Constructing a method: Cognitive Construction Grammar Theory as a basis for teaching grammar to ESL learners

Constructing a Method: Cognitive Construction Grammar Theory as a Basis for Teaching Grammar to ESL Learners

James J. Mischler, III

Northwestern State University of Louisiana

What are constructions?

A grammatical structure which combines form and meaning (Goldberg 1995, 2006)

Example: The English Ditransitive (or “double-object” construction)

The English Ditransitive

Form

Harry gave Sam the book.

Syntax

Subj. V Obj1 Obj2

Semantics

X transfers Y to Z

Constructions and SLA: Noticing to Learn • Schmidt (2001), in a review of SLA studies, argues that

learning a linguistic structure with a specific form and meaning requires grammatical parsing of the structure.

• Schmidt calls these structures constructions.

• Parsing a construction requires that the student attend to the form and meaning over many repetitions via noticing.

Cognitive Construction Grammar (CCxG) • CCxG theory states that “the basic units of language are

learned pairings of form and function” (Goldberg & Bencini, 2005).

• Goldberg and Bencini’s review of research studies (2005) showed that constructions are employed in both language comprehension and production.

CCxG & SLA Studies

• Noticing: Waara (2004) found that Norwegian L1 teenagers learned the L2 English Caused Motion construction before learning the meanings of specific words.

• Parsing: A recent study of L1 Spanish speakers learning English (Valenzuela Manzanares & Rojo López, 2008, pp. 201-206) found that L2 English constructions were used to interpret English sentences.

CCxG and SLA Research Summary Experimental work in SLA & CCxG has found that:

• constructions are basic to language;

• constructions are employed by both native speakers and second language learners in language comprehension and production.

• Noticing and parsing are key cognitive processes.

Current Grammar Teaching Methods • Three basic types (see Cadierno, 2008), each of which views

linguistic structure from a different perspective

• Focus on FormS

• Focus on Meaning

• Focus on Form

Focus on Form (& language awareness)

Strengths

assumes that linguistic structure and meaning are inseparable;

focuses on explicit instruction in grammar, using the general teaching procedure –1) explanation; 2) strategies for use; 3) structure input activities.

can lead to greater grammatical accuracy of use by SL learners;

Weaknesses

works best when English is the language of instruction (Poole, 2005);

assumes that grammar is taught as individual units (the discrete-item syllabus), in which language form is often presented without meaningful context (Grundy, 2004).

CCxG & Focus on Form

• Blythe (1997) and Holme (2010) used construction-based, experiential approaches to teach Spanish aspect and English metaphor (respectively). The methods were described, but evidence for learning effectiveness was anecdotal.

• Cadierno (2008) also developed a method based on FoF and CCxG research, but the activities proposed were not employed in a teaching setting. She recommended classroom research as the next step.

Teaching Research Summary

• Almost all of the extant SLA studies of CCxG involved laboratory investigation.

• The few studies that focused on classroom teaching methods (including FoF) provided anecdotal evidence of effectiveness or were limited to recommendations for further research.

• All of the studies focused on learners from a single L1 and a single L2 (EFL).

The ESL Learning Environment

• Learners comprise a variety of L1 speakers—the teacher cannot design lessons for a single L1;

• English is the language of instruction—learners rely on their knowledge of English constructions to understand and parse new forms;

• Learners live and study in the L2 community—there are numerous opportunities to experience authentic, natural language input.

The Proposal

Teach the ditransitive construction to adult intermediate level students;

Employ FoF theoretical principles for noticing constructions in meaningful context;

Address the specific aspects of the ESL learning environment;

Adapt some proposals of Blythe (1997), Cadierno (2008), and Holme (2010).

Procedure, Day 1

• The teacher demonstrates the ditransitive construction by performing a role play in which several items are passed from the teacher to the student.

• The class discusses how the role play would be described in English to another person who did not witness the event. The alternation between SUBJ VERB OBJ2 to OBJECT 1 and SUBJ VERB OBJ1 OBJ2 is discussed. The teacher asks what the grammatical difference is between the two forms.

• The teacher gives the students a series of context-based examples of the two forms (e.g., using the verb give). Groups report what they learned from the analysis.

Procedure, Day 2

• A series of videos are shown which demonstrate various uses of the ditransitive; students write brief narratives and discuss them in groups. Differences in the narratives leads to a discussion different aspects of the meaning of the ditransitive.

• Students do homework to identify all of the syntactic and semantic features of the ditransitive construction, and discuss their lists in class with a partner. The features are then listed on the board. The class discusses the features and develops a final list.

Procedure, Day 3

• The class reviews the revised list of features developed the previous day. Optionally, the teacher provides examples which employ any features not identified by the students previously, and these are discussed.

• Students are given a variety of assignments over the next few days to use the ditransitive in context; for example, they can write stories (e.g., about “giving” or charity), interview L1 speakers and analyze L1 use of the ditransitive, and collect samples from radio, TV, newspapers, corpora, and other L1 uses.

Conclusions

• The method outlined employs research in noticing, parsing, CCxG, SLA, and Focus on Form to design activities for learning a construction in the adult ESL intermediate-level or advanced classroom.

• Though the method is grounded in both current theory and teaching practice, like previous work, it has not (yet) been employed in a live classroom. Empirical research on the effectiveness of CCxG the theoretical basis for a grammar teaching approach is the goal of this research proposal.

References

Blyth, C. (1997). A constructivist approach to grammar: Teaching teachers to teach aspect. The Modern Language Journal, 81(1), 50-66.

Goldberg, A. E. (2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization

in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Goldberg, A. E. & Bencini, G. M. I. (2005). Support from language processing for a construction approach to grammar (pp. 3-18). In A. Tyler, M. Takada, Y. Kim, & D. Marinova, Language in use: Cognitive and discourse perspectives on language and language learning. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Cadierno, T. (2008). Motion events in Danish and Spanish. In S. De Knop & T. De Ruyker, Cognitive approaches to pedagogical grammar (pp. 259-294). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

References (continued)

Grundy, P. (2004). The figure / ground gestalt and language teaching methodology. In M. Achard & S. Niemeier (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics, second language acquisition, and foreign language teaching (pp. 119-142). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Holme, R. (2010). Construction grammars: Towards a pedagogical model. AILA Review, 23, 115-133.

Poole, A. (2005). Focus on form instruction: Foundations, applications, and criticisms [Electronic Version]. The Reading Matrix, 5. Retrieved September 27, 2007, from http://www.readingmatrix.com/articles/poole/article.pdf

Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3-32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

References (continued)

Valenzuela Manzanares, J. & Rojo López, A. M. (2008). What can language learners tell us about constructions? In S. De Knop & T. De Ruyker, Cognitive approaches to pedagogical grammar (pp. 259-294). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Waara, R. (2004). Construal, convention, and constructions in L2 speech. In M. Achard & S. Niemeier (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics, second language acquisition, and foreign language teaching (pp. 52-75). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.