Repetition in Language Teaching and Learning
-
Upload
rodrigo-lopez-escobedo -
Category
Documents
-
view
218 -
download
0
Transcript of Repetition in Language Teaching and Learning
-
8/13/2019 Repetition in Language Teaching and Learning
1/17
DOI ./applirev-- Applied Linguistics Review ; ():
Diane Larsen-Freeman
On the roles of repetition in language
teaching and learning
Abstract: Repetition is common in language use. Similarly, having students
repeat is a common practice in language teaching. Aer surveying some of the
better known contributions of repetition to language learning, I propose an
innovative role for repetition from the perspective of complexity theory. I argue
that we should not think of repetition as exact replication, but rather we should
think of it as iteration that generates variation. Thus, what results from iteration
is a mutable state. Iteration is one way that we create options in how to makemeaning, position ourselves in the world as we want, understand the differences
which we encounter in others, and adapt to a changing context.
Keywords: repetition, iteration, complexity theory, variation, adaptation
Diane Larsen-Freeman:University of Michigan, USA. E-mail: [email protected]
Introduction
Repeat aer me is a familiar language teacher command. Despite the fact that
behaviorism has been largely discredited as a language learning theory, this
refrain endures. As DeKeyser (2007) notes, repetition continues to be an impor-
tant element of teachers praxis all over the world. This leaves me to wonder what
repetition has to contribute to a post-behaviorist approach to teaching, one in
which language is no longer construed as purely verbal behavior resulting from a
repetition of some stimulus.
Certainly, as a language learner I can vouch for a desire to hear my teacher
say something again and again so that I can somehow capture what I am hearing
and hold onto it for a little while. The obvious answer, therefore, is that repeating
something that a teacher has said is an aid to working memory. In this article, I
This article is based on a plenary address delivered at the British Association of Applied
Linguistics Conference, Bristol, 13 September 2011. I wish to thank Marjolijn Verspoor and
Kees de Bot for helping me make more complete my original inchoate thoughts on the
-
8/13/2019 Repetition in Language Teaching and Learning
2/17
Diane Larsen-Freeman
will explore memory enhancement and other roles for repetition in language
teaching and learning. Some of them have long been known, such as the role of
repetition in rote learning. Other functions of repetition have been more recently
addressed from a more cognitive perspective in the second language learning(SLL) and second language teaching (SLT) literature. Language teaching method-
ologists have also weighed in on the value of repetition in different ways. Finally,
drawing on complexity theory, I will suggest that repetition has another role to
play, an unexpected one perhaps, not in ensuring replication, but rather in gen-
erating variation.
A selective survey of the literature
It would be foolhardy of me to attempt a comprehensive review of the vast litera-
ture on repetition. There are books that do this well.I will therefore only selec-
tively recount a little of the work for the purpose of distinguishing the type of
repetition I wish to discuss in this article.
Perhaps the first association with repetition in readers minds involves its use
as a literary device. Becker (1984), for instance, has shown how repeated sounds
and words in poetry convey a message or create an image for readers and listeners.
Of course, it is not only in literature where repetition has a contribution to make.In everyday oral discourse, it is known to facilitate the development of a relation-
ship among interlocutors and to contribute coherence to conversations (Tannen
1987).
Repetition has also been seen to play an important role as a pragmatic re-
source for first language learners. Whereas researchers for years accepted the pre-
vailing view that repetition did not contribute to language acquisition, toward the
end of the 1970s, Keenan (1977) showed how important repetition was in satisfy-
ing L1 acquirers communicative needs. Weir (1962) and Kuczaj (1983) document-
ed repeated patterns in childrens language play, both social and private, as they
acquire their L1. This finding was corroborated for second language learners as
well. For instance, Peck (1977) demonstrated how repetition in young L2 learners
language play facilitated the childrens interaction with native speakers (see also
Palotti 2000). Apparently, the repetition that takes place between and among
children at play helps children to achieve intersubjectivity and may contribute to
their later academic success (Rydland and Aukrust 2005).
See, for example, the two volumes edited by Johnstone (1994) and the one by Bazzanella
-
8/13/2019 Repetition in Language Teaching and Learning
3/17
Repetition in language teaching and learning
Of course, children acquiring a second language do not repeat everything
they hear. Silva and Santos (2006), in their study of a young learner of Portu-
guese, show that the amount and type of repetition differs from one setting to
another. Then, too, in research on Japanese preschoolers in an English immer-sion program, Kanagy and Igarashi (1997) find that children are selective in what
they choose to repeat, repeating when it helps them satisfy pragmatic needs and
desire for social interaction. Repetition can aid comprehension as well. Calleri
(1996) and Duff (2000) have suggested that repetition provides learners with more
opportunities to process input.
