The purpose of this article is to examine both the process and product of vocabulary learning in a task-based instructional context. The article reports a study that investigated the acquisition of two dimensional adjectives (‘big’ and ‘small’) by six-year-old Japanese children who were complete beginners. It tracked the ‘learning behaviours’ that occurred in the classroom interactions involving the use of these adjectives in nine task-based lessons to show how these behaviours developed over time. It also collected test data to establish whether the learners had developed the receptive and productive knowledge required for the independent use of two adjectives. In this way, the study shows how second language (L2) learning evolves through interaction by exploring the relationships between the learners’ different learning behaviours and the differences in their test performance. The main finding was that differences in the success of the individual learners in acquiring productive control over the dimensional adjectives – as shown in the tests – was directly traceable to their learning behaviours in the task-based interactions.
BygateM.SamudaV. (2005). Integrative planning through the use of task-repetition. In EllisR. (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 37–74). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
2.
ClarkE.V. (1973). ‘What’s in a word? On the child’s acquisition of semantics in his first language. In MooreT.E. (Ed.), Cognitive development and the acquisition of language (pp. 65–110). New York: Academic Press.
3.
ClarkE.V. (1995). The lexicon in acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
4.
CookG. (1997). Language play, language learning. ELT Journal, 51, 224–231.
DonatoR. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In LantolfJ.AppelG. (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 33–56). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
7.
EllisN. (2002). Frequency effects in language processing: A review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 143–188.
8.
EllisR. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
9.
EllisR. (2010). Theoretical pluralism in SLA: Is there a way forward. In SeedhouseP.WalshS.JenksC. (Eds.), Conceptualising ‘learning’ in applied linguistics (pp. 23–51). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
10.
EllisR.TanakaY.YamazakiA. (1994). Classroom interaction, comprehension, and the acquisition of L2 word meanings. Language Learning, 44, 449–491.
11.
FerrierL. (1978). Some observations of error in context. In WatersonN.SnowC. (Eds.), The development of communication (pp. 301–309). New York: Wiley & Sons.
12.
GentnerD. (1978).What looks like a jiggy but acts like a zimbo? A study of early word meaning using artificial objects. Papers and Reports on Child Language Development, 15, 1–6.
13.
HatchE. (1978). Discourse analysis and second language acquisition. In HatchE. (Ed.), Second language acquisition (pp. 402–435). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
14.
JiangN. (2000). Lexical representation and development in a second language. Applied Linguistics, 21, 47–77.
15.
LantolfJ. (1997). The function of language play in the acquisition of L2 Spanish. In Pérez-LerouxA.GlassW.R. (Eds.), Contemporary perspectives on the acquisition of Spanish (pp. 3–24). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
16.
LantolfJ.P. (2000). Second language learning as a mediated process. Language Teaching, 33, 79–96.
17.
Larsen-FreemanD. (2007). Reflecting on the cognitive social debate in second language acquisition. The Modern Language Journal, 91, 773–787.
18.
Larsen-FreemanD. (2011). A complexity approach to second language development/acquisition. In AtkinsonD. (Ed.), Alternative approaches to SLA (pp. 24–39). New York: Routledge.
19.
LongM.H. (1981). Input, interaction and second language acquisition. In WinitzH. (Ed.), Native language and foreign language acquisition (pp. 259–278). New York: Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 379.
20.
LongM.H. (1996). The role of linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In RitchieW.C.BhatiaT.K. (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–468).San Diego: Academic Press.
21.
MackeyA. (1999). Input, interaction, and second language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 557–587.
22.
MarkeeN. (2008). Toward a learning behaviour tracking methodology for CA-for-SLA. Applied Linguistics, 29, 404–427.
23.
MarkeeN. (2011). Doing, and justifying doing, avoidance. Journal or Pragmatics, 43, 602–615.
24.
MarkeeN.KunitzS. (2013). Doing planning and task performance in second language acquisition: An ethnomethodological respecification. Language Learning, 63, 629–664.
25.
NassajiH.SwainM. (2000). A Vygotskian perspective on corrective feedback in L2: The effect of random versus negotiated help in the learning of English articles. Language Awareness, 9, 34–51.
26.
OhtaA.S. (2001). Second language acquisition processes in the classroom: Learning Japanese. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
27.
RyallsB.O. (2000). Dimensional adjectives: Factors affecting children’s ability to compare objects using novel words. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 76, 26–49.
28.
SchmidtR. (2001). Attention. In RobinsonP. (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
29.
SfardA. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational Researcher, 27, 4–13.
30.
ShintaniN. (2011). Task-based language teaching versus traditional production-based instruction: Do they result in different classroom processes?University of Sydney Papers in TESOL, 6, 1–24.
31.
ShintaniN. (2013). The effect of focus on form and focus on forms instruction on the acquisition of productive knowledge of L2 vocabulary by young beginning-level learners. TESOL Quarterly, 47, 36–62.
32.
SwainM. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In LantolfJ.P. (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 97–114). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
33.
SwainM.LapkinS.KnouziI.SuzukiW.BrooksL. (2009). Languaging: University students learn the grammatical concept of voice in French. Modern Language Journal, 93, 5–29.
34.
TomaselloM. (2000). First steps toward a usage based theory of language acquisition. Cognitive Linguistics, 11, 61–82.
35.
TribushininaE. (2008). Cognitive reference points: semantics beyond the prototypes in adjectives of space and colour. Leiden: Proefschrift Universiteit Leiden.
36.
VygotskyL.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
