isla (print) issn 2398–4155isla (online) issn 2398–4163

isla vol 3.2 2019 181–205©2019, equinox publishing

doi: https://doi.org/10.1558/isla.38054

Instructed Second Language Acquisition Article

Structure-based or dynamic usage-based instruction : long-term effects

on (morpho)syntactic and lexical complexity in writing samples

Audrey Rousse-Malpat, Rasmus Steinkrauss and Marjolijn Verspoor

Abstract

This classroom study aims to explore the instructional effects of structure-based (SB) or dynamic usage-based (DUB) instruction with free response, commu-nicative writing tasks after three years of L2-French instruction on linguistic complexity measures in (morpho)syntax and lexicon. We investigated data from forty-three young high school beginner learners of L2-French after three years of instruction with similar amounts of L2 exposure. The SB treatment included a traditional focus on explicit grammar; the DUB group was taught using the Accelerated Integrated Method, a highly communicative, meaning-focused method without explicit instruction, but with a great deal of expo-sure and repetition to induce frequency effects. Results after three years show that DUB instruction leads to more linguistic complexity in terms of various (morpho)syntactic and some lexical measures (multi-word sequences coverage). On other lexical measures (such as Guiraud index and average word length),

Affiliations

Audrey Rousse-Malpat: University of Groningen, Netherlandsemail: a.rousse-malpat@rug.nlRasmus Steinkrauss: University of Groningen, Netherlandsemail: r.g.a.steinkrauss@rug.nlMarjolijn Verspoor: University of Groningen, Netherlandsemail: m.h.verspoor@rug.nl

182 Audrey rousse-MAlpAt, rAsMus steinkrAuss And MArjolijn Verspoor

no differences were found. The results are discussed using insights from the dynamic usage-based perspective.

keywords: (morpho)syntactic; lexical complexity; structure-based (SB) instruction; dynamic usage-based (DUB) instruction; L2 writing; L2 French

Introduction

Recent developments in the application of Complex Dynamic Systems Theory (CDST) combined with usage-based (UB) theories on second language instruction, called a dynamic usage-based (DUB) approach for short, might offer a good alternative for foreign language teachers who struggle with an implicit approach to language teaching (see Rousse-Malpat and Verspoor 2018; Verspoor 2017). Teaching methods in line with this approach do not regard language as a set of rules but as conven-tionalised routines, where non-linear learning emerges from the dynamic interaction between input and output. Rather than focusing on grammar, DUB methods focus on ‘iteration’ (Larsen-Freeman 2012), namely, fre-quently repeated exposure to utterances in meaningful contexts (Verspoor 2017) to foster automatisation and routinisation. In several semester-long experiments, these methods have proved as effective or more effective in a foreign language classroom in countries where language teaching is par-ticularly traditional, such as in Vietnam or Sri Lanka (Hong 2013; Irshad 2015), on general English proficiency tested using objective tests and holis-tic scores on written and oral texts, or in Germany for L2-Dutch (Koster 2015). However, few studies have looked at the effects of DUB-inspired L2 instruction on free-production data over a longer period of time and using both analytical and holistic measures that favour SB as well as DUB approaches and compared them to the effects of SB teaching.

In this paper, the effectiveness of two L2 teaching methods – SB and DUB – will be evaluated using several (morpho)syntactic complexity mea-sures such as sentence length and morphological complexity, and lexical measures such as diversity (Guiraud), word complexity (average word length) and multi-word (MW) sequences. If anything, we would expect the SB group to outperform the DUB group on (morpho)syntactic linguistic complexity measures and the DUB group to outperform the SB group on MW sequences. After clarifying the fundamental differences between SB and DUB approaches and their implications for instructional methods, we will briefly review studies related to the current one.

structure-bAsed or dynAMic usAge-bAsed instruction 183

Structure-based versus dynamic usage-based instructional approaches

The fundamental difference between an SB and a DUB approach is the way language itself is viewed. An SB approach assumes language is a complex system in which different autonomous sub-components (such as syntax and lexicon) interact predictably according to ‘rules’. In contrast, a DUB approach assumes language is a complex dynamic system in which there is no fundamental difference between syntax and lexicon, and that language is used on the basis of the speaker’s individual routines. Language learning and use is viewed as a dynamic, non-linear process. These different views have implications for how language should be presented and instructed, and the behaviour that learners should aim for (Verspoor 2017).

The term ‘structure based’ (SB) is based on research by Lightbown and Spada (2013), who argue that SB approaches see language learning as rule driven. Generally, it is believed that learning and applying grammatical rules is beneficial in becoming proficient in an L2. There is a high focus on accuracy of the grammatical forms that are presented from ‘simple’ to ‘complex’, and other aspects of language such as vocabulary, formulaic phrases, pronunciation, intonation, pragmatic use and so on are believed to be learned separately. Most of our L2 teaching methods, whether they be audio-lingual, communicative, task-based or skill theory, are structure based in that they implicitly or explicitly build on the premise that grammar forms the core of the language to be learned. Such SB approaches usually rely heavily on explicit grammar teaching, especially in foreign language classes in the Netherlands (cf. West and Verspoor 2016).

The term ‘dynamic usage based’ (DUB) is inspired by the title of one of Langacker’s articles (2000), in which he argues that a usage-based view is per definition a complex dynamic systems theory view. In our own use of the term, we accentuate the fact that language development is per defini-tion non-linear, that some subsystems need to be learned before others, and that variability in the use of structures (which includes making errors) is needed to progress (Verspoor 2017). A DUB perspective on L2 learning would predict that language emerges from repetitive exposure to meaning-ful input and language use (Langacker 2000; Tomasello 2003). Linguistic constructions (pairings of form and meaning) are learned through asso-ciation, as they are ‘heard and used frequently and therefore entrenched, which is the result of habit formation, routinization or automatization’ (Verspoor and Schmitt 2013:354). The key difference between an SB and a DUB view is that there is no priority for grammar or syntax in language. Language is not driven by rules. Instead, language forms – from concrete

184 Audrey rousse-MAlpAt, rAsMus steinkrAuss And MArjolijn Verspoor

morphemes, words, phrases, MW sequences, clauses, sentences and dis-course sequences to abstract lexical categories and morphological and syn-tactic patterns – are all fundamentally similar as they all bear meaning to different degrees and form a continuum. Because learners are expected to discover recurring patterns through frequent exposure, there is no need to explain rules and the approach is mainly implicit.

Structure-based methods, with a strong explicit component, are very common in foreign language teaching as there is still a strong belief that explicit grammar instruction is a prerequisite for successful second lan-guage learning. This is not surprising, as many studies and meta-studies point to a positive effect of explicit grammar instruction (Goo et al. 2015; Norris and Ortega 2000; Spada and Tomita 2010). In addition, there have been studies on the effects of type of instruction on linguistic complexity, such as the differential effects on the acquisition of simple versus complex grammatical rules on oral and written skills (cf. Spada and Tomita 2010). These studies also conclude that there is evidence for a beneficial effect of explicit instruction on the use of both simple and complex forms.