When it comes to adult learners, researchers point out that repetition en-
ables speakers to produce language, while they are formulating what to say next.
Repetition is also used in interactional modifications, in negotiating for meaning
as in the use of clarification requests, for instance (Long 1983). It also provides
cohesion with earlier discourse, and makes the discourse easier to process (Nor-
rick 1987). Its use helps learners get and keep the floor (Rydland and Aukrust
2005).
Specific to the language classroom, repetition arises in learners repeating
aer others, in learner self-repetition, and in the form of the teachers recasts or
correction elicitation (Lyster 1998). Then, too, enhancing the language to which
students are exposed by input flooding (Sharwood Smith 1993) salting a text
with repeated instances of a particular structure has been proposed as an effec-tive technique for promoting noticing on the part of the students. However, the
topic of frequency of occurrence in language use, which I have long seen to be
relevant to language learning (Larsen-Freeman 1976), while no doubt related, will
not be discussed further here.
Finally, I find the need to distinguish repetition (the act of saying over
again) from imitation (the act of copying) (see Kappes (2010) for a discussion
of the difference). Kuczaj (1983: 225) makes a somewhat different distinction
between imitation, which occurs when a child repeats at least part of anothers
preceding utterance and repetition, which happens when children repeat at
least part of their own preceding utterance. I am not writing of imitation ascopying, as important as some hypothesize it to be in child language acquisition,
when used selectively (Lightbown and Spada 2006), or its place in theory, e.g.,
sociocultural theory (Vygotsky 1962). I should, however, acknowledge the impor-
tant point made in Lantolf and Yaez (2003) that imitation, a term they prefer to
repetition, is not mimicking; instead, what they are calling imitation, can be
transformative. I would be remiss also if I did not note the importance in socio-
cultural theory ascribed to private speech for the purposes of mental rehearsal(de Guerrero 2005). Indeed, repetition was the most common type of private
-
8/13/2019 Repetition in Language Teaching and Learning
4/17
Diane Larsen-Freeman
What I am interested in exploring in this article is the role of intentional rep-
etition in promoting learning by selfrepetition initiated by a language learner
and other-repetition by the learner of the teacher. In a classification of repetition
types, I would call what I am writing about exact, public, intentional, immedi-ate, self- and other-oriented repetition, and repetition which mostly takes place
in the classroom. While behaviorism may have been discredited, repetition still
persists. Its persistence suggests that it has value. I am not so much addressing
Does it work? but rather why it does. Perhaps my point of view is not widely
shared, but I reckon if repetition has survived much academic scorn, it must have
some merit. Moreover, I have confidence in the wisdom of practice of learners and
teachers.
The role of repetition in SLL and SLT
Rote learning
One place where self-repetition is well-attested is in rote learning. The idea, of
course, is that one will be able to recall the meaning of the material the more onerepeats it. Gairns and Redman (1986: 93) point out that rote learning is a memori-
zation technique that has a long history in language learning, involving the
repetition of target language items either silently or aloud and one which may
involve writing down the items (more than once).
In a Ph.D. thesis completed at the University of Sunderland in 2004, Xiuping
Li studied the effects of rote learning in second language learning in China.
While Li points out that rote learning is out of fashion in many circles, Chinese
EFL learners generally view rote learning favorably. In fact, the distinction
between memorization and learning is oen less clear-cut for Chinese than
for other students. Repetition has value for Chinese students because it is
believed that repetition is consistent with traditional Chinese culture and values.
Li cites Biggs (1999: 2), who quotes the Chinese saying: Repetition is the route to
understanding.
In other words, it is with multiple exposures that understanding takes
place. Cook (1994) adds the affective dimension. He argues that rote learning,
knowing by heart, gives students security because they then have chunks of
language to hold onto. These in turn give the students something to work on,which may gradually yield up both their grammar and their meaning (Cook
-
8/13/2019 Repetition in Language Teaching and Learning
5/17
Repetition in language teaching and learning
Enhancing working memory
As I mentioned earlier, it has long been shown that repetition is important in
working memory (WM), if for no other reason than it becomes a vehicle for trans-ferring new information to long-term memory. The role of working memory in
second language learning is, of course, a much-researched area, one that I cannot
do justice to.It is also the case that WM is not a unitary construct, and that its
role depends on a number of factors, including the linguistic domain (Juffs and
Harrington 2011). Here, therefore, I merely note that it is thought that phonological
working memory (PWM) plays a crucial role in learning of new words. It does so
by storing unfamiliar sound patterns while long-term representations are being
built. Because WM is of limited capacity, any representation is rapidly forgotten,
unless in can be rehearsed subvocally in what Baddeley (2007) calls the phono-
logical loop. Thus a direct link between PWM and the long-term learning of
vocabulary is postulated (Baddeley 1986; Andrade and Baddeley 2011).
