Cover not available
Article published In:
ITL - International Journal of Applied Linguistics
Vol. 169:2 (2018) ► pp.293–320

Structural alignment in L2 task-based interaction

 | Manchester Metropolitan University, England
 | Concordia University, Canada
 | Concordia University, Canada
This study investigated L2 structural alignment, the tendency for interlocutors to re-use a syntactic structure present in recent discourse, focusing on two information-gap interactive tasks. Thirty-four university students from diverse language backgrounds, recruited from different academic programs at a Canadian English-medium university, carried out the two information-gap interactive tasks in dyads. Interaction data were transcribed and coded for instances of structural alignment and the alignment’s characteristics in terms of structure type and accuracy. Results indicated that structural alignment occurred in L2 task-based interaction generated by both tasks. This structural repetition was linked to an improved accuracy of subsequent language production. Furthermore, the two tasks were associated with different structures that were converged on, and with varying degrees of structural alignment. These findings are discussed in terms of effects of task features on structural alignment, and the role of structural alignment in subsequent language production.
Keywords: structural alignment, language production, task features, and task-based interaction
Article outline
  • Introduction
    • Structural alignment in task-based interaction
    • Structural alignment and task features
  • The current study
  • Method
    • Participants
    • Materials and procedure
    • Coding
    • Analysis
  • Results
    • Structural alignment across tasks
    • Structural alignment and production accuracy
  • Discussion
    • Task differences in structural alignment
    • Relationship between structural alignment and production accuracy
    • Limitations
  • Conclusion
  • References
Published online: 13 November 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/itl.17021.dao
References (59)
References
Anderson, A. H., Bader, M., Bard, E. G., Boyle, E., Doherty, G., Garrod, S., Isard, S., Kowtko, J., McAllister, J., Miller, J., Sotillo, C., Thompson, H. S., & Weinert, R. (1991). The HCRC map task corpus. Language and Speech, 341, 351–366. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bock, J. K. (1986). Syntactic persistence in language production. Cognitive Psychology, 181, 355–387. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bock, J. K., & Griffin, Z. M. (2000). The persistence of structural priming: Transient activation or implicit learning? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 1291, 177–192. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Branigan, H., Pickering, M., & Cleland, A. (2000). Syntactic coordination in dialogue. Cognition, 751, 13–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Branigan, H., Pickering, M., Person, J., & McLean, J. (2010). Linguistic alignment between people and computers. Journal of Pragmatics, 421, 2355–2368. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chang, F., Dell, G. S., Bock, J. K., & Griffin, Z. M. (2000). Structural priming as implicit learning: A comparison of models of sentence production. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 291, 217–229. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, H. (1992). Arenas of language use. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Colina, A. A. & Garcia-Mayo, M. P. (2007). Attention to form across collaborative tasks by low-proficiency learners in an EFL setting. In M. P. Garcia-Mayo (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning, (pp. 91–116). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Collentine, J., & Collentine, K. (2013). A corpus approach to studying structural convergence in task-based Spanish L2 interactions. In K. McDonough & A. Mackey (eds.), Second language interaction in diverse educational contexts (pp. 167–188). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Costa, A., Pickering, M. J. & Sorace, A. (2008). Alignment in second language dialogue. Language and Cognitive Process, 23(4), 528–556. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dao, P., & McDonough, K. (2017). The effect of task role on Vietnamese EFL learners’ collaboration in mixed proficiency dyads. System, 651, 15–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dao, P., Iwashita, N., & Gatbonton, E. (2017). Learner attention to form in ACCESS task-based interaction. Language Teaching Research, 21(4), 454–479. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Foster, P. & Skehan, P. (1996). The influence of planning and task type on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18 (3), 299–323. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garrod, S., & Pickering, M. J. (2009). Joint action, interactive alignment, and dialog. Topics in Cognitive Science, 11, 292–304. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gass, S. (1997). Input, interaction, and second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
