Input optimization: Verb-argument constructions in English textbooks in Türkiye

Article Sidebar

PDF
Published: Jun 30, 2023
DOI: https://doi.org/10.14744/felt.2023.5.1.1
Keywords:
usage-based approaches input flooding textbooks verb-argument constructions

Main Article Content

Tan Arda Gedik
Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen

Abstract

Based on usage-based approaches to second language acquisition, studies point at a statistically significant correlation between type-token frequency, skewed distribution of items, and faster learning. Madlener (2016) shows a positive correlation between a Zipfian distribution of items in a German construction and faster, more accurate learning of the construction. While there are many studies that analyze input in English language teaching materials, no study has scrutinized selected constructions from an input optimization perspective, following Madlener (2016). Thus, using TAASSC (Kyle, 2016), the present paper analyzes four constructions, V in N, V about N, V for N, V with N, and the ditransitive constructions in the high school English textbooks in Turkey. The results indicate that the input available for these constructions are not viable for generalizations to occur, leaving learners with unproductive one-time instantiations of the constructions, and low token frequency of these constructions also suggest that little to no entrenchment might take place. As such, the study proposes adopting a more corpus-based approach to English teaching materials.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

Article Details

How to Cite
Gedik, T. A. (2023). Input optimization: Verb-argument constructions in English textbooks in Türkiye. Focus on ELT Journal, 5(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.14744/felt.2023.5.1.1
Issue
Vol. 5 No. 1 (2023): Focus on ELT Journal
Section
Articles
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

References

Alsaif, A., & Milton, J. (2012). Vocabulary input from school textbooks as a potential contributor to the small vocabulary uptake gained by English as a foreign language learners in Saudi Arabia. The Language Learning Journal, 40(1), 21–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2012.658221

Ambridge, B., & Lieven, E. (2015). A constructivist account of child language acquisition. In B. MacWhinney & W. O’Grady (Eds.), The handbook of language emergence (pp. 478–510). Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118346136.ch22

Arıkan, A. (2005). Age,gender and social class in elt coursebooks: A critical study. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 28(28), 29–38.

Azazil, L. (2020). Frequency effects in the L2 acquisition of the catenative verb construction–evidence from experimental and corpus data. Cognitive Linguistics, 31(3), 417–451. https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2018-0139

Aziez, F., & Aziez, F. (2018). The vocabulary input of Indonesia’s English textbooks and national examination texts for junior and senior high schools. TESOL International Journal, 13(3), 66–67.

Barbieri, F., & Eckhardt, S. E. (2007). Applying corpus-based findings to form-focused instruction: The case of reported speech. Language Teaching Research, 11(3), 319–346. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168807077563

Barðdal, J. (2008). Productivity evidence from case and argument structure in Icelandic. https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.8

Behrens, H. (2009). Usage-based and emergentist approaches to language acquisition. Linguistics, 47, 383–411. https://doi.org/10.1515/LING.2009.014

Belkhouche, B., Harmain, H., Al-Taha, H., Al-Najjar, L., & Tibi, S. (2010). Analysis of primary school Arabic language textbooks. Proceedings of the Arab Conference on Information Technology, 10.

Bestgen, Y., & Granger, S. (2014). Quantifying the development of phraseological competence in L2 English writing: An automated approach. Journal of Second Language Writing, 26, 28–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2014.09.004

Biber, D., & Reppen, R. (2002). What does frequency have to do with grammar teaching? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(2), 199–208. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263102002048

Blumenthal-Dramé, A. (2012). Entrenchment in usage-based theories: What corpus data do and do not reveal about the mind. De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110294002

Boyd, J. K., Gottschalk, E. A., & Goldberg, A. E. (2009). Linking rule acquisition in novel phrasal constructions. Language Learning, 59, 64–89. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00536.x

Bybee, J. (2008). Formal universals as emergent phenomena: The origins of structure preservation. Linguistic Universals and Language Change, 108–121. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199298495.003.0005

Bybee, J. (2010). Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511750526

Bybee, J., & Thompson, S. (1997). Three frequency effects in syntax. Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 23(1), 378–388. https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v23i1.1293

Chen, A. C.-H. (2016). A critical evaluation of text difficulty development in ELT textbook series: A corpus-based approach using variability neighbor clustering. System, 58, 64–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2016.03.011

Chung, T. (2011). The input of L2 English unaccusative verbs: EFL textbooks and teachers’ knowledge. 영어학, 11(2), 437–464. https://doi.org/10.15738/kjell.11.2.201106.437

Cordes, A. K. (2014). The role of frequency in children’s learning of novel morphology. Narr.