Other researchers have implicated PWM in the acquisition of syntax. Accord-
ing to this view, PWM is responsible for storing sequential information (Ellis
1998), and because Ellis believes that language learning is partly the acquisition
of linguistic sequences or chunks, he submits that PWM is essential in facilitating
this process. With repetition, words that were previously regarded as indepen-
dent come to be processed as a single unit or chunk. In turn, repetition that con-tributes to the chunking of information can increase memory capacity.
Automaticity/faster access
It is claimed that repetition is also helpful in developing automaticity (McLaugh-
lin 1987). According to information-processing theory, because humans have a
limited capacity to manage controlled processes, such as using a second lan-
guage, SLL requires automatization of component sub-skills. Repeating lower-
level skills contributes to their automaticity. One example is found in repeated
reading (Gorsuch and Taguchi 2010: 31). The teacher asks students to repeatedly
read specified passages from graded readers in order to develop automaticity in
lower-level comprehension processes, such as sight recognition of words, thus
freeing cognitive resources for comprehension of the texts. The supposition is that
repetition leads to automatization and integration of linguistic patterns or chunks.
Second language processing skills become more efficient via automatization.
See Zhisheng Wens Working Memory and Second Language Learning, forthcoming, and
-
8/13/2019 Repetition in Language Teaching and Learning
6/17
Diane Larsen-Freeman
In addition, a claim for faster access to the chunks in working memory has
been made. This claim is related to another theory, connectionism, which pro-
vides a computational framework where each repetition increases the strength of
the connections between the relevant feature units and the category unit. Theresulting strengthening of weights in connnectionist networks translates as
readier access in working memory, analogous, it is thought, to the strengthening
of weights in neural networks. (Ellis 1998).
Freeing processing space
Although perhaps repetition in a less strict sense, compared with what I have
discussed so far, there is also the kind of repetition in the classroom that results
from repeated activities, such as repeated task designs (Bygate 2001). A number
of studies indicate that the repeated performance of the same task has beneficial
effects on language learning. For instance, in a study by Arevart and Nation
(1991), participants were asked to tell the same story to different partners in suc-
cession for 4 minutes, then 3 minutes, and then 2 minutes. The performance of
participants improved not only in terms of fluency, but also in accuracy. Various
types of grammatical errors were eliminated, and sentence structure improved
with each repetition. The explanation is that as the story becomes more and morefamiliar, processing space is freed for speakers to attend to other matters. In addi-
tion, researchers have found that when learners are asked to perform the same
task twice, their performance shows clear improvement in terms of complexity of
the output. While the learners tend to focus on meaning construction during
their first performance, they can free processing space during the second perfor-
mance, allowing them to focus more on the forms they are using (van den Bran-
den 2007: 170).
Repetition in language teaching methods
In 1969, Vivian Cook wrote (Cook 1969: 213) It is true that most second language
teaching that takes place today makes extensive use of repetition of one type or
other. Certainly, students repeating aer the teacher was a prominent feature of
language teaching approaches at the time, such as the audiolingual method
(ALM). Later in the development of audiolingualism, principles from behavioral
psychology (Skinner 1957) were incorporated. It was thought that the way toacquire the sentence patterns of the target language was through conditioning
-
8/13/2019 Repetition in Language Teaching and Learning
7/17
Repetition in language teaching and learning
ment so that the learners could overcome the habits of their native language and
form the new habits of the target language speakers. The major procedures to
accomplish this were repetition and other drills.
So there was a firm commitment to repetition in audiolingualism, one thathas been much criticized for its neglect of meaning and for not tapping learners
cognitive abilities. However, other methodologists have also staked out explicit
claims about the role of repetition. Charles Curran (1976), in his Community Lan-
guage Learning method, has reversed the roles normally assumed in teacher-
student exchanges involving repetition. In Currans human computer tech-
nique, learners choose some word or phrase they wish help on. They then do
their best to produce it, and the teacher follows the learners attempt by repeat-
ing it correctly. It is through the teachers consistent manner of repeating the
word or phrase clearly that the student self-corrects as he or she tries to accom-
modate to the teachers model. The student is in control of the computer such
that the teacher follows the students lead, and keeps on recasting what the stu-
dent says until the student is satisfied and stops (Larsen-Freeman and Anderson
2011).
Writing about his approach at approximately the same time as Currans, but
diametrically opposed to this use of repetition, is Caleb Gattegno. In Gattegnos
Silent Way (1976), repetition is discouraged. Gattegno believes that it is very
important for students to produce the language meaningfully for themselves, andhe is staunchly opposed to any repetition. What was behind his opposition was
his belief that students needed to develop their own inner criteria for correct-
ness, which they presumably could not do if they were limited to imitating others.