However, the effects of explicit instruction may be overestimated (e.g. Doughty 2003) because research designs often favour explicit types of instruction using proficiency measures relying on ‘constrained, con-structed responses’ (fill the blanks, metalinguistic judgement responses) (Spada 2011:228) and studying brief treatments only (Spada and Tomita 2010). The problem is that implicitly taught learners have to discover the language patterns on their own, and this process may require com-paratively more hours of exposure (Rousse-Malpat and Verspoor 2018). Therefore, studies looking at brief periods of instruction and at gram-matical complexity only might advantage explicit instructional settings. However, the question remains whether the knowledge acquired in explicit instructional settings can be transferred to learners’ communicative lan-guage use. Therefore, long-term intervention studies on type of instruction with free response tasks – eliciting uncontrolled foreign language use – are called for. The present classroom study aims to explore the instructional effects of an SB and a DUB approach, one with explicit and the other with implicit instruction, with free response, communicative writing tasks after three years of L2-French instruction using (morpho)syntactic and lexical complexity measures.

Explicit versus implicit instruction

Although there are many differences between an SB and a DUB approach, one of the key differences in our own experiment is the explicit or implicit

structure-bAsed or dynAMic usAge-bAsed instruction 185

focus on grammar. Defining explicit and implicit instruction is difficult as there are many types of instruction and definitions, which may partially overlap and can lead to ambiguity or misinterpretation (Norris and Ortega 2000; Spada 1997; Spada and Tomita 2010). In order to define the types of instruction for our study, we start with Spada’s definition of form-focused instruction (FFI), which concerns ‘any pedagogical effort which is used to draw the learners’ attention to language form either implicitly or explicitly. This can include the direct teaching of language (e.g. through grammatical rules) and/or reactions to learners’ errors (e.g. corrective feedback)’ (Spada 1997:73). Within FFI, we can distinguish between explicit and implicit instruction. In explicit FFI, ‘learners are encouraged to develop metalin-guistic awareness of the rule’ (Ellis 2008:438). In implicit FFI, there may be a form-focused component within a meaning-based method, but the focus is not predetermined, learners receive little form-focused feedback, and the patterns are mostly discovered inductively.

Most research so far has focused on accuracy, specifically the trade-off between fluency and accuracy, and how focus on form might be incor-porated into a communicative lesson. For example, studies on immersion programmes in Canada (Genesee 1987; Harley and Swain 1984; Lightbown and Spada 1994; Lyster 1987; Swain 1988) concluded that L2 learners benefited from implicit immersion instruction, in that learners sounded more fluent but they still had many problems with accuracy. Other studies suggest that exposure to language alone (input flood), also associated with implicit instruction, had beneficial effects on the acquisition of syntax in the short and the long term, which we might consider to be implicit knowl-edge. However, learners did not have more explicit knowledge of grammar (Trahey 1996; Trahey and White 1993).

More recently, the attention has shifted to the effect of explicit versus implicit instruction on the types of constructions (simple vs complex) that lend themselves best to explicit instruction (cf. Housen and Kuiken 2009). The claim is that some rules are simply too complex to be understood and learned implicitly, and thus would need explicit explanation and practice (Hulstijn and De Graaff 1994). In their meta-analysis, Spada and Tomita (2010) show that explicit instruction is more effective for both simple and complex structures, and that the effects of explicit instruction last longer too. There are several studies reporting such a positive effect for both types of constructions (De Graaff 1997; Doughty and Varela 1998; Robinson 1996; Shook 1994, Xu and Lyster 2014). There are also a few studies with mixed findings. Housen, Pierrard and Van Daele (2005), who defined complex-ity as the functional markedness of the linguistic structure, looked at the effects of explicit instruction versus no instruction on passive forms (more

186 Audrey rousse-MAlpAt, rAsMus steinkrAuss And MArjolijn Verspoor

complex) and sentence negation (less complex) in French. They included a mix of explicit and implicit knowledge tasks for both oral and written skills: a grammatical judgement task, a controlled written production task and an unplanned oral production task. Their hypothesis was that explicit instruction would work best for the more complex feature (the French passive voice), but results indicated that instruction was equally effective for both language features. No differential effects on different grammatical forms were found, but on the written production task, the instructed group outperformed the non-instructed group.

Most studies that were reviewed are semi-experimental in that they usually involve short-term treatments and rather controlled tasks to test effects (cf. Ellis 2002; Norris and Ortega 2000). One exception is an old classroom study by Williams and Evans (1998). It involved free-production data for oral and written skills in the form of discussions and multi-draft papers with peer review. It showed that a focus on form treatment with explicit instruction and feedback improved the learners’ performance on participial adjectives, but not on passive forms, which were argued to be more difficult to acquire.

Overall, studies on the effect of explicit versus implicit instruction have focused on the complexity of (morpho)syntactic constructions. Few have looked at lexical complexity, which according to Bulté and Housen (2012) consists not only of lexemes but also of collocational items. The difference between simple and complex here often refers to the variety, the size and the diversity of the lexicon. General findings on (morpho)syntactic forms show that explicit instruction is less effective on grammatical forms than on lexical items (Mackey 2006; Shook 1994; Williams and Evans 1998; Xu and Lyster 2014; Yang and Lyster 2010). Laufer (2005) finds a beneficial effect of explicit instruction on vocabulary. She concludes that specially designed activities involving repeated encounters with the words outside the context of communication are necessary to increase the active lexical knowledge of the learners and develop their knowledge of vocabulary.

All in all, meta-studies to date show a beneficial effect of explicit instruc-tion. However, studies on the effect of explicit versus implicit instruction have focused mainly on accuracy or complexity of morphosyntactic ele-ments. Many of these studies are based on short-term interventions and use constrained tests to evaluate the effects of type of instruction. To address such flaws, DeKeyser (2003) suggests conducting more realistic experiments ‘in actual classrooms, with much larger fragments of lan-guage’, where students are learning to achieve communicative ability rather than ‘just learning for the sake of the experiment’ (2003:337).

