Band 49, Heft 1

Six adult, second language (L2) English learners were observed over a period of one year to explore the development of lexical bundles (i.e., bigrams) in naturally produced, oral English. Total bigrams produced by the L2 learners over the year of observation that were shared with native speakers were compared using a frequency index to explore L2 learners' accuracy of use. The results of the study support the notion that bigram accuracy increases as a function of time spent learning English. This finding lends credence to the notion that the production of lexical bundles by L2 learners begins to develop in parallel with the frequency of lexical bundles used by native speakers. Like native speakers, L2 learners also begin to produce lexical bundles that serve pragmatic and syntactic functions. The study provides evidence for lexical growth in both form and function and strengthens notions about deeper levels of L2 lexical knowledge.

This study sought to explore differences in strategy use across three oral communication tasks. Twenty-two intermediate level university students carried out three tasks in pairs at three different time periods. After each task, which varied in terms of cognitive, interactional and learner factors (Robinson, International Review of Applied Linguistics 43: 1–32, 2005), they filled in a 37-item strategy questionnaire. Factor analysis grouped strategies into four categories: ‘evaluating and affective’, ‘conversation-flow maintenance’, ‘compensation’ and ‘planning and overmonitoring’. Significant differences were only found for compensation strategies and a few individual strategies across the three tasks. In a qualitative analysis of four case studies, reported strategy use on the questionnaires was compared to strategy use observed in the task performances and stimulated recall sessions. 86% of the strategies reported were confirmed in this way. As for the extent of strategy use reported on the questionnaires, there were consistencies (41%) and discrepancies (38%) with the qualitative data, as well as 21% strategies which were not confirmed. Implications for both research and pedagogy are discussed in light of the results.

Method-in-use (Nunn, Describing classroom interaction in intercultural curricular research and development, University of Reading, 1996, International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 37: 23–42, 1999) is a description of the method actually being enacted through classroom interaction in a particular context. The description is primarily a tool for improving classroom teaching and learning, first by establishing what is in place and then by considering what could be adjusted to improve learning. The description emphasizes the use of discourse to enhance learning, considering (1) teachers' and students' roles in classroom interaction, (2) types of discourse input and creation (3) types of holistic pedagogical activities and (4) types of discourse outcomes. As a situated concept, method-in-use combines well with classroom observation when the latter has the aim not of evaluation but of improving second language acquisition in context. What is being enacted in the classroom with and through language is then at the centre of a renewal process. The exploitation of the original fourpart classroom model for deriving a teacher's method-in-use is briefly exemplified using observation data from two contexts before considering observation data from a third context, the Iran Language Institute in Tehran, in more detail. Once an adequate description has been achieved providing situated local knowledge, improvement of the local situation can be attempted in relation to de-contextualized conceptual knowledge of the method concept (Richards and Rogers, Approaches and methods in language teaching, Cambridge University Press, 1986) or SLA principles (Ellis, Asian EFL Journal 7: 9–24, 2005).