In order to have students engage in meaningful practice without repetition, Gat-
tegno devised teaching materials consisting of colored Cuisenaire rods and charts
such as the sound-color chart and the fidels, which stimulate students to produce
target language words without repeating a teachers model (Larsen-Freeman and
Anderson 2011).
Generating variation: Complexity theory
One role of repetition that I have not seen discussed in the SLL/SLT/Language
Teaching Methods literature, and one to which I devote the remainder of this
article, is that of generating variation. From a complexity theory perspective, one
that I have been drawn to for many years (Larsen-Freeman 1997), language is a
dynamic system, one in which complexity is emergent. Language grows andorganizes itself from the bottom up in an organic way, through use. It is in the pro-
-
8/13/2019 Repetition in Language Teaching and Learning
8/17
Diane Larsen-Freeman
and alter language patterns. Complexity theorists would attribute the creation,
reproduction, and alteration of patterns not so much to repetition as they do to
recursion, and, especially, to iteration. Let me explain.
Repetition suggests striving for identical performance. It is no wonder, then,that repetition was widely practiced in audiolingualism, where congruous verbal
behavior was assumed to result from the formation of verbal habits. Doll (1993:
178) distinguishes such repetition from recursion: Repetition is designed to
improve set performance . . . Its frame is closed. Recursion aims at developing
competence . . . Its frame is open. Recursion is a transformative process. It
involves a form of repetition, but it does so as applied to some procedure. Anna
Parker (2006: 240) put it this way: recursion involves embedding the action
within another instance of itself.
The term recursion has, of course, been used most oen with linguistic rules
to refer to the property of rules in which one of the steps in applying the rule is a
procedure that has been defined earlier. In other words, one of the steps of a given
procedure repeats a prior procedure. Much more could be said about both repeti-
tion (behavior) and recursion (the property of a system or procedure), but it is
actually a third term, iteration, which merits closer attention in complexity t heory.
It might be said that iteration subsumes repetition and recursion by making
explicit the claim that the act of repeating results in a change to a procedure or
system. In other words, what results from iteration is a mutable state. In a com-plex system, what results from one iteration is used as the starting point for the
next iteration. Thus, the starting point or initial condition is always different.
When applied to language, an understanding of complex systems suggests
that the present level of complexity is critically dependent on what preceded it. At
the moment at which language is used, humans so assemble (meaningful)
language patterns to meet their specific present goals (Smith and Thelen 1993).
Through repeated so assemblies, complex systems iterate. By so doing, complex
systems are built up autopoietically, constructed within individuals as idiolects
and through interchanges between individuals within speech communities as
dialects.
It has long been recognized that there can be no exact repetition, which is
why I put exact in quotation marks earlier. Certainly this is true for meaning. As
Derrida (1976) pointed out years ago when discussing iteration, each time a word
or phrase is repeated, its meaning is altered. The audience reinterprets the mean-
ing of the word or phrase; thus, it participates in making meaning of the utter-
While I think Anna Parkers definition of recursion is helpful, I do not agree with her that
iteration simply involves repeating an action or an object an arbitrary number of times
-
8/13/2019 Repetition in Language Teaching and Learning
9/17
Repetition in language teaching and learning
ance (Tannen 1987: 576). Furthermore, even when the same sequence of words is
used, the words take on a different meaning in light of what has been said or done
before (Cook 2000: 29). This is what complexity theorists mean when they say
that the initial condition is always different.It is not only an alteration in meaning that is made, however. Johnstone
(1987) notes that the difference could be linguistic, such as in the reduction that
comes with chunking, or it could be a contextual difference, such as when the
same thing is said in different situations. For instance, Eisner and Macqueen
(2006) have shown how context influences the pronunciation of phonemes. Of
course, phoneticians have long known that the same word is pronounced differ-
ently by the same person with every use (Milroy and Milroy 1999).
What is the importance of this? What would be the evolutionary advantage to
someone of not repeating the same sound or word the same way twice? Well, first
of all, not repeating the same word the same way creates options in our language
resources that give us choices for how we want to make meaning, how we want to
position ourselves, and how we want to express our identity or identities. In other
words, iteration introduces heterogeneity. It opens up spaces. Iteration does not
preserve the fidelity of the original, but only approximates it. In so doing, it
includes in itself alterity (Deleuze 2004).
. . . a language is not a single homogeneous construct to be acquired; rather, a complexsystems 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 con-
text. (Larsen-Freeman and Cameron 2008: 116)
Awareness of difference also allows us to interpret the speech of others. Eisner
and McQueen (2006) note that when we listen to others speaking, we need to
adjust our interpretation of their differences in articulation. Interestingly, they
claim that the variability in the speech signal that is introduced by speaker idio-
syncrasies continues to be problematic for automatic speech recognizers, but isusually handled with remarkable ease by the human perceptual system (2006:
1950). This is so because perceptual representations of phonemes are flexible and
adapt rapidly to accommodate idiosyncratic articulation in the speech of a par-
ticular speaker.