structure-bAsed or dynAMic usAge-bAsed instruction 187

Recent longitudinal classroom studies

Recently, however, there have been longitudinal studies with free response data which show that methods with an implicit focus on grammar may work better in the long term. Rousse-Malpat, Verspoor and Visser (2012) compared the writing skills of an SB (n = 52) versus a DUB group (n = 55) after two years of L2-French in high school. Results showed that the DUB participants scored better in general proficiency. A detailed analysis of twelve texts showed that for writing proficiency, the DUB participants scored higher on complexity measures (finite verb ratio, average sentence length, relative clauses ratio) than the SB group. However, no difference was found in average word length. For oral proficiency, Rousse-Malpat and Verspoor (2012) showed that after one year, the SB group had scored better on gender accuracy, but after two years of instruction, the DUB group scored higher than the SB group on general proficiency and the same on grammatical accuracy, suggesting that it takes longer for DUB learners to recognise detailed patterns and shows the added value of long-term studies. Using another cohort than in the 2012 study but within the same first three years of high school, Rousse-Malpat (2019) traced longitudinally the effects of an SB versus a DUB approach on the oral and writing skills of 229 high school students learning French as a foreign language. Results showed that after three years, the DUB participants had higher oral and writing proficiency scores than the SB participants. Detailed analysis of the oral data showed that DUB instruction led to greater speech rate, gram-matical complexity (operationalised by different sentence types such as simple, complex, compound, compound-complex), accuracy of the present tense and L2 use. Gombert, Keijzer and Verspoor (2018) also traced longi-tudinally (six school years) the effects of an SB (n = 54) versus a DUB (n = 56) approach on writing skills. Results showed that the SB approach was as effective as the DUB approach in developing accuracy and most complex-ity measures. However, the DUB approach was significantly more effective in achieving longer sentences and longer texts than the SB approach.

For English as an L2, Piggott (2019) followed 416 Dutch high school students over the course of two school years. Her study on writing showed that the group with an implicit focus on grammar outperformed the group with an explicit focus on grammar on complexity and fluency measures. However, after two years the explicit group performed better on accuracy and holistic grammar ratings. No significant differences were found in vocabulary or functional adequacy.

To summarise, whereas short-term intervention studies have shown clear benefits for explicit approaches, the few recent long-term intervention

188 Audrey rousse-MAlpAt, rAsMus steinkrAuss And MArjolijn Verspoor

studies on type of instruction with free response tasks, eliciting uncon-trolled foreign language use, have shown that implicit approaches may work even better, especially on fluency and some measures of complexity, but that for accuracy there is a disadvantage at first. Apparently, it takes more time for learners to discover detailed morphological patterns, but given enough time they catch up.

Developmental stages in L2-French complexity

Another vein of research in complexity measures has focused less on the effect of instruction, but more on developmental stages and the levels of complexity and accuracy that can be expected at different proficiency levels (e.g. Granfeldt and Ågren 2014; Ortega 2012; Véronique 2009; Verspoor, Schmid and Xu 2012). Based on the following studies, we can deduce which (morpho)syntactic constructions and MW sequences are developmentally more advanced. As our study concerns beginning learn-ers of L2-French, the work of Bartning and Schlyter (2004) is especially relevant. Using Direkt Profil (an automatic analyser used in the present study as well), these researchers analysed a great number of L2-French texts and suggested that L2 learners of French go through seven stages of morphosyntactic development before they reach the end of the acquisition continuum. In stage 1, learners use non-finite verbs in the infinitive form and in negation or in front of the noun phrase (NP). Pronouns are not used accurately yet. In stage 2, the use of the present perfect and modal verbs with infinitives emerges. Agreement is still difficult, but subordina-tion and negation are more target like. Object pronouns and prepositions are not used accurately yet. In stage 3, the use of verb forms stabilises. The first person plural is target like, but many other verb forms are not accurately used. In stage 4, complex tenses (pluperfect and conditional) appear but are not used in a target like way. The use of the subjunctive emerges and there are different ways of expressing negation. The use of articles and prepositions is more target like. In stage 5, several complex and less frequent tenses are used correctly: the pluperfect, the future and the conditional. The pronouns en ‘of those’ and y ‘there’, which are syntacti-cally complex in French, emerge as well as some embedded structures. In stage 6, the use of subjunctives becomes more native like and subject-verb agreement in the third person plural is target like. In stage 7, Bartning adds the use of conventionalised MW expressions, which distinguishes natives from near-natives. The stages as defined by Bartning and Schlyter (2004) also show that as morphosyntactic complexity develops, accuracy seems to lag behind.

structure-bAsed or dynAMic usAge-bAsed instruction 189

Myles (2012) also explores developmental stages in L2-French, but focuses on MW sequences that beginners use in early stages of develop-ment. The oral data from a longitudinal study (two years) showed that beginners depended heavily on memorised routines, which made them sound more complex than they actually were. According to Myles, these memorised routines helped them early on to overcome the confines of limited proficiency. Learners make use of key sentences, formulaic sen-tences from vocabulary lists and MW routines to bridge the linguistic gap they have and convey their message. Other studies on MW sequences in L2-English show that at high-intermediate and advanced levels, formulaic language was an important factor in sounding more target like (Verspoor and Smiskova 2012), and Verspoor, Schmid and Xu (2012) showed that the relative number of formulaic sequences was a strong indicator of pro-ficiency level. Thus, at the beginning, learners seem to use a restricted set of formulae to be able to express themselves, but later, as proficiency increases, these phrases give room to more creative language, and finally more native-like MW sequences.

The two L2-French developmental studies show that clear differences can be found in tense use (more varied and accurate) as the learner becomes more proficient, and that longer formulaic sequences early on are not yet a sign of sophistication as they are clearly memorised.

In the current paper, we will focus on writing and look at the effect of instruction on various linguistic (morpho)syntactic and lexical complexity measures. The general research question is whether there are differences in the effects of SB instruction, in which grammar and syntax are taught explicitly, and DUB, in which grammar and syntax are taught implicitly, on various linguistic complexity measures in the free writing produc-tion of L2-French. We will use common complexity measures that have been shown to be related to levels of proficiency, and we will make use of Direkt Profil to obtain a general morphosyntactic score. Finally, we will use n-grams to explore the use of MW sequences.

Method

This study, part of a larger study (Rousse-Malpat 2019), involves forty-three high school students in the Netherlands who first started taking French classes in their first year, when they were twelve years old. The larger study showed strong beneficial effects for the DUB method, especially on oral skills (Rousse-Malpat 2019). The problem with the larger study, however, is the effect of L2 exposure, which could not be controlled for, as the SB approach was taught for a large part in the L1 to explain the grammar,

190 Audrey rousse-MAlpAt, rAsMus steinkrAuss And MArjolijn Verspoor

and the DUB approach was taught almost completely in the L2. However, among the SB schools, there was one school whose teachers spoke in the L2 much more than in the other SB schools. Students at that school also scored the highest among the SB groups in all proficiency measures and in some cases higher than some DUB groups. It is this group that we studied in the current study and compared it with a DUB group which was most similar in terms of scholastic aptitude.

Participants

This study involved forty-three participants of around fifteen years old in high school. The SB group was composed of twenty-one participants (boys n = 11, girls n = 10) and the DUB was composed of twenty-two partici-pants (boys n = 11, girls n = 11). None of the participants had any previous knowledge of French before they started high school. They were the two groups within the larger study that scored highest on all proficiency scores in their respective modes of instruction.