Crossley, S., & Salsbury, T. L. (2011). The development of lexical bundle accuracy and production in English second language speakers. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.2011.001

Cullen, R., & Kuo, I. V. (2007). Spoken grammar and ELT course materials: A missing link? Tesol Quarterly, 41(2), 361–386. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2007.tb00063.x

Dabrowska, E. (2015). Individual differences in grammatical knowledge. In E. Dabrowska & D. Divjak (Eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 650–668). De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110292022-033

Demir, Y., & Yavuz, M. (2017). Do ELT coursebooks still suffer from gender inequalities? A case study from Türkiye. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 13(1), 103–122.

Divjak, D. (2019). Frequency in language: memory, attention and learning. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316084410

Doughty, C. (1999). Cognitive underpinnings of focus on form. University of Hawai’i Working Papers in English as a Second Language 18 (1).

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(2), 143–188. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263102002024

Ellis, N. C. (2009). Optimizing the input: Frequency and sampling in usage-based and form-focused learning. In M. H. Long & C. J. Doughty (Eds.), The Handbook of Language Teaching (pp. 139–158). Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444315783.ch9

Ellis, N. C., & Cadierno, T. (2009). Constructing a second language: Introduction to the special section. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 7(1), 111–139. https://doi.org/10.1075/arcl.7.05ell

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., & O’Donnell, M. B. (2011). Statistical construction learning: Does a Zipfian problem space ensure robust language learning? In P. Rebuschat & J. N. Williams (Eds.), Statistical Learning and Language Acquisition (pp. 265–304). DE GRUYTER. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781934078242.265

Ellis, N. C., O’Donnell, M. B., & Römer, U. (2014). Second language verb-argument constructions are sensitive to form, function, frequency, contingency, and prototypicality. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 4(4), 405–431. https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.4.4.01ell

Ellis, N. C., & Sagarra, N. (2011). Learned attention in adult language acquisition: A replication and generalization study and meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33(4), 589–624. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263111000325

Eskildsen, S. W. (2009). Constructing another language—Usage-based linguistics in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 30(3), 335–357. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amn037

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. (2014). What’s new?: A usage-based classroom study of linguistic routines and creativity in L2 learning. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 52(1), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2014-0001

Eskildsen, S. W., & Cadierno, T. (2007). Are recurring multi-word expressions really syntactic freezes? Second language acquisition from the perspective of usage-based linguistics. In M. Nenonen & S. Niemi (Eds.), Collocations and Idioms (Vol. 1, pp. 86–99).

Gass, S. M. (2013). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203053560

Glisan, E. W., & Drescher, V. (1993). Textbook grammar: Does it reflect native speaker speech? The Modern Language Journal, 77(1), 23–33. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1993.tb01941.x

Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. University of California.

Goldberg, A. E. (2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199268511.001.0001

Goldberg, A. E. (2019). Explain me this: Creativity, competition, and the partial productivity of constructions / Adele E. Goldberg. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvc772nn

Goldberg, A. E., Casenhiser, D. M., & Sethuraman, N. (2004). Learning argument structure generalizations. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2004.011

Goldberg, A. E., Casenhiser, D., & White, T. R. (2007). Constructions as categories of language. New Ideas in Psychology, 25(2), 70–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2007.02.004

Goldberg, A. E., & Ferreira, F. (2022). Good-enough language production. Trends in Cognitive Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2022.01.005

Goschler, J., & Stefanowitsch, A. (2019). Generalization and transfer in L2 acquisition: The role of entrenchment in L1 and L2. ICLC. https://iclc2019.site/wp-content/uploads/abstracts/applied/ICLC-15_paper_202.pdf

Gries, S. T., & Wulff, S. (2005). Do foreign language learners also have constructions? Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 3(1), 182–200. https://doi.org/10.1075/arcl.3.10gri

Herbst, T. (2020). Constructions, generalizations, and the unpredictability of language: Moving towards colloconstruction. Constructions and Frames, 12(1), 56–95. https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.00035.her

Hernández, T. (2008). The effect of explicit instruction and input flood on students’ use of Spanish discourse markers on a simulated oral proficiency interview. Hispania, 665–675.