In addition to creating options for speakers, and for allowing them to inter-
pret the speech cues of others, variation gives speakers the resources to adapt
Even at a neurological level, change occurs with stimulus repetition. Recent fMRI
investigations of the neural correlates of stimulus repetition have generally found that the total
amount of activation associated with a repeated stimulus is smaller than that for a non-
-
8/13/2019 Repetition in Language Teaching and Learning
10/17
Diane Larsen-Freeman
their speech to that of others either through convergence or to distance them-
selves through divergence. For instance, Pardo (2006) has shown that phonetic
convergence takes place in between-talker repetitions of the same lexical items
produced by partners in a conversational taskReturning to the classroom, then, it seems that the value in an activity that
calls for repetition lies in the recognition that giving learners an opportunity to
do something a little bit different each time they engage in a (repeated) particular
activity is good training not only for creating and perceiving alterity, but also for
being able to make the adaptations learners need when faced with a different
context or task (Larsen-Freeman, forthcoming).
This is what Macqueens research has shown. Applying a complexity theory
perspective to analyzing students writing in a second language, Macqueen
(2009) highlights the process of adaptive imitation. In the gradual process of
developing the means of participation in an English-speaking speech community,
the participants adapted lexiogrammatical patterns in their writing to suit their
changing goals.
Indeed, I have come to believe that what we should be teaching is not only
language, but also the process of adaptation: Teaching students to take what they
know and to mold it to a new context for a present purpose. A subset of complex
systems is referred to as complex adaptive systems (Ellis and Larsen-Freeman
2009). What this means is that such systems are capable of adapting, improv-ing their condition in relationship to their environment. As applied to language,
Larsen-Freeman and Cameron have put it this way:
Embodied learners so assemble their language resources interacting with a changing
environment. As they do so, their language resources change. Learning is not the taking in
of linguistic forms by learners, but the constant adaptation and enactment of language-
using patterns in the service of meaning-making in response to the affordances that emerge
in a dynamic communicative situation. (Larsen-Freeman and Cameron 2008: 158)
In other words, what is learned through iteration are not simply meaningful pat-
terns, but the process of shaping them appropriately to fit the present context.
As van Lier (2000: 246) states . . . learning is construed as the development of
increasing effective ways of dealing with the world and its meanings.
It is important to note that although students need to adapt their language
resources in order to meet their communicative needs, they should not be con-
strained by that which has been realized. It is well known that language is con-
stantly evolving in a speech community as new forms are created in order to makenew meaning. In other words, through the normal use of language, humans
-
8/13/2019 Repetition in Language Teaching and Learning
11/17
Repetition in language teaching and learning
Now, readers may be thinking I am making too much of the slight (perhaps
undetectable) differences between saying a word once and then again. However,
complexity theorists also believe that what happens at one level of scale in a
nested cone of scales is played out at other levels as well. Indeed, these barelyperceptible differences which generate heterogeneity at a local immediate level
propagate change in a speech community, thus contributing to diachronic lan-
guage evolution. In his book on English as a lingua franca, Robin Walker (2009)
explains that individual variation that leads to communal variation is an entirely
natural phenomenon, and a basic fact of language life. This is so much the case
that it is easy to forget that without variation there would be no such thing as the
Englishes that exist today. Indeed, without variation languages would be unable
to serve speakers needs: Heterogeneity is . . . necessary to satisfy the linguistic
demands of everyday life (Labov 1982: 17).
In this way, language variation is constructed both within the individual and
within the speech community. As Caspi (2010) argued persuasively, micro-level
changes in word representations in individual minds lead to macro-level changes
in the abstract, shared entity of language. Gleick captured this bridging dynamic
of complex systems when he wrote The act of playing the game has a way of
changing the rules (Gleick 1987: 24). Thus, when we entertain a view of language
as a complex adaptive system, we recognize that every use of language changes
the language resources of the learner/user, and the changed resources are thenpotentially available for the user and members of the speech community (Larsen-
Freeman and Cameron 2008).
I should perhaps interject a notion of caution here. Although variation is nec-
essary for language change, not all variation leads to change. This is why I wrote
potentially available for the user and members of the speech community. Fur-
thermore, not all individuals display equal amounts of variation in language use.
In a study discussed by Sonderegger (2012) of the speech of 12 speakers, three
variables voice-onset time, vowel formants, and t/d deletion were tracked over
the course of three months. From recordings that were made, totalling 8 hours of
speech from the 12 speakers, what was found was that different speakers show
different dynamics for one or more of these variables: Some do not change over
time, others change in the short term, but not in the long-term, and still others
show short-term fluctuations that lead to long-term change.