Schools and teachers

Two classes at two different schools in the Netherlands were selected. Their student populations were comparable in terms of scholastic level and amount of L2 exposure provided in the classroom. Scholastic level was determined by means of a high school entrance test, Cito, which according to Verspoor, de Bot and Xu (2015) is a strong predictor for language devel-opment. Especially important is the relative amount of L2 exposure the two groups received. In the other traditional SB classes in the larger experiment (Rousse-Malpat 2019), much of the explicit grammar explanation is in the L1, limiting the amount of L2 exposure to a great extent. In this particular SB class, though, the teacher spoke the L2 to a great degree. L2 exposure was estimated on the basis of classroom observations and interviews with the teachers (see Rousse-Malpat 2019 for more details). At the end of the observation period, the learners in the SB group were estimated to have had 144 hours of L2 exposure in 240 hours of class time. In the DUB group, the learners were estimated to have had 194 hours of L2-French exposure in 216 hours of class time.

Both teachers had a high level of French proficiency (C1 according to the CEFR; Council of Europe 2001), a high motivation to teach using the method they were teaching with, a considerable amount of experience (more than five years of teaching experience) and a good rating from the learners on their teaching qualities. The DUB group kept the same teacher

structure-bAsed or dynAMic usAge-bAsed instruction 191

throughout the three years; the SB group had a new teacher after one school year.

Instructional approaches

The SB group was taught following an explicit programme using a course-book called Grandes Lignes (published by Noordhoff Uitgevers), specifically developed for French as a second language in a Dutch high school context. Even though it is supposed to be task based, it takes a structure-based approach. Each chapter presents grammatical rules in a predetermined order. Grammar rules and instructions for the exercises are expressed in the L1. Teachers usually discuss these in the L1. Learners are exposed to the L2 by means of listening fragments and the target language use of the teacher. Corrective feedback is provided by the teacher.

The coursebook is organised with one grammatical and vocabulary focus in each chapter. The grammatical rules follow a sequence from simple to complex, alternating morphological rules, such as the use of gender in French nouns and adjectives, or the use of tenses with syntactical rules such as the place of the adjective in a sentence. The book also details the use of fixed expressions or routines called phrases-clés. There are ten to twelve MW fixed routines per chapter. These routines usually go hand in hand with the vocabulary topics in the chapters.

Writing is practised from the beginning with exercises that are built in terms of complexity, going from reproduction to semi-free production. It means that there are tasks for which learners must write a small sample on their own, but what is mainly expected from them is the reuse of the fixed expressions learned in the chapter. The explicit programme is communica-tive with structure-based components. Therefore, we consider it an explicit form-focused instructional programme.

The DUB group was taught with an implicit programme using the Accelerative Integrated Method (AIM), which involves a high amount of imitation and playful repetition, using short phrases and sentences from stories. The programme is communicative with strong meaning-based components. AIM was originally developed for French as a second lan-guage in Canada (see Maxwell 2001 and Rousse-Malpat and Verspoor 2018 for a more detailed lesson plan). Learners are exposed to stories in the L2 with constructions that match the linguistic level of the learners. Each word is accompanied by an iconic gesture to help the learner under-stand the meaning. Grammatical features such as gender or tense mark-ings are also presented with specific iconic gestures. However, there is no predetermined grammatical order and there is no explicit instruction on

192 Audrey rousse-MAlpAt, rAsMus steinkrAuss And MArjolijn Verspoor

grammatical features. Attention to form may occur when a learner has a specific question, which is responded to on an individual basis and prefer-ably using an inductive approach.

In the first six months of students’ L2 learning, the AIM (DUB) method focuses on oral skills only, which forces the learner to listen well and not depend on visual written input. Corrective feedback is rarely given, only at times to avoid fossilisation. The L1 is used occasionally for compre-hension checks. After six months of oral input, reading and writing are introduced. Learners are first asked to reproduce the story, but at a later stage to write a creative follow-up. Grammatical rules are never dealt with explicitly. Therefore, we consider it an implicit form-focused instructional programme.

The writing assignments

Participants were asked to write a narrative of about 150 words in twenty minutes. Our goal was not to target discrete linguistic items but rather to elicit general writing proficiency. In total, they were asked to write sixteen assignments. The assignments were hand written in the classroom without any additional help from the teacher or from a dictionary. For the current study, we used the two last assignments with exactly the same topics for both groups. Assignment 12 (hereafter called assignment 1), ‘Write about your favourite book, series or movie’, was written after twenty-seven months of instruction. Assignment 16 (hereafter called assignment 2), ‘Write about your future, how do you see your life in 20 years’, was written after thirty-four months of instruction. For the analysis, the measures of these two assignments taken together and averaged as a Spearman’s rho correlation analysis on their general proficiency scores (see the next section for more information on these scores) showed that there was a strong, positive cor-relation between assignment 1 and assignment 2 for both groups, which was statistically significant (DUB rs(20) = 0.562, p = 0.007; SB rs(19) = 0.729, p = 0.000). We took the average of two assignments to avoid the limitation of one-off and/or task effects.

Measures and tools

General L2-French proficiency and fluencyTo be able to determine the equivalence of the last two assignments so that they could be averaged, we used the holistic general proficiency scores provided by the larger study (Rousse-Malpat 2019).

For the larger study, we created a rating rubric on general proficiency, as no clear rubrics existed for L2-French writing samples for beginners.

structure-bAsed or dynAMic usAge-bAsed instruction 193

Using written samples collected for an earlier study (Rousse-Malpat and Verspoor 2012), five experts in French as a second language sorted thirty-nine assignments according to proficiency level. The instructions were to look at the texts holistically, especially for overall meaning-making and coherence, rather than for isolated features such as vocabulary, grammar, morphosyntactic complexity and accuracy. Based on the ratings, a rubric distinguishing six proficiency levels emerged, which was validated in the larger project (Rousse-Malpat 2019). As our data were not normally dis-tributed, an inter-rater reliability (IR) analysis using Spearman’s rho cor-relation was performed to determine consistency among the raters. The mean IR for the raters was found to be ρ = 0.842 (p < 0.001), which shows a strong agreement across raters. In addition, for the specific assignments used in this study, a high degree of reliability was found with ρ = 0.821 (p < 0.001).

In addition to the general proficiency scores based on the rubric, we used text length as a general measure of general fluency or productivity (Scott and Windsor 2000).

Morphosyntactic measuresSyntactic complexity (cf. Bulté and Housen 2012; Norris and Ortega 2009) was operationalised as average sentence length, obtained using the Lextutor text analyser (Cobb 2010).

