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


2/17


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


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


4/17


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


5/17


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


6/17


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


7/17


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-


8/17


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


9/17


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-


10/17


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


11/17


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.


12/17


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


13/17


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.


14/17


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


15/17


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.


16/17


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.


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.

Repetition in Language Teaching and Learning

Documents

Transcript of Repetition in Language Teaching and Learning