The most common pattern is for a speakers use of a variable to fluctuate between recording
sessions on different days, in part due to shis in the topic of conversation. We also tenta-
tively find effects of social interaction on observed dynamics, and individual differences in
plasticity across all variables. Our findings suggest that short-term shis in individuals
speech are common, but only accumulate into longer-term change for some speakers.
-
8/13/2019 Repetition in Language Teaching and Learning
12/17
Diane Larsen-Freeman
It may seem to readers that I have strayed far from my focus on a students repeat-
ing aer a teacher in the classroom. But recall I asked what a student could be
learning from repetition. I now have a provisional answer to add to the others that
I have surveyed: The student is generating variation and is learning to accommo-date to the variable performance of others. In addition, the learner is learning to
adapt his or her language resources to new situations and in pursuit of new goals.
It also may seem that I am making too much of the distinction between itera-
tion and repetition. Indeed, it would be odd to hear a teacher say Iterate aer
me, now! And while I would not expect this to occur, nor particularly encourage
it, I do think that the distinction has something important to contribute to our
understanding of how learning transpires: Learning takes place not by repeating
forms of a closed, static system, but by meaningfully playing the game while
revisiting the same territory again and again.
Of course, I can hypothesize about the value of repetition all I want. Consult-
ing learners is what keeps one humble or at least more so than what would
ordinarily transpire. I have previously cited the learner Elsa in this regard (Larsen-
Freeman 2003). While it is popular to criticize repetition drills in the classroom,
Elsa explains how she makes them work for her.
Learning the skill aspects of language has never been boring to me. I suppose one could
argue that I was so motivated to learn Portuguese that the meaningfulness was in my per-
sonal goal, and so the repetitive drills didnt bother me. In fact, I rather liked them. It may
also be that one cant learn everything one needs in a language class meaningfully. I do
remember making the drills more interesting by changing the names of the people in the
drills to names of people I knew. When it did get tedious, Id play around with the meaning.
Another reason I liked the ALM aspect of the practice was that it was so controlled I was able
to focus on one thing at a time and master it (form and pronunciation) before I had to use it.
What ultimately matters, then, is what learners do with the repetition, not what
we think it does.
Conclusion
In this article, I began by reviewing the putative contributions of repetition to
language teaching and learning. Culling them from the second language learning
and teaching literature, I compiled a list that included learning by rote, enhanc-
ing memory, automatizing/faster access, and freeing up processing space. I also
This is perhaps reminiscent of Wittgensteins (1953/2001) language games, consisting of
-
8/13/2019 Repetition in Language Teaching and Learning
13/17
Repetition in language teaching and learning
noted that certain language teaching methodologists encourage repetition;
others admonish teachers to avoid it. From a complexity theory perspective, I
argued that there is an innovative role for repetition if we do not think in terms of
exact copying, but rather in terms of iteration. Iteration introduces heterogeneity it generates variability. Thus, variability arises from inexact replication. Itera-
tion is always approximative and this holds for any user of the language not
only for those individuals we call learners. Aer all, the divide between learner
and user is not so clear-cut from this perspective.
It is through iteration that we create options that give us choice in how we
make meaning, position ourselves in the world as we would want, understand
the differences which we encounter in others, and adapt to a changing context.
This is what occurs in language change and evolution, as well. Without variabil-
ity, there can be no new forms from which to select. New forms, in turn, support
flexible and adaptive behaviour.
Such a view promotes teaching that engages students in practice that is
meaningfully iterative. Although teachers may say Repeat aer me, such prac-
tice is less about eliciting exact repetition and more about iteration. I have also
proposed that students need to learn to adjust their perception of others and to
adapt their language resources to changing task or activity demands. Such prac-
tice is not about rehearsal, but rather about learning to adapt to new situations.
Finally, iteration that generates variation, which provides for choice, allowsfor adjustment, and contributes to adaptation, is a critical component not only of
learning in the classroom, but also of mobilizing learning beyond it. Aer all,
second language development is not a matter of conformity to uniformity (Larsen-
Freeman 2003), and language is not fixed, but is rather a dynamic system (Larsen-
Freeman 1997). Varela, Thompson, and Rosch (1991: 144) put it so well: Knowing
how to negotiate our way through a world that is not fixed and pregiven, but that
is continually shaped by the types of actions in which we engage is a challenge
of being human.
References
Andrade, J. & A.D. Baddeley. 2011. The contribution of phonological short-term memory to
artificial grammar learning. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 64. 960974.
Arevart, S. & P. Nation. 1991. Fluency improvement in a second language. RELC Journal22(1).
8494.