Hernández, T. A. (2011). Re-examining the role of explicit instruction and input flood on the acquisition of Spanish discourse markers. Language Teaching Research, 15(2), 159–182. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168810388694

Huang, P.-Y., Wible, D., & Ko, H.-W. (2012). Frequency effects and transitional probabilities in L1 and L2 speakers’ processing of multiword expressions. In S. Th. Gries & D. Divjak (Eds.), Frequency Effects in Language Learning and Processing (pp. 145–176). DE GRUYTER. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110274059.145

Kim, Y. S., & Oh, S. Y. (2020). A corpus-based analysis of collocations in Korean middle and high school English textbooks. Language Research, 56. https://doi.org/10.30961/lr.2020.56.3.437

Kyle, K. (2016). Measuring syntactic development in L2 writing: Fine grained indices of syntactic complexity and usage-based indices of syntactic sophistication [Georgia State University]. http://scholarworks.gsu.edu/alesl_diss/35/

Kyle, K., & Crossley, S. (2018). Measuring syntactic complexity in L2 writing using fine-grained clausal and phrasal indices. The Modern Language Journal, 102(2), 333–349. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12468

Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar: Theoretical prerequisites (Vol. 1). Stanford university press.

Le Foll, E. (2018). A corpus-based comparison of registers in EFL school textbooks for secondary schools in France, Germany and Spain. IVACS 2018 Wednesday 13th June 2018, 73.

Lee, J. H., & Kim, H. M. (2011). The L2 developmental sequence of English constructions and underlying factors. 영어학, 11(3), 577–600. https://doi.org/10.15738/kjell.11.3.201109.577

Li, P., Eskildsen, S. W., & Cadierno, T. (2014). Tracing an L2 learner’s motion constructions over time: A usage-based classroom investigation. The Modern Language Journal, 98(2), 612–628. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12091

Lieven, E. (2010). Input and first language acquisition: Evaluating the role of frequency. Lingua, 120(11), 2546–2556. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2010.06.005

Lieven, E. V., Pine, J. M., & Baldwin, G. (1997). Lexically-based learning and early grammatical development. Journal of Child Language, 24(1), 187–219. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0305000996002930

Limberg, H. (2016). Teaching how to apologize: EFL textbooks and pragmatic input. Language Teaching Research, 20(6), 700–718. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168815590695

Madlener, K. (2015). Frequency effects in instructed second language acquisition. DE GRUYTER. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110405538

Madlener, K. (2016). Input optimization: Effects of type and token frequency manipulations in instructed second language learning. In H. Behrens & S. Pfänder (Eds.), Experience Counts: Frequency Effects in Language (pp. 133–174). De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110346916-007

Martínez-Flor, A., & Usó-Juan, E. (2010). The teaching of speech acts in second and foreign language instructional contexts. Pragmatics across Languages and Cultures, 7, 423. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110214444.3.423

McDonough, K., & Nekrasova-Becker, T. (2014). Comparing the effect of skewed and balanced input on English as a foreign language learners’ comprehension of the double-object dative construction. Applied Psycholinguistics, 35(2), 419–442. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716412000446

McDonough, K., & Trofimovich, P. (2013). Learning a novel pattern through balanced and skewed input. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16(3), 654–662. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728912000557

MoE. (2018). Ortaöğretim İngilizce Dersi. http://mufredat.meb.gov.tr/ProgramDetay.aspx?PID=342

MoE. (2022). LGS İstatistikleri. https://cdn.eba.gov.tr/icerik/2022/06/2022_LGS_rapor.pdf

Meunier, F. (2015). Developmental patterns in learner corpora. In S. Granger & G. Gilquin (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of learner corpus research (pp. 379–400). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139649414.017

Miao, H. (2014). An investigation of formulaic sequences in multi-modal Chinese college English textbooks. Journal Of Language Teaching & Research, 5(6). https://doi.org/10.4304/jltr.5.6.1308-1314