Morphosyntactic complexity was operationalised as the average of three scores provided by Direkt Profil (Ågren, Granfeldt and Schlyter 2012; Granfeldt et al. 2006), specifically developed to analyse the morphosyn-tactic development of written French as a second language. The software provides three scores on the level of morphosyntactic development, each one calculated according to a different algorithm. A high degree of reli-ability was found between the three scores. As our data were normally distributed, the average measure of the intra-class correlation, analysing the reliability and consistency of the scores given by Direkt Profil, was 0.74 with a 95% confidence interval from 0.57 to 0.85 (F(41) = 3.89, p < 0.05). We have called the average of the three scores obtained the Profil grade.

As Direkt Profil shows clearly that the use of tenses is a sign of a more advanced proficiency level, we looked at the tense use and tense variety the Direkt Profil software provided. For tense use, we calculated tense ratios by dividing the number of verbs in each tense by the total number of verbs per participant. For tense variety, we added the number of tense types used by each participant in both their assignments. For example, if a participant used the present tense, the future tense and the conditional in both assign-ments, we assigned a 3 for tense variety.

194 Audrey rousse-MAlpAt, rAsMus steinkrAuss And MArjolijn Verspoor

Lexical complexity measuresLexical complexity was operationalised as the Guiraud index (Bulté et al. 2008; Guiraud 1954) for diversity and average word length for word com-plexity (Grant and Ginther 2000; Wolfe-Quintero, Inagaki and Kim 1998), and they were extracted by Direkt Profil (Ågren, Granfeldt and Schlyter 2012; Granfeldt et al. 2006).

We also looked at MW sequences. According to Bulté and Housen (2012), lexical complexity includes collocations. In the present paper, we look at more than pure collocations, namely the length and coverage of n-grams, and have called them multi-word (MW) sequences, which are considered a sign of routinised or automated sequences (Martinez and Schmitt 2012). From a usage-based point of view, such MW sequences would occur somewhere in a continuum between syntax and lexicon, but to keep things simple we will consider them as part of the lexical complex-ity system.

Calculating n-grams is a usage-based or frequency-based approach to formulaic language; n-grams are stretches of words occurring together more than once and have been used in studies on lexical sophistication (Biber, Conrad and Cortes 2004) and lexical proficiency (Crossley, Cai and McNamara 2012; Kyle and Crossley 2016). In order to retrieve n-grams and calculate their frequency, we first removed all sentences that were a repeti-tion of the instruction for the assignment from the texts, and then the two writing assignments of all participants following the same instructional method were combined. These two large corpus texts were submitted to Lextutor, which provided a list of n-grams ranging from a length of two to seven words that had occurred at least twice as a combination together with their frequency of occurrence and the proportion of words in the texts that belonged to all n-grams of a specific length (i.e. the coverage of the n-grams). We must add that the corpus tool did not control for meaning-fulness and lexicalisation of the repeated word strings, so we hand-coded the examples for meaningful units in order to interpret the findings.

In order to calculate the relative use of MW sequences, we calculated the overall coverage of all repeated n-grams per group by dividing the number of words involved in repeated n-grams by the total number of words. At these beginning levels of proficiency, MW sequences were not frequent enough to do individual analyses, so we combined all the assignments into one large corpora per group (n = 2), and therefore we were not able to perform statistical analyses.

structure-bAsed or dynAMic usAge-bAsed instruction 195

Analyses

For normally distributed data, independent sample t-tests were used to compare the groups. For non-normally distributed data, we used a Mann-Whitney U-test. For each result, we also computed the effect size (Cohen’s d for the t-test, r for the Mann-Whitney U-test). We used an alpha level of 0.05.

Results

Holistic measures

On general proficiency, the SB group scored lower than the DUB group. However, results from the independent sample test showed that the SB (M = 3.07; SD = 0.44) and the DUB group (M = 3.38; SD = 0.70) did not differ significantly (t(35, 46) = 1.76; p = 0.087).

Results on text length showed that the SB group (Mdn = 65.25) used fewer tokens than the DUB group (Mdn = 152.5). This difference appeared to be significant (U = 12, p < 0.05, r = –0.49) with a large effect size (r = 0.80).

(Morpho)syntactic measuresResults on syntactic complexity operationalised as the average sentence length showed that the SB group (M = 9.16; SD = 2.44) had significantly shorter sentences than the DUB group (M = 14.02; SD = 3.35), (t(41) = 5.40; p < 0.05). The size of the effect was large (Cohen’s d > 0.8).

Results on morphosyntactic complexity operationalised as the average of three scores provided by Direkt Profil showed that the SB group (M = 2.28; SD = 0.44) scored significantly lower than the DUB group (M = 2.76; SD = 0.63), (t(41) = 2.8; p < 0.05). The size of the effect was large (Cohen’s d > 0.8).

For tense use, we found that even though the groups wrote on the same topics, results (Figure 1) showed that the SB group used significantly more present and past perfect tenses than the DUB group. The DUB group used more near future and future simple tenses than the SB group. Effect sizes were large (Cohen’s d > 0.8 and r > 0.5). See Appendices 3 and 4 for a com-plete overview of the statistics. No differences were found for the use of the imperfect. The number of occurrences of the conditional or past simple, which are relatively more complex tenses, acquired at a later stage of acqui-sition, was too low to analyse statistically. Only two participants in each group were able to use them.

196 Audrey rousse-MAlpAt, rAsMus steinkrAuss And MArjolijn Verspoor

For tense variety, a Mann-Whitney U-test indicated that the DUB group used a significantly greater number of different tense types (Mdn = 4) than the SB group (Mdn = 3), U = 97.5, p < 0.05, r = –0.49.

Lexical complexity measures

Results on lexical complexity operationalised by the Guiraud index and word length showed that the groups did not differ significantly (see Appendix 5).

However, results of the analysis of MW sequences (Figure 2) measured by the n-gram coverage and length showed that the groups differed in the total percentage of coverage of all n-grams of two to seven words in their texts. The DUB group has a higher percentage (22.8%) than the SB group (18.6%).

The results in Figure 2 show that while the SB group tended to use longer lexical sequences (7- and 6-word strings), the DUB group seemed to use a greater number of shorter lexical sequences.

Discussion and conclusion

The current study is part of a larger study on the effects of two instructional approaches, SB versus DUB, one which uses a great amount of explicit attention to grammar and the other one with a clearly frequency-based

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

Present Pastperfect

Imperfect Neari future

Futuresimple

Conditional Past simple

SB DUB

*

*

*

*

Figure 1: Use of different tenses (*p < 0.05).

structure-bAsed or dynAMic usAge-bAsed instruction 197

approach without any explicit attention to grammar. The larger study showed strong beneficial effects for the DUB method, especially on oral skills (Rousse-Malpat 2019). The problem with the larger study, however, is the effect of L2 exposure, which could not be controlled for, as the SB approach was taught for a great part in the L1 to explain the grammar and the DUB approach was taught almost completely in the L2. However, one of the SB schools had teachers who spoke the L2 much more than their peers and students in this group had a great deal of exposure to the L2. It is this group which we observed in the current study and compared with a DUB group which was most similar in terms of scholastic aptitude.