Baddeley, A.D. 1986. Working memory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Baddeley, A. 2007. Working memory, thought and action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
-
8/13/2019 Repetition in Language Teaching and Learning
14/17
Diane Larsen-Freeman
Becker, A.L. 1984. The linguistics of particularity: Interpreting superordination in a Javanese
text. Berkeley Linguistics Society10. 425436.
Biggs, J. 1999. Are Chinese learners better than Western learners? Available: http://www.cityu.
edu.hk/celt/r-usefulpub-chineselearnershtml .
Bygate, M. 2001. Effects of task repetition on the structure and control of oral language. In M.
Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language
learning, teaching, and testing, 2348. New York: Longman.
Calleri, C. 1996. Chinese children learning Italian: Allo-repetition forms and functions in
semi-guided dialogues. In C. Bazzanella (ed.), Repetition in dialogue, 2938. Tbingen,
Germany: Niemeyer.
Caspi, T. 2010. A dynamic perspective on second language acquisition. Doctoral dissertation,
University of Groningen.
Cook, G. 1994. Repetition and learning by heart: An aspect of intimate discourse, and its
implications.ELT Journal 48(2). 133141.
Cook, G. 2000. Language play. Language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cook, V.J. 1969. The analogy between first and second language learning. IRALVII(3). 207
216.
Curran, Charles A. 1976. Counseling-learning in second languages. Cliffside Park, NJ:
Counseling-Learning Institutes.
de Guerrero, M. 2005. Inner speech L2: Thinking words in a second language. New York:
Springer.
DeKeyser, R. (ed.). 2007. Practice in a second language. Perspectives from applied linguistics
and cognitive psychology.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Deleuze, G. 1994. Difference and repetition. New York: Columbia University Press.
Derrida, J. 1976. Of grammatology. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Doll, W. 1993.A post-modern perspective on curriculum. New York: Teachers College.
Duff, P. 2000. Repetition in foreign language classroom interaction. In J. K. Hall & L. S. Verplatse
(eds.), Second and foreign language learning through classroom interaction. 109138.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Eisner, F. & J. M. Macqueen. 2006. Perceptual learning in speech: Stability over time (L). Journal
of the Acoustic Society of America 119(4). 19501953.
Ellis, N. C. 1998. Emergentism, connectionism and Language Learning. Language Learning
48(4). 631664.
Ellis, N.C. & D. Larsen-Freeman (eds.). 2009. Language as a complex adaptive system. Malden,
MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Gairns, R. & S. Redman. 1986. Working with words. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gattegno, C. 1976. The common sense of teaching foreign languages. New York: Educational
Solutions, Inc.
Gleick, J. 1987. Chaos: Making a new science. New York: Penguin Books.
Gorsuch, G. & E. Taguchi. 2010. Developing reading fluency and comprehension using repeated
reading: Evidence from longitudinal student reports. Language TeachingResearch 14(1).
2759.
Johnstone, B. 1987. Introduction: Perspectives on repetition. Text7. 205214.
Johnstone, B. (ed.) 1994. Repetition in discourse: Interdisciplinary perspectives, Vols I & II.
Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Juffs, A. & M. Harrington. 2011. Aspects of working memory in L2 learning. Language Teaching
http://www.cityu.edu.hk/celt/rft-usefulpub-chineselearnershtmlhttp://www.cityu.edu.hk/celt/rft-usefulpub-chineselearnershtmlhttp://www.cityu.edu.hk/celt/rft-usefulpub-chineselearnershtmlhttp://www.cityu.edu.hk/celt/rft-usefulpub-chineselearnershtml -
8/13/2019 Repetition in Language Teaching and Learning
15/17
Repetition in language teaching and learning
Kanagy, R. & K. Igarashi. 1997. Acquisition of pragmatics competence in a Japanese immersion
kindergarten. In L. F. Bouton (ed.), Pragmatics and language learning. Monograph series,
Vol. 8, 243265. Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois, Division of English as an
International Language.
Kappes, J. 2010. Speech imitation in verbal repetition: Evidence from healthy speakers and
from speakers with aphasia. Doctoral dissertation. University of Potsdam.
Kuczaj, S. 1983. Crib speech and language play. New York: Springer Verlag.
Keenan, E. O. 1977. Making it last: Repetition in childrens discourse. In S. Ervin-Tripp & C.
Mitchell-Kernan (eds.), Child discourse, 125139. New York: Academic Press.
Labov, W. 1982. Building on empirical foundations. In W.P. Lehman & Y. Malkiel (eds.),
Perspectives on historical linguistics, 1792. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Lantolf, J. & C. Yez. 2003. Talking yourself into Spanish: Intrapersonal communication and
second language learning. Hispania86. 97109.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (1976). An explanation for the morpheme acquisition order of second
language learners. Language Learning 26(1)1. 12534.
