10. Development of chunks in Dutch L2 learners of English

Abstract

Development of chunks in Dutch L2 learners of English. In Usage-Based Approaches to Language Acquisition and Language Teaching (pp. 235-264). Walter de Gruyter GmbH.

Long-term effects of structure-based versus dynamic usage-based instructional programs for French

“…As argued by different authors (cf. Gustafsson & Verspoor, 2017;Lewis, 1993;Pawley & Syder, 1983;Tang, 2013;Wray & Perkins, 2000), meaning retrieval will greatly benefit from a more entrenched auditory vocabulary and the mastery of chunks that can be the result of abundant L2 exposure in this DUB program. Fourth, we believe that students' listening anxiety caused by the ephemerous and timed character of auditory input, especially during listening tests, is expected to be reduced considerably as students develop a certain listening ease caused in particular by target language practice.…”

“…A difference is that in Krashen (1992), the main focus is on the quality of the input (comprehensibility), but DUB theories emphasize iteration in both exposure and use so that constructions, including whole phrases and chunks, reoccur regularly. The fact that more L2 exposure and use have an effect on the acquisition of such chunks was found by Gustafsson and Verspoor (2017), who showed that high-input learners developed a significantly greater range of chunk types and a greater proportion of chunk-words per text compared to low-input learners.…”

Navigating competing goals for language in curricularized school settings: Lessons from teachers of multilingual students

“…As learners leverage semiotic resources and negotiate meaning to meet their own communicative goals within specific social contexts, their language develops nonlinearly (Larsen‐Freeman, 2017). As the empirical work of Gustafsson and Verspoor (2017) suggests, both student interest and the amount of language exposure influence students’ use and development of language in context. And so, a fundamental contradiction exists in institutionalized language teaching because curricularized goals are, by definition, not created for individual students.…”