When Grammar Instruction Undermines Cohesion in L2 Spanish Classroom Discourse

Abstract

This article compares ordinary conversational topics and targeted second language (L2) forms for their effectiveness in building and maintaining classroom discourse cohesion. In this study, 16 learners participated in 2 lessons, 1 with teacher turns determined by a grammatical object of instruction, and the other with turns determined by conversation topics. Based on research by Sperber and Wilson (1995) and Vuchinich (1977), extended latency gaps and remedy sequences in learner turns were taken as evidence of poor cohesion. Both lessons were videotaped, transcribed, and coded. Of the 16 learners, 5 volunteers viewed the videotapes and offered written explanations for their extended latencies. Longer latencies and more frequent remedy sequences occurred during the grammatically-determined discourse, with volunteers likewise indicating greater difficulty understanding the instructor, than during the conversational lesson. It is argued that for grammar instruction to work effectively, a focus on form must be transparent as the instructional objective, and targeted L2 forms must themselves be properly treated as discourse topics.THE ISSUE OF HOW BEST TO FACILITATE the acquisition of second language (L2) grammar in classroom instruction has been extensively treated in the theoretical and pedagogical literature, but has yet to be conclusively resolved (cf.

Processing Instruction and a Role for Output in Second Language Acquisition

“…For example, unlike either PI or CO, the drills that characterize TI-whether mechanical, meaningful, or communicative-all have producing L2 paradigms rather than performing communicative tasks as the unifying discourse goal (e.g., comparing two pictures, narrating an event). Toth (2004) demonstrated that such non-task-oriented interactions often force learners to process a gap between the literal and intended meaning of instructor utterances, given that learners must infer from a lack of topical cohesion in the input that what they say is not nearly as important as the structures they use. Although mechanical drills are often criticized as counterproductive to communicative goals (DeKeyser, 1998;Wong & VanPatten, 2003), meaningful and communicative drills likewise pose problems when instructor questions about learners' experiences and interests, for example, are sequenced not to build a conversation on these topics, but to elicit complete L2 grammatical sets.…”

Social and Cognitive Factors in Making Teacher‐Led Classroom Discourse Relevant for Second Language Development

“…Similarly, Hall (1995, 2004) reported that, despite the use of open‐ended and personalized questions, TLD narrowly focused on eliciting L2 vocabulary and grammar paradigms as “speaking practice” resulted in comprehension problems and disfluent exchanges, with few opportunities for extended learner utterances. Likewise, Toth (2004) demonstrated that teacher questions sequenced according to L2 grammatical paradigms led to more silent latencies and requests for clarification than questions built around the content of learner responses, again despite the open‐ended nature of many grammatically sequenced questions. Subsequent learner recall data suggested that the problem with the grammar‐oriented class was not so much its grammar focus but rather the mismatch between the conversational content of questions and the underlying goal of merely producing structurally related L2 forms.…”

A review of recent research (2000–2008) on applied linguistics and language teaching with specific reference to L2 Spanish

“…Framing his study in relevance theory, Toth (2004) compared the degree of classroom discourse cohesion in two lessons by the same teacher. Framing his study in relevance theory, Toth (2004) compared the degree of classroom discourse cohesion in two lessons by the same teacher.…”

“…The innovative use of relevance theory (Toth 2004) opens a new door for the understanding of this topic. Cognitive theory and sociocultural theory have proved to be productive frameworks for the study of interaction.…”