Larsen-Freeman, D. 1997. Chaos/complexity science and second language acquisition.Applied
Linguistics 18(2). 141165.
Larsen-Freeman, D. 2003. Teaching language: From grammar to grammaring. Boston: Heinle/
Cengage.
Larsen-Freeman, D. forthcoming. Complex Systems and technemes. In J. Arnold & T. Murphey
(eds.), Meaningful Action: Earl Stevicks Influence on Language Teaching.Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Larsen-Freeman, D. & M. Anderson. 2011. Techniques and principles in language teaching. 3rd
edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Larsen-Freeman, D. & L. Cameron. 2008. Complex systems and applied linguistics. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Li, Xiuping. 2004. An analysis of Chinese EFL learners beliefs about the role of rote learning in
vocabulary learning strategies. Doctoral dissertation. University of Sunderland.
Lightbown, P. & N. Spada. 2006. How languages are learned. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Long, M. H. 1983. Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of
comprehensible input.Applied Linguistics 4. 126141.
Lyster, R. 1998. Recasts, repetition, and ambiguity in L2 classroom discourse. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition 20. 5181.
Macqueen, S. 2009. The emergence of patterns in second language writing. A sociocognitive
exploration of lexical trails. Doctoral dissertation. University of Melbourne.
McLaughlin, B. 1987. Theories of second-language learning. London: Edward Arnold.
Milroy, J. & L. Milroy. 1999.Authority in language. 3rd edition. New York: Routledge.
Morris, A.L., M.L. Still, & C.L. Caldwell-Harris. 2009. Repetition blindness: An emergent
property of inter-item competition. Cognitive Psychology58. 338375.
Norrick, N. 1987. Functions of repetitions in conversation. Text 7(3). 245264.
Ohta, A. 2001. Second language acquisition processes in the classroom: Learning Japanese.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Pardo, J. 2006. On phonetic convergence during conversational interaction.Journal of the
Acoustic Society of America119(4). 23822393.
Parker, A. R. 2006. Evolving the narrow language faculty: Was recursion the pivotal step? In A.
-
8/13/2019 Repetition in Language Teaching and Learning
16/17
Diane Larsen-Freeman
international conference on language evolution, 239246. Singapore: World Scientific
Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd.
Peck, S. 1977. Language play in child second language acquisition. In C.A. Henning (ed.),
Proceedings ofthe second language research forum, 8593. Los Angeles: University of
California, Los Angeles.
Pallotti, G. 2000. External appropriation as a strategy for participation in intercultural
multiparty conversations. In A. Di Luzio, S. Gnthner, & F. Orletti (eds.), Culture in
communication, 295334. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Rydland, V. & V.G. Aukrust. 2005. Lexical repetition in second language learners peer play
interaction. Language Learning 55(2). 229274.
Sharwood Smith, M. 1993. Input enhancement in instructed SLA: Theoretical bases. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition 15.165179.
Silva, G.V. & D. Santos. 2006. Framing participation through repetition: The case of a
Portuguese learner in different settings. Portuguese Language Journal 1.
Skinner, B.F. 1957. Verbal Behavior. Acton, MA: Copley Publishing Group.
Sonderegger, M. 2012. Longitudinal phonetic and phonological dynamics on reality television.
Lecture delivered at the University of Michigan, February 9.
Smith, L. & E. Thelen (eds.). 1993.A dynamic systems approach to development: Applications.
Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Tannen, D. 1987. Repetition and variation as spoken formulaicity in conversation. Language63.
574605.
Van den Branden, K. 2007. Second language education: Practice in perfect learning conditions?
In R. DeKeyser (ed.), Practice in a second language, 161180. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
van Lier, L. 2000. From input to affordances. In J. Lantolf (ed.), Sociocultural theory and second
language learning,245259. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Varela, F., E. Thompson, & E. Rosch. 1991. The embodied mind: Cognitive science and human
experience. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. 1962. Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Walker, R. 2009. Teaching the pronunciation of English as a lingua franca. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Weir, R. 1962. Language in the crib. The Hague: Mouton.
Wen, Zhisheng. (forthcoming). Working memory and second language learning. Bristol, U.K.:
Multilingual Matters.
Wittgenstein, L. 1953/2001. Philosophical investigations. Oxford: Blackwell.
Bionote
Diane Larsen-Freemanis a Professor of Education, Professor of Linguistics, and
Research Scientist (English Language Institute) at the University of Michigan,
USA. She is also a Faculty Associate of the Center for the Study of Complex
Systems, University of Michigan.
-
8/13/2019 Repetition in Language Teaching and Learning
17/17
Copyright of Applied Linguistics Review is the property of De Gruyter and its content may not be copied or
emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.
However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.