Miller, D. (2011). ESL reading textbooks vs. university textbooks: Are we giving our students the input they may need? Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 10(1), 32–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2010.12.002

Perek, F. (2015). Argument structure in usage-based construction grammar (Vol. 17). John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.17

Piske, T., & Young-Scholten, M. (Eds.). (2008). Input matters in SLA. Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847691118

Reinders, H., & Ellis, R. (2009). The effects of two types of input on intake and the acquisition of implicit and explicit knowledge. In H. Reinders, R. Erlam, J. Philp, S. Loewen, & C. Elder, Implicit and Explicit Knowledge in Second Language Learning, Testing and Teaching (pp. 281–302). Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847691767-014

Roehr-Brackin, K. (2014). Explicit knowledge and processes from a usage-based perspective: The developmental trajectory of an instructed L2 learner. Language Learning, 64(4), 771–808. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12081

Römer, U. (2004). A corpus-driven approach to modal auxiliaries and their didactics. How to Use Corpora in Language Teaching, 185–199. https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.12.14rom

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. (2019). A corpus perspective on the development of verb constructions in second language learners. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 24(3), 268–290. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.00013.roe

Römer, U., Roberson, A., O’Donnell, M. B., & Ellis, N. C. (2014). Linking learner corpus and experimental data in studying second language learners’ knowledge of verb-argument constructions. ICAME Journal, 38(1), 115–135. https://doi.org/10.2478/icame-2014-0006

Römer, U., Skalicky, S. C., & Ellis, N. C. (2018). Verb-argument constructions in advanced L2 English learner production: Insights from corpora and verbal fluency tasks. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2016-0055

Römer, U., & Yilmaz, S. (2019). Effects of L2 usage and L1 transfer on Turkish learners’ production of English verb-argument constructions. Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 16, 107–134. https://doi.org/10.35869/vial.v0i16.95

Schlüter, N. (2002). Present perfect: Eine korpuslinguistische Analyse des englischen Perfekts mit Vermittlungsvorschlägen für den Sprachunterricht (Vol. 25). Gunter Narr Verlag.

Selvi, A. F. (2014). The medium-of-instruction debate in Türkiye: Oscillating between national ideas and bilingual ideals. Current Issues in Language Planning, 15(2), 133–152. https://doi.org/10.1080/14664208.2014.898357

Shintani, N., & Ellis, R. (2010). The incidental acquisition of English plural–s by Japanese children in comprehension-based and production-based lessons: A process-product study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(4), 607–637. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263110000288

Smith, M. S. (1993). Input enhancement in instructed SLA: Theoretical bases. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15(2), 165–179. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100011943

Tang, E. (2009). Studying lexical input from English textbooks for primary and junior secondary students in Hong Kong. Journal of Asia TEFL, 6(3).

Tode, T., & Sakai, H. (2016). Exemplar-based instructed second language development and classroom experience. ITL-International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 167(2), 210–234. https://doi.org/10.1075/itl.167.2.07tod

Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Harvard University Press.

Underwood, P. (2010). A comparative analysis of MEXT English reading textbooks and Japan’s National Center Test. RELC Journal, 41(2), 165–182. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688210373128

VanPatten, B. (2004). Input processing in second language acquisition. Processing Instruction: Theory, Research, and Commentary, 5, 31.

Vellenga, H. (2004). Learning pragmatics from ESL & EFL textbooks: How likely?. Tesl-Ej, 8(2), n2.

Vine, E. W. (2013). Corpora and coursebooks compared: Category ambiguous words. In S. Granger & G. Gilquin (Eds.), Twenty Years of Learner Corpus Research: Looking back, Moving ahead. Corpora and Language in Use–Proceedings (Vol. 1, pp. 463–478).

Williams, J., & Evans, J. (1998). What kind of focus on which forms? In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition (pp. 139–155). Cambridge University Press.

Wong, W. (2005). Input Enhancement. From Theory and Research to the Classroom. McGraw Hill.

Year, J., & Gordon, P. (2009). Korean speakers’ acquisition of the English ditransitive construction: The Role of verb prototype, input distribution, and frequency. The Modern Language Journal, 93(3), 399–417. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00898.x