Wim Gombert

110 CHAPTER 7 USING TO LEARN APPROACH IN THE NETHERLANDS To enable more target language use in the classroom, a small number of schools in the Netherlands have introduced a “strong” version of CLT in which students are “using the language to learn”, an approach in line with DUB theory. DUB theory is based on a combination of complex dynamic systems theory and usage based linguistic theory (Verspoor, 2017). Both complex dynamic systems theory (Larsen-Freeman, 2007) and usage-based theories have gained ground over the last few decades in the realm of SLA (cf. Cadierno & Eskildson, 2015), mostly via rst language acquisition (Tomasello, 2003). ey have been combined to give rise to DUB theory to emphasize the individual developmental trajectories that show uctuations and variability throughout the language development trajectory (Verspoor, 2017). Even though DUB theory had not been established when CLT approaches emerged in the 1970’s, its principles are very much in line with strong versions of communicative approaches that focus on meaning or form (Long, 2000) and are lexically based (Lewis, 1993; Verspoor & Winitz, 1997). As in Krashen’s theory (Krashen, 1982; Krashen & Terrell, 1983), the foundation of DUB theories of second language development lies in repeated exposure to meaningful and contextualized language in mostly implicit