(2006). Construction at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gries, S. (2005). Syntactic priming: A corpus-based approach. Journal of psycholinguistic research, 341, 365–399. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jiang, L., & Huang, K. (2015). The efficacy of structural priming on the acquisition of double object construction by Chinese EFL learners. Higher Education Studies, 51, 38–49. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kim, M., Horton, W., & Bradlow, A. (2010). Phonetic convergence in spontaneous conversation as a function of interlocutor language distance. Laboratory Phonology, 21, 125–156.Google Scholar
Kim, Y. (2013). Promoting attention to form through task repetition in a Korean EFL context. In: K. McDonough, & A. Mackey (Eds.). Second language interaction in diverse educational context (pp. 3–24). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kim, Y., & McDonough, K. (2008). The effect of interlocutor proficiency on the collaborative dialogue between Korean as a second language learners. Language Teaching Research, 12, (2), 211–234. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lambert, C., Philp, J. & Nakamura, S. (2017). Learner-generated content and engagement in second language task performance. Language Teaching Research, 211, 665–680. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levkina, M., & Gilabert, R. (2012). The effects of cognitive task complexity on L2 oral production. In A. Housen, F. Kuiken, I. Vedder (Eds.), Dimensions of performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA, (pp. 171–198). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Ed.), Handbook of research on language acquisition (pp. 413–468). New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Mackey, A. (2007). Interaction as practice. In R. DeKeyser (Ed.), Practice in second language learning. Perspective from linguistics and psychology (pp. 85–110). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(2012). Input, interaction and corrective feedback in L2 learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mackey, A., & Gass, S. (2006). Introduction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 281, 169–178. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McDonough (2014). Using structural priming tasks in an EAP context. Contact, 401, 51–67.Google Scholar
McDonough, K. (2006). Interaction and syntactic priming: English L2 speakers’ production of dative constructions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 281, 179–207. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011). Eliciting wh-questions through collaborative syntactic priming activities during peer interaction. In P. Trofimovich & K. McDonough (Eds.), Applying priming methods to L2 learning, teaching, and research: Insights from psycholinguistics (pp. 131–151). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McDonough, K., & Chaikitmongkol, W. (2010). Collaborative syntactic priming activities and EFL learners’ production of wh-questions. Canadian Modern Language Review, 661, 817–841. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McDonough, K., & Kim, Y. (2009). Syntactic priming, type frequency, and EFL learners’ production of wh-questions. The Modern Language Journal, 931, 386–398. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McDonough, K., & Mackey, A. (2008). Syntactic priming and ESL question development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 301, 31–47. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McDonough, K., Neumann, H., & Trofimovich, P. (2015). Eliciting production of L2 target structures through priming activities. Canadian Modern Language Review, 71(1), 75–95.Google Scholar
Michel, M., & Smith, B. (2017). Measuring lexical alignment during L2 chat interaction: An eye-tracking study. In S. M. Gass, P. Spinner, & J. Behney (eds.), Salience in second language acquisition, (pp. 246–266). New Yorkk, NY: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nuevo, A., Adams, R. & Ross-Feldman, R. (2011). Task complexity, modified output, and L2 development in learner-learner interaction. In R. Robinsons (Ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the cognition hypothesis of language learning and performance, (pp. 175–202). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ohta, A. S. (2001). Second Language Acquisition Processes in the Classroom: Learning Japanese. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oliver, R. (2002). The patterns of negotiation for meaning in child interactions. Modern Language Journal, 861, 97–111. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Phung, L. (2017). Task preference, affective response, and engagement in L2 use in a US university context. Language Teaching Research, 211, 75–766. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pica, T. (1994). Research on negotiation: what does it reveal about second language learning conditions, processes, and outcomes? Language Learning, 441, 493–527. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Piccardo, E. (2013). Plurilingualism and curriculum design: Toward a synergic vision. TESOL Quarterly, 471, 600–614. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pickering, M. J., & Branigan, H. P. (1998). The representation of verbs: Evidence from syntactic priming in language production. Journal of Memory and Language, 39(4), 633–651. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pickering, M. & Ferreira. (2008). Structural priming: A critical review. Psychological Bulletin, 134(3), 427–459. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pickering, M. J., & Garrod, S. (2004). Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 271, 169–225. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013). An integrated theory of language production and comprehension. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 361, 329–392. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reitter, D., & Moore, J. D. (2014). Alignment and task success in spoken dialogue. Journal of Memory and Language, 761, 29–46. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Savage, C., Lieven, E., Theakston, A., & Tomasello, M. (2003). Testing the abstractness of children’s linguistic representations: Lexical and structural priming of syntactic constructions in young children. Developmental Science, 61, 557–567. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2006). Structural priming as implicit learning in language acquisition: The persistence of lexical and structural priming in 4-year-olds. Language Learning and Development, 21, 27–49. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shin, J., & Christianson, K. (2012). Structural priming and second language learning. Language Learning, 63(3), 931–964. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smith, M., & Wheeldon, L. (2001). Syntactic pirming in spoken sentence production: An online study. Cognition, 78(2), 123–164. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Storch, N. (2001). How collaborative is pair work? ESL tertiary students composing in pairs. Language Teaching Research, 51, 29–53. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Ed.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of H. G. Widdowson (pp. 125–144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 471–484). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Trofimovich, P., McDonough, K., & Neumann, H. (2013). Using collaborative tasks to elicit auditory and structural priming. TESOL Quarterly, 47(1), 177–186. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trofimovich, P., & Kennedy, S. (2014). Interactive alignment between bilingual interlocutors: Evidence from two information-exchange tasks. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 17(4), 822–836. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Engen, K., Baese-Berk, M., Baker, R., Kim, M. & Bradlow, A. (2010). The Wildcat corpus of native and foreign-accented English: Communicative efficiency across conversational dyads with varying language alignment profiles. Language & Speech, 531, 510–540. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Watanabe, Y., & Swain, M. (2007). Effects of proficiency differences and patterns of pair interaction on second language learning: collaborative dialogue between adult ESL learners. Language Teaching Research, 111, 121–142. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yule, G. & Macdonald, D. (1990). Resolving referential conflict in L2 interaction: The effect of proficiency and interactive role. Language Learning 401, 539–556. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (12)

Cited by 12 other publications

Zhang, Huan
2025. Effect of Interaction and Alignment of Continuation Task in Chinese as a Second Language Writing. Journal of Language, Identity & Education 24:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Miao, Haiyan & Chuming Wang
2024. A Revisit to Recast Efficacy in L2 Learning: An Alignment Perspective. International Journal of Applied Linguistics DOI logo
Kim, YouJin & Marije Michel
2023. Linguistic alignment in second language acquisition: A methodological review. System 115 ► pp. 103007 ff. DOI logo
Mifka-Profozic, Nadia
2023. Interactive Alignment in L2 Learning: The Link between Social Interaction and Psycholinguistic Phenomena. Education Sciences 13:8 ► pp. 792 ff. DOI logo
Rodriguez-Cuadrado, Sara & Carlos Romero Rivas
2023. Effects of foreign-accented speech on language comprehension processes and social cognition*. In Bilingualism through the Prism of Psycholinguistics [Bilingual Processing and Acquisition, 17], ► pp. 236 ff. DOI logo
Michel, Marije, Christine Appel & Saioa Cipitria
2022. Lexical and syntactic alignment during English-Spanish teletandem meetings. System 111 ► pp. 102930 ff. DOI logo
Tekin, Oguzhan, Pavel Trofimovich, Tzu-Hua Chen & Kim McDonough
2022. Alignment in second language speakers’ perceptions of interaction and its relationship to perceived communicative success. System 108 ► pp. 102848 ff. DOI logo
Wang, Min, Qiao Gan & Julie E. Boland
2022. Effect of interactive intensity on lexical alignment and L2 writing quality. System 108 ► pp. 102847 ff. DOI logo
Wang, Chuming & Wei Hong
2021. An Alignment-Based Approach to L2 Learning of Chinese Numeral Classifiers. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics 44:3 ► pp. 335 ff. DOI logo
Wang, Min, Qiao Gan & Julie Boland
2021. L2 Syntactic Alignment in the Reading-Writing Integrated Continuation Task: Evidence From Chinese EFL Learners’ Description of Motion Events. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics 44:3 ► pp. 292 ff. DOI logo
Michel, Marije & Marco Cappellini
2019. Alignment During Synchronous Video Versus Written Chat L2 Interactions: A Methodological Exploration. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 39 ► pp. 189 ff. DOI logo
Michel, Marije & Breffni O'Rourke
2019. What drives alignment during text chat with a peer vs. a tutor? Insights from cued interviews and eye-tracking. System 83 ► pp. 50 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 8 january 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.