For the current study, we compared the last two writing assignments (to avoid one-off and/or task effects) in the three-year study and compared them in terms of (morpho)syntactical and lexical complexity measures. We also used the holistic scores from the greater study to make sure we could average the data of the last two writing assignments. Table 1 summarises the findings. A tick (✓) in a column means that the difference is significant in favour of the approach.

The DUB group did not score significantly higher on the holistic score, but they did write significantly longer texts, suggesting a greater ease in production of the language. The DUB group also wrote longer sentences, suggesting a higher overall complexity. The detailed Direkt Profil scores (the average of three algorithms) also showed an advantage for the DUB group, indicating more advanced morphological forms. With regard to tense use, the SB group used the simple present more and the past perfect

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

7 wd coverage 6 wd coverage 5 wd coverage 4 wd coverage 3 wd coverage 2 wd coverage

SB DUB

Figure 2: Distribution of n-gram coverage according to the string length.

198 Audrey rousse-MAlpAt, rAsMus steinkrAuss And MArjolijn Verspoor

significantly so. The DUB group used the other tenses more, and the future simple significantly so. This also showed in variety of tense use; the DUB group outscored the SB group. The DUB group used a greater diversity of tenses, especially in the second assignment. The first assignment con-cerned the participants’ favourite book or series, which can be written in the present tense or in the past perfect, which is what both groups did. The second assignment, however, was about the participants’ future and how they saw themselves in twenty years’ time. Here, one would expect the use of the future tense more, which is what we found for the DUB group, but much less so for the SB group. It thus seems that the DUB group was more appropriate and target like in the tenses they chose.

In terms of MW sequences, the SB group used a greater number of longer n-grams (7- and 6-word strings). The longer n-grams remind us of the memorised formulaic phrases that Myles (2012) mentioned, such as Je suis tout à fait d’accord avec …; j’ai trouvé que cette actrice jouait très … . The DUB group, in contrast, used a larger number of short MW sequences operationalised as n-grams. Overall, the DUB group used a larger reper-toire of the shorter conventionalised MW expressions (2–5-word strings),

Table 1: Overview of the results in favour of each approach.

SB DUB

Holistic measures

General proficiency (holistic scores)

Fluency (text length) ✓

Morphosyntactic measures

Syntactic complexity (average sentence length) ✓

Morphosyntactic complexity (Direkt Profil grade) ✓

Tense use Present Imperfect Conditional Past simple Past perfect Near future Future simple

✓

✓

✓

✓

Tense variety ✓

Lexical complexity measures

Guiraud index

Average word length

Multi-word sequences coverage ✓

Multi-word sequences length ✓

structure-bAsed or dynAMic usAge-bAsed instruction 199

such as tout à coup le loup; après quelques semaines le premier, so the total coverage was higher.

The findings in this study are in line with the findings by the more recent longitudinal studies. As in the study by Rousse-Malpat, Verspoor and Visser (2012), the DUB participants scored higher on complexity measures than the SB group, and no difference was found in average word length. Unlike Rousse-Malpat (2019), the DUB participants did not have a significantly higher holistic score on their writing, but we assume that this may have been an effect of exposure. Unlike the other SB groups in the larger study, the SB group in the present study had a relatively high degree of exposure, even though it was still less than the DUB group. Gombert, Keijzer and Verspoor (2018) also traced longitudinally (six school years) the effects of an SB versus a DUB approach on writing skills. Unlike our study, results showed that there was no difference between the groups in the morphosyntactic Profil grade. However, as in our study, the DUB group scored higher on average sentence length and text length. Also for English as an L2, Piggott (2019) showed that after two years the group with an implicit focus on grammar outperformed the group with an explicit focus on grammar on complexity and fluency measures, but no differences were found in vocabulary. Taking these recent longitudinal studies together, we may conclude that an explicit approach does not lead to greater complex-ity. It is actually the other way round if we consider average sentence length as a complexity measure.

The findings in this study counter many common findings, assumptions and beliefs in SLA. Most meta-analyses (Goo et al. 2015; Norris and Ortega 2000; Spada and Tomita 2010) point to the fact that explicit instruction is relatively more effective than implicit instruction on a great number of variables, and the argument has been that learners may not recognise and master the more intricate linguistic patterns if they are not made aware of them explicitly. The claim is that some rules are simply too complex to be understood and learned implicitly, and thus need explicit explanation and practice (Hulstijn and De Graaff 1994). This discrepancy – pointed out by the authors of the meta-analyses themselves – may have been due to the fact that most of the findings in favour of explicit instruction are based on short-term interventions, and that evaluation may have been biased because of constrained tests that favour explicit learners. However, explicit instruction does not necessarily lead to more complexity, as measured in our study.

We may conclude that more simple or complex constructions do not need to be explained explicitly in order to be discovered and used by learn-ers, provided they are given enough time and exposure to discover them.

200 Audrey rousse-MAlpAt, rAsMus steinkrAuss And MArjolijn Verspoor

However, exposure alone is not enough apparently, as the SB group in our study also had a great deal of L2 exposure, albeit less than the DUB group.

Therefore, we may cautiously assume that the positive effects of the implicit group are mainly due to specific features of the DUB programme. A DUB approach is basically a frequency-of-exposure approach, with repeti-tive exposition to meaningful input and language use (Langacker 2000; Tomasello 2003) in which various associations, including syntagmatic ones, are formed (Schmid 2015). Linguistic constructions (pairings of form and meaning) are learned through association as they are ‘heard and used frequently and therefore entrenched, which is the result of habit forma-tion, routinization or automatization’ (Verspoor and Schmitt 2013:354). Because learners are expected to discover recurring patterns through frequent exposure, there is no need to explain rules and the approach is mainly implicit.

We think the particular DUB approach used in the current study worked so well because the scripted programme (the actual story) helped the teacher to use the same constructions over and over again. Also, the iconic gestures for each word not only helped to form a kinesthetic association between form and meaning, but also helped to scaffold for understanding, limiting the use of L1.

Apparently, L2 learners can discern patterns given enough exposure. For example, the use of MW sequences can illustrate the differences in the instructional programmes in more detail. Students in the SB programme had memorised longer MW sequences, offered as phrases-clés in the text-book, and were able to use these meaningfully. However, they lacked access to the shorter MW sequences, which the DUB method offers abundantly in the stories. Another example is in the use of tenses. The SB group had been taught the near future explicitly at the beginning of their L2 learning experience, but they had not practised it much over time. The DUB group, however, had heard a story and sung a rap repeatedly in which the future simple was incorporated.

