Arguably the two biggest (and not unrelated) changes in Theories and Effective Practices in Teaching Vocabulary and Grammar in recent years are, first, an appreciation of how much the subsystems of grammar and vocabulary are interdependent, and second, how the patterns created though their interdependence emerge from use. I treat the former briefly (because others in this issue treat it more in depth) before going on to discuss the second change in light of complexity theory.

For most, the observations of scholars such as Pawley and Syder (1983), Sinclair (1991), and Nattinger and DeCarrico (1992) drove home the point that grammar and vocabulary are intertwined. Their observations, complemented by the rise of, and findings from, corpus linguistics, have shifted perceptions in the field to the point where researchers are less likely to think in terms of morphosyntactic rules generating acceptable sentence structures into which lexical items are then slotted, and more likely to think that utterances are formed from the interplay of the two in a lexicogrammar (Celce-Murcia & Larsen-Freeman, 1999; Halliday, 1994). For example, few speakers of English can accept any verb other than need in the pattern My house needs painting or Our washer needs fixing. In this sentence, then, what can fill the verb slot is highly restricted. To give another example, if the verb insist is used, either on or that is very likely to follow.

These days, many linguists use the term constructions to encompass all lexicogrammatical forms, ranging from morphemes and syntactic structures to meaningful phrasal and clausal sequences or patterns (Tomasello, 2003). This change is accompanied by the awareness that speakers’ language resources consist of a large repertoire of phrases such as how do you know, if you wanna, it is obvious that, can be found, what I mean, what I’m talking about (Simpson-Vlach & Ellis, 2010). In short, what used to be seen as a homogeneous linguistic competence is in essence a heterogeneous network of language-using patterns (Larsen-Freeman & Cameron, 2008) that language users draw upon and add to as they use language in real time. Clearly, to develop such language resources takes extensive opportunity to engage with meaningful language use (Wray 2002). Accelerating the acquisition of such patterns in classroom instruction takes focused attention (e.g., Lewis, 1993), aided by the use of corpus-informed syllabi (e.g., O’Keeffe, McCarthy, & Carter 2007).

But the question that has captured more of my attention has to do with the origin and evolution of such patterned sequences. Here, I turn to complexity theory for its insights. Complexity theory sees language as a complex adaptive system (CAS; Ellis & Larsen-Freeman, 2009). In such a system, the patterns are not the product of rules, but rather arise bottom up from use. This position is aligned with that of cognitive grammar (Langacker, 1987).A similar sentiment was expressed by Hopper (1988) in his emergent grammar: Frequently occurring constructions become “sedimented” patterns. “The notion of Emergent Grammar is meant to suggest that structure, or regularity, comes out of discourse and is shaped by discourse in an ongoing process. Grammar is, in this view, simply the name for certain categories of observed repetitions in discourse” (Hopper, 1998, p. 156).

As words are used together frequently, the resulting patterns become less open and more fixed. Through a process of grammaticalization (Hopper & Traugott, 1993), word combinations transform into grammatical constructions. Bybee (2006), for instance, offers evidence in support of her claim that the to in the future periphrastic modal be going to was originally an infinitive marker, followed by a verb. Over the years, as its use with going became more frequent, the going and the to fused, such that today, the reduced form in speech is common, gonna, and a further truncated form /áymənə/ is used in the first person, I am going to (I am going to go to town = /áymənə/ go to town). Notice that /áymənə/ cannot be used for the first person of the present progressive (I’m going to town) even though the word sequence is the same(*áymənə to town).

Because this process of change is relentless, even adult grammars are not static, but instead have potential to change with experience (The 5 Graces Group in Ellis & Larsen-Freeman, 2009). While all this talk of change may prove unsettling to those who think of grammar as a static rule-governed system, notice that a dynamic, changing view can accommodate what is known to be true: not only that language changes over time, but also as it does, exceptions to its rules become commonplace. For instance, it is increasingly common these days to hear English speakers form comparatives of adjectives with the periphrastic more rather than the –er inflection, even for monosyllabic adjectives (e.g., Detergent X will get your clothes more white than detergent Y.). From a complexity theory point of view, “the act of playing the game has a way of changing the rules” (Gleick 1987, p. 24).

Such observations also suggest that since speakers’ grammars are constructed out of their experience with language, each speaker’s grammar is unique. We expect diversity in grammatical judgments, for example. Of course, there is sufficient overlap for mutual intelligibility. This comes about because speakers recognize that they have choices in how they enact their language resources. They co-adapt—they make adjustments in their language use to accommodate their interlocutors.

The implications for learning are great. The focus shifts from the acquisition of static decontextualized structures of linguistic form to language development in existing communities of practice. Learners need to draw on their language resources (including their knowledge of other languages) to realize their communicative needs. They are not confined to that which has been already realized in the existing system. They need to exploit the potential of the system to make meaning. Along the way, from a target language perspective, regress as well as progress happens.

