilingual usage, variation in 75–76; targetlanguage environment 74; variation between animate, indirect, thirdperson object pronouns 74–75

198 Index

usage 170–175; based approaches and formal approaches, differences 30; based model 111, 114–115; characteristics of 72–73; as complex concept 33; definition 31–33; description 51; language-internal and external contexts 32–33; for learning 18; and learning of variation in probabilistic terms 81; in L2 learning, role of 114–120, 129; from processing-based perspective 133–136; as production-driven 5; quantitative and qualitative parameters 32; use of semiotic resources 6 usage-based construction grammar: acquisition in 29; assumptions 29; Cognitive-Functional Linguistics 28–29; Complex Dynamic Systems Theory 29; constructional schematization 29; emergentism 29; and formal approaches, differences 30; variationist learning model 31 usage-based linguistics (UBL) 28, 31, 46, 51, 87, 129, 176 usage-based view of language learning: cognitive processes 119; encyclopedic view of word meaning 118; entrenchment, cognitive process of 116; full syntactic schematicity 117–118; knowledge of language 114–115; L1 and L2 acquisition, empirical studies in 115; linguistic expressions 118; metaphor 119; metonymy 118, 119; plural formation 116–117, 117; polysemy 118; process of construal 118; quagmires 117; routinization, automatization and habit formation 116; schematization process 116, 119–120; semantic knowledge, from usage events 118; usage-based view of language learning 115 usage event: description 115; rich situated 93; semantic knowledge 118

usage-learning relationships 11–13, 17; conversation analysis and sociolinguistics 12–13; corpusdriven analysis 11; development of automatic knowledge 11–12; instructed classroom contexts 17; instructional approaches 12–13; learner’s awareness 12; skill acquisition theory perspective 11–12; variationist sociolinguistics 12 variable structure 69–71, 74–76, 78, 79, 182 variable usage patterns 71–72 variants 15, 34, 69–72, 75, 76, 81, 92 variationist learning model 31 variationist SLA 9–12, 14, 18; characteristics of usage 72–73; constraint 69; constructs 69–71; discourse-pragmatic structure 69; envelope of variation 69–71; extralinguistic constraint 70; lexical variable structure 69; linguistic and one extralinguistic factor 72; mixedeffects model 73; morphosyntactic variable structure 69; phonological variable structure 69; scholarship on social dimensions 69, 74, 82; type II variation 68; type I variation 67–68; usage in see psycholinguistic model of interlanguage variation; variable structure 69, 70–71; verbal mood, interpretations of 73–74 variationist sociolinguistics 14, 18 verbal mood, interpretations of 73–74 verbal negation, analysis of 81 wh-question constructions 117, 149, 156, 158 word-monitoring task 151 Zipf’s Law 34 Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) 130–131