However, a longitudinal classroom study, which is inherently messy because many variables cannot be controlled for, cannot give us clear answers as to why the DUB approach had more effects on (morpho)syn-tactic complexity and MW sequences than the SB approach. It is obvious that frequent exposure to the L2 is beneficial, and that explicit instruction is not needed to infer the regular patterns of a language. What is not clear, however, is how often expressions need to be heard, nor how much scaf-folding is needed to comprehend the L2 language.

structure-bAsed or dynAMic usAge-bAsed instruction 201

About the authorsAudrey Rousse-Malpat is an Assistant Professor of Language Learning at the Uni-versity of Groningen, the Netherlands. Her main research interests are foreign/second language instruction and foreign/second language development from a dynamic usage-based perspective.

Rasmus Steinkrauss is an Assistant Professor of Applied Linguistics at the University of Groningen, the Netherlands. His research foci are L1 and L2 development from a longitudinal, usage-based perspective, with a special interest in construction develop-ment and the application of CAF measures.

Marjolijn Verspoor is Professor of English Language and English as a Second Lan-guage at the University of Groningen, Netherlands, and at the University of Pannonia, Hungary. Her main research interests are second language development from a dynamic usage-based perspective and instructional approaches in foreign language teaching.

Acknowledgements

We are very grateful for all the students, teachers and schools who partici-pated in this study. Also, we would like to thank warmly the editors and reviewers of this special issue.

ReferencesÅgren, M., granfeldt, j. and Schlyter, S. (2012) The growth of complexity and accuracy

in L2 French: past observations and recent applications of developmental stages. In A. Housen, F. Kuiken and I. Vedder (eds) Dimensions of L2 Performance and Profi-ciency. Investigating Complexity, Accuracy and Fluency in SLA 143–69. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.32.05agr

Bartning, I. and Schlyter, S. (2004) Itinéraires acquisitionnels et stades de développe-ment en français L2. Journal of French Language Studies 14(3): 281–99. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959269504001802

Biber, D., Conrad, S. and Cortes, V. (2004) If you look at …: lexical bundles in university teaching and textbooks. Applied Linguistics 25(3): 371–405. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/25.3.371

Bulté, B. and Housen, A. (2012) Defining and Operationalising L2 Complexity. Philadel-phia, PA: John Benjamins Amsterdam. https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.32.02bul

Bulté, B., Housen, A., Pierrard, M. and Van Daele, S. (2008) Investigating lexical profi-ciency development over time – the case of Dutch-speaking learners of French in Brussels. Journal of French Language Studies 18(3): 277–98. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959269508003451

Cobb, T. (2010) Learning about language and learners from computer programs. Read-ing in a Foreign Language 22(1): 181.

Council of Europe (2001) Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment (CEFR). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Crossley, S. A., Cai, Z. and McNamara, D. S. (2012) Syntagmatic, paradigmatic, and automatic n-gram approaches to assessing essay quality. In P. M. McCarthy and G.

202 Audrey rousse-MAlpAt, rAsMus steinkrAuss And MArjolijn Verspoor

M. Youngblood (eds) Proceedings of the 25th International Florida Artificial Intelli-gence Research Society (FLAIRS) Conference 214–19. Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press.

De Graaff, R. (1997) The experanto experiment: effects of explicit instruction on second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 19: 249–76. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263197002064

DeKeyser, R. (2003) Implicit and explicit learning. In C. J. Doughty, and M. H. Long (eds) The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition 313–48. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Doughty, C. J. (2003) Instructed SLA: constraints, compensation, and enhancement. In C. J. Doughty, and M. H. Long (eds) The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Doughty, C. and Varela, E. (1998) Communicative focus on form. In C. Doughty and J. Williams (eds) Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition 114–38. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ellis, R. (2002) Does form-focused instruction affect the acquisition of implicit knowl-edge? A review of the research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 24(2): 223–36. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263102002073

Ellis, R. (2008) Explicit form-focused instruction and second language acquisition. In B. Spolsky and F. Hult (eds) The Handbook of Educational Linguistics 437–55. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470694138.ch31

Genesee, F. (1987) Learning Through Two Languages. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Gombert, W., Keijzer, M. and Verspoor, M. (2018) Explicit versus implicit instruction

and accuracy in writing. A longitudinal study. Paper presented at AAAL Conference, Chicago, IL.

Goo, J., Granena, G., Yilmaz, Y. and Novella, M. (2015) Implicit and explicit instruction in L2 learning. Implicit and Explicit Learning of Languages 48: 443–82. https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.48.18goo

Granfeldt, J. and Ågren, M. (2014) SLA developmental stages and teachers’ assessment of written French: exploring Direkt Profil as a diagnostic assessment tool. Language Testing 31(3): 285–305. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532214526178

Granfeldt, J., Nugues, P., Ågren, M., Thulin, J., Persson, E. and Schlyter, S. (2006) CEFLE and Direkt Profil: a new computer learner corpus in French L2 and a system for grammatical profiling. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation 565–70, Genoa, Italy.

Grant, L. and Ginther, A. (2000) Using computer-tagged linguistic features to describe L2 writing differences. Journal of Second Language Writing 9(2): 123–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(00)00019-9

Guiraud, P. (1954) Les caractères statistiques du vocabulaire. Paris: Presses universita-ires de France.

Harley, B. and Swain, M. (1984) The interlanguage of immersion students and its impli-cations for second language teaching. In A. Davies, C. Criper and A. Howatt (eds) Interlanguage 291–311. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Hong, N. (2013) Dynamic usage-based approach to second language teaching. Unpub-lished PhD thesis. Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands.

Housen, A. and Kuiken, F. (2009) Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics 30(4): 461–73. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp048

Housen, A., Pierrard, M. and Van Daele, S. (2005) Structure complexity and the efficacy

structure-bAsed or dynAMic usAge-bAsed instruction 203

of explicit grammar instruction. Investigations in Instructed Second Language Acqui-sition 235–69. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197372.2.235

Hulstijn, Y. and De Graaff, R. (1994) Under what conditions does explicit knowledge of a second language facilitate the acquisition of implicit knowledge? A research pro-posal. AILA Review 11: 97–112.

Irshad, F. M. (2015) Second language development through the lens of a dynamic usage-based approach. Unpublished PhD thesis. Rijkuniversiteit Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands.

Koster, D. E. S. (2015) A dynamic, usage-based approach to teaching L2 Dutch. Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics 4(2): 257–64. https://doi.org/10.1075/dujal.4.2.08kos

Kyle, K. and Crossley, S. (2016) The relationship between lexical sophistication and independent and source-based writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 34: 12–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2016.10.003

Langacker, R. W. (2000) A dynamic usage-based model. In M. Barlow and S. Kemmer (eds) Usage-based Models of Language 1–63. Stanford: CSLI.

