How dictogloss can facilitate collocation learning in ELT Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/eltj/article-abstract/73/1/41/5046207 by Stockholms Universitet user on 31 January 2019 Per Snoder and Barry Lee Reynolds This instructional intervention investigated the potential for the text reconstruction task dictogloss to facilitate the learning of English verb–noun collocations, for example ‘carry a risk’. Research has shown that learners have difficulties in using such collocations, but few useful instructional techniques are on offer. Participants in the study were 64 L1 Swedish adolescent learners of English. The effectiveness of two modified versions of the dictogloss was compared in a within-subjects design. This implied that participants in pairs co-reconstructed two texts containing target collocations, where each co-reconstruction was preceded by a specific priming activity to induce learners to process collocations as intact wholes. Results showed that having learners elaborate on the meaning of collocations in a pre-task activity outperformed a form-oriented pre-task activity on all measures, notably for productive knowledge on delayed post-tests. The findings are discussed in relation to previous research and their implications for ELT. Introduction When English L2 learners speak or write, they often notice that combining words the way native speakers do is a challenge. For example, learners whose L1 is Swedish or French easily understand the verb–noun collocation give a speech when encountered in input, but producing it spontaneously is a different matter. This is mainly because in this case the verb give cannot be literally translated from either of the two languages in question, known as L1–L2 incongruence. There is now ample empirical evidence from corpus research that collocations and other types of (semi-) fixed word combinations—termed formulaic sequences (FSs)—are highly frequent in native language use, serving cognitive and social functions (Wray 2002). Hence, it seems logical to assume that L2 learners benefit from knowing FSs in the target language. However, analyses of learner writing have shown that learners at all proficiency levels struggle with the appropriate use of FSs. Lewis (2000) addresses this issue in his book Teaching Collocation and recommends that ELT practitioners encourage learners to independently notice collocations in language they meet outside the classroom. This, he claims, would increase their collocational competence in English. Even if learners are willing to engage in such activities, there are two problems in Lewis’s approach: identifying collocations is difficult for learners and ELT Journal Volume 73/1 January 2019; doi:10.1093/elt/ccy024 41 © The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press; all rights reserved. Advance Access publication June 28, 2018 mere identification is not sufficient for committing collocations to long- term memory (see Boers & Lindstromberg 2009: 19–21 for discussion). We argue in this study that instructional intervention is necessary to solve these problems and set out to investigate whether the collaborative task dictogloss (Wajnryb 1990) can be modified to this end. Background The present study uses Henriksen’s (2013: 30) definition of collocations Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/eltj/article-abstract/73/1/41/5046207 by Stockholms Universitet user on 31 January 2019 Collocation as ‘frequently recurring two-to-three word syntagmatic units which can include both lexical and grammatical words, e.g. verb + noun (pay tribute), adjective + noun (hot spice), preposition + noun (on guard) and adjective + preposition (immune to)’. This definition is relevant for classroom L2 research as it includes collocations that are both common and meaningful, which is not always the case for frequency-based approaches. The study targets English verb–noun collocations for two reasons: (1) they are central for communication as they are highly frequent and convey the gist of messages, and (2) they are problematic for learners, notably in productive use (Henriksen ibid.: 36). Despite many research attempts at finding effective teaching approaches for collocations and other FSs, there are to date few useful guidelines available for ELT practitioners (see Meunier 2012 for review). Dictogloss The dictogloss is a collaborative text reconstruction task for L2 grammar instruction (Wajnryb 1990). As we will argue below, dictogloss can be modified to improve English learners’ knowledge of collocations. The standard dictogloss procedure involves two basic steps1. The teacher first reads a short L2 text aloud several times at normal speed while learners take notes of key words and phrases. Learners then interact in pairs and reconstruct the text in writing based on their notes and what they remember from the reading by the teacher. Dictogloss is thus a type of dictation that crucially does not give learners enough time to copy down the text verbatim. This feature offers opportunities for the co-construction of linguistic knowledge when learners interact, which is argued to facilitate L2 acquisition. For example, Kim (2008) found that the interactive component of dictogloss promoted the learning of single L2 words, as in her study learners who worked in pairs outperformed those who worked individually in post-tests. Furthermore, the dictogloss aligns with three out of four strands2 in Nation’s (2007) recommendation for a well-balanced language course: meaning-focused input, meaning-focused output, and language- focused learning. Nation highlights the contribution of these strands to L2 vocabulary growth, particularly language-focused learning where the same forms are given repeated attention (Nation ibid.: 6–7). Benefit of a modified The standard dictogloss procedure promotes single word learning as dictogloss for words are repeated intensively when the text is read aloud several times. collocation learning However, it does not guarantee that collocations will be kept as intact wholes when learners subsequently reconstruct the text, which is a crucial condition for leaving stable memory traces of collocating words in learners’ minds. To accomplish this, we argue that teacher intervention through a pre-task activity immediately prior to the dictogloss is necessary. The intention is to reinforce the bond between the two words in the collocations through increased frequency of encounters of intact target 42 How dictogloss can facilitate collocation learning in ELT items in line with usage-based theories of language acquisition (Ellis 2003). The type of pre-task activity that is most effective to this end is an area ripe for investigation. A study by Lindstromberg, Eyckmans and Connabeer (2016) compared the effect of a modified version of the dictogloss to the standard dictogloss in helping their ESP learners remember various FSs. They found that the modified version—where target items were displayed to learners in isolation on a separate paper— Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/eltj/article-abstract/73/1/41/5046207 by Stockholms Universitet user on 31 January 2019 outperformed the standard version with no such exposure. We expand on their study by drawing on two theoretical models of L2 input processing in our investigation of the use of dictogloss for collocation learning. The first model is Barcroft’s (2015) Lexical Input Processing theory that favours structural over semantic elaboration of target items for lexical learning. This model is implemented in our study by testing the effect of two types of pre-task activities before the dictogloss proper is performed: one inducing semantic elaboration of target items in the pre- task activity, hereafter the SEM dictogloss, and one inducing structural elaboration, hereafter the STRUC dictogloss. In Barcroft’s research, semantic elaboration refers to activities where learners work with the meaning of target items, for example, rate their pleasantness. In structural elaboration, learners work with the form of target items, for example, count the letters they contain (see Barcroft ibid.: 85 for details). However, we opted for other equivalent operationalizations of these two types of elaboration; see ‘The study’ below. The second model is Laufer and Hulstijn’s (2001) Involvement Load Hypothesis, which predicts that L2 vocabulary learning depends on the task learners perform when words are processed: tasks with higher involvement load (IL) outperform tasks with lower IL. IL consists of three components: need, search, and evaluation. For a given task, each component receives a score that, when summed, constitutes its IL index: 0–2 points for need and evaluation, and 0–1 point for search (the highest IL is thus 5 points). The implementation of SEM dictogloss in our study induces higher involvement than the STRUC dictogloss: 3 vs 1 point. Both dictoglosses induce moderate need (1 point) as it is task-induced and not learner-induced. Search is absent (0 points) in both dictoglosses as target items are provided in glossed lists. Evaluation—involving consideration of how a word may be combined with other words—is high (2 points) for SEM dictogloss as it entails writing original sentences and absent (0 points) in STRUC dictogloss as the rhyming activity (see ‘Participants and materials’ below) does not meet any of the requirements for evaluation specified by Laufer and Hulstijn (ibid.: 14–15). Aim and research The present study aims to examine which of the two theoretical models questions for input processing in L2