What are the implications for this view for teaching? Traditional approaches to teaching assume that language is a static, finite system and that practice leads in a linear way to increasing control of such a system. Practice is therefore basically rehearsal. However, teaching a language does not involve the transmission of a closed system of knowledge.

Newer views recognize that different learners obtain different benefits from the same practice activities (Larsen-Freeman, 2006). Language learning is not about conformity to uniformity (Larsen-Freeman, 2003). Teaching should enable learners to go beyond the input, indeed beyond any static mental grammar. Doing so, however, requires a certain type of engagement, one that is psychologically authentic. Psychologically authentic (which is not the same as linguistically authentic) practice gives learners an opportunity to use language meaningfully for their own purposes, where the conditions of practice and the conditions of use are aligned (Lightbown, 2008; Segalowitz, 2003).

A second implication is that not only language but also adaptation should be taught. In order to avoid the “inert knowledge problem” (Whitehead, 1929), students have to learn to use what they know to adapt to a changing context. One way to give students practice with adaptation, for example, is to have them repeat a task, where the conditions they are given for completing the task are altered with each repetition. Repeating a task is not simple repetition, but rather involves iteration (Larsen-Freeman, 2011). In a complex system, the results of one iteration are used as the starting point for the next iteration. Thus, the starting point is always different (van Geert, 2003). Learning is not adding pieces to the system; it is changing the system (Feldman, 2006).

In conclusion, newer theories in teaching grammar and vocabulary regard language not as a single homogeneous system to be acquired. Rather, it is thought that stable lexicogrammatical forms emerge and are learned from use. Such a view “foregrounds the centrality of variation among different speakers and their developing awareness of the choice they have in how they use patterns within a social context” (Larsen-Freeman & Cameron, 2008, p. 116). The same view also endorses the claim that “learning is construed as the development of increasing effective ways of dealing with the world and its meanings” (van Lier, 2000, p. 246).

REFERENCES

Bybee, J. (2006). From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language, 82, 711–733.

Celce-Murcia, M., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (1999). The grammar book (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Heinle/Cengage.

Ellis, N., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (Eds.). (2009). Language as a complex adaptive system. Language Learning, 59(Suppl. 1).

Feldman, J. (2006). From molecule to metaphor. A neural theory of language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Gleick, J. (1987). Chaos: Making a new science. New York, NY: Penguin Books.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar (2nd ed.). London: Edward Arnold.

Hopper, P. (1988). Emergent grammar and the a priori grammar postulate. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Linguistics in context: Connecting observation and understanding (pp. 139-157). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Hopper, P. (1998). Emergent grammar. In M. Tomasello (Ed.), The new psychology of language (pp. 155-177). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Hopper, P., & Traugott, E.. (1993). Grammaticalization. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Langacker, R. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar: Vol. 1. Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Larsen-Freeman, D. (2003). Teaching language: From grammar to grammaring. Boston, MA: Heinle/Cengage.

Larsen-Freeman, D. (2006). The emergence of complexity, fluency, and accuracy in the oral and written production of five Chinese learners of English. Applied Linguistics, 27, 590–619.

Larsen-Freeman, D. (2011, September). Using complexity theory to understand the use of repetition in language teaching. A plenary address delivered at the British Association of Applied Linguistics Conference, Bristol, England.

Larsen-Freeman, D., & Cameron, L. (2008). Complex systems and applied linguistics. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Lewis, M. (1993). The lexical approach. Hove, England: Language Teaching Publications.

Lightbown, P. (2008). Transfer appropriate processing as a model for classroom language acquisition. In Z-H. Han (Ed.), Understanding second language process (pp. 27-45). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.

Nattinger, J., & DeCarrico, J. (1992). Lexical phrases and language teaching. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

O’Keeffe, A., McCarthy, M., & Carter, R. (2007). From corpus to classroom: Language use and language teaching. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Pawley, A., & Syder, F. (1983). Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Nativelike selection and nativelike fluency. In J. Richards & R. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and communication (pp. 191-226). London: Longman.

Segalowitz, N. (2003). Automaticity and second languages. In C. Doughty & M. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 382-408). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Simpson-Vlach, R., & Ellis, N. (2010). An academic formulas list: New methods in phraseology research. Applied Linguistics, 31, 487-512.

Sinclair, J. (1991). Corpus, concordance and collocation. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

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

van Geert, P. (2003). Dynamic systems approaches and modeling of developmental processes. In J. Valsiner & K. Connolly (Eds.),Handbook of developmental psychology (pp. 640-672). London: Sage.

van Lier, L. (2000). From input to affordance: Social-interactive learning from an ecological perspective. In J. Lantolf (Ed). Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning(pp. 243-259). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Whitehead, A. N. (1929). The aims of education. New York: Macmillan.

Wray, A. (2002).Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Diane Larsen-Freeman is professor of education, professor of linguistics, and research scientist at the English Language Institute, and faculty associate at the Center for the Study of Complex Systems at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. She is also a Distinguished Senior Faculty Fellow at the Graduate SIT Institute in Brattleboro, Vermont.