Larsen-Freeman, D. (2012) On the roles of repetition in language teaching and learning. Applied Linguistics Review 3(2): 195–210. https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2012-0009

Laufer, B. (2005) Focus on form in second language vocabulary learning. Eurosla Year-book 5(1): 223–50. https://doi.org/10.1075/eurosla.5.11lau

Lightbown, P. M. and Spada, N. (1994) An innovative program for primary ESL in Quebec. TESOL Quarterly 28(3): 563–79. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587308

Lightbown, P. and Spada, N. (2013) How Languages are Learned (Oxford Handbooks for Language Teachers) (4th edn). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Lyster, R. (1987) Speaking immersion. Canadian Modern Language Review 43(4): 701–17. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.43.4.697

Mackey, A. (2006) Feedback, noticing and instructed second language learning. Applied Linguistics 27: 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/ami051

Martinez, R. and Schmitt, N. (2012) A phrasal expressions list. Applied Linguistics 33(3): 299–320. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/ams010

Maxwell, W. (2001) Evaluating the effectiveness of the accelerative integrated method for teaching French as a second language. Unpublished MA thesis. University of London Institute in Paris, France.

Myles, F. (2012) Complexity, accuracy and fluency: the role played by formulaic sequences in early interlanguage development. In A. Housen, F. Kuiken and I. Vedder (eds) Dimensions of L2 Performance and Proficiency: Complexity, Accuracy and Flu-ency in SLA 71–93. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.32.04myl

Norris, J. M. and Ortega, L. (2000) Effectiveness of L2 instruction: a research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning 50(3): 417–528. https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00136

Norris, J. M. and Ortega, L. (2009) Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in instructed SLA: the case of complexity. Applied Linguistics 30(4): 555–78. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp044

Ortega, L. (2012) Interlanguage complexity: a construct in search of theoretical renewal. In B. Kortmann and B. Szmrecsanyi (eds) Linguistic Complexity: Second Language Acquisition, Indigenization, Contact 127–55. Berlin: De Gruyter.

Piggott, L. (2019) Effects of explicit and implicit form focused instruction on L2 writing

204 Audrey rousse-MAlpAt, rAsMus steinkrAuss And MArjolijn Verspoor

and speaking: a two year classroom based study. Unpublished PhD dissertation. University of Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands.

Robinson, P. (1996) Learning simple and complex second language rules under implicit, incidental, rule-search and instructed conditions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18: 27–67. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100014674

Rousse-Malpat, A. (2019) Effectiveness of explicit vs implicit L2 instruction. Unpub-lished PhD dissertation. Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands.

Rousse-Malpat, A. and Verspoor, M. H. (2012) Measuring effectiveness in focus on form versus focus on meaning. Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics 1(2): 263–76. https://doi.org/10.1075/dujal.1.2.07rou

Rousse-Malpat, A. and Verspoor, M. (2018) Foreign language instruction from a dynamic usage-based (DUB) perspective. In A. E. Tyler, L. Ortega, M. Uno and H. I. Park (eds) Usage-inspired L2 Instruction: Researched Pedagogy 55–73. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.49.03rou

Rousse-Malpat, A., Verspoor, M. H. and Visser, S. (2012) Frans leren met AIM in het voortgezet onderwijs (Learning French with AIM in high school). Levende Talen Tijdschrift 3: 3–14.

Schmid, H. J. (2015) A blueprint of the entrenchment-and-conventionalization model. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association 3(1): 3–26. https://doi.org/10.1515/gcla-2015-0002

Scott, C. M. and Windsor, J. (2000) General language performance measures in spoken and written narrative and expository discourse of school-age children with language learning disabilities. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 43(2): 324–39. https://doi.org/10.1044/jslhr.4302.324

Shook, D. (1994) FL/L2 reading, grammatical information, and the input-to-take phe-nomenon. Applied Language Learning 52: 57–93.

Spada, N. (1997) Form-focused instruction and second language acquisition: a review of classroom and laboratory research. Language Teaching 30(2): 73–87. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444800012799

Spada, N. (2011) Beyond form-focused instruction: reflections on past, present and future research. Language Teaching 44(2): 225–36. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444810000224

Spada, N. and Tomita, Y. (2010) Interactions between type of instruction and type of language feature: a meta‐analysis. Language Learning 60(2): 263–308. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00562.x

Swain, M. (1988) Manipulating and complementing content teaching to maximize second language learning. TESL Canada Journal 6(1): 68–83. https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v6i1.542

Tomasello, M. (2003) Constructing a Language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Trahey, M. (1996) Positive evidence in second language acquisition: some long term effects. Second Language Research 12(2): 111–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 026765839601200201

Trahey, M. and White, L. (1993) Positive evidence and preemption in the second lan-guage classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 15(2): 181–204. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100011955

Véronique, D. (2009) L’acquisition de la grammaire du français, langue étrangère. Paris: Didier.

structure-bAsed or dynAMic usAge-bAsed instruction 205

Verspoor, M. (2017) Complex dynamic systems theory and L2 pedagogy. In L. Ortega and Z. Han (eds) Complexity Theory and Language Development: In Celebration of Diane Larsen-Freeman 143–62. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.48.08ver

Verspoor, M. and Schmitt, N. (2013) Language and the lexicon in SLA. In The Routledge Encyclopedia of SLA 353–60. New York: Routledge.

Verspoor, M. and Smiskova, H. (2012) Foreign language writing development from a dynamic usage based perspective. In R. Manchón (ed.) L2 Writing Development: Multi-ple Perspectives 17–46. New York: De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/ 9781934078303.17

Verspoor, M., de Bot, K. and Xu, X. (2015) The effects of English bilingual education in the Netherlands. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education 3(1): 4–27. https://doi.org/10.1075/jicb.3.1.01ver

Verspoor, M., Schmid, M. S. and Xu, X. (2012) A dynamic usage-based perspective on L2 writing development. Journal of Second Language Writing 21(3): 239–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.03.007

West, L. and Verspoor, M. (2016) An impression of foreign language teaching approaches in the Netherlands. Levende Talen Tijdschrift 17(4): 26–36.

Williams, J. and Evans, J. (1998) What kind of focus and on which forms? In C. Doughty and J. Williams (eds) Focus on Form in Classroom Language Acquisition 139–55. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wolfe-Quintero, K., Inagaki, S. and Kim, H. Y. (1998) Second Language Development in Writing: Measures of Fluency, Accuracy and Complexity. Hawai’i: University of Hawai’i.

Xu, H. and Lyster, R. (2014) Differential effects of explicit form-focused instruction on morphosyntactic development. Language Awareness 23(1–2): 107–122. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2013.863899

Yang, Y. and Lyster, R. (2010) Effects of form-focused practice and feedback on Chinese EFL learners’ acquisition of regular and irregular past tense forms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 32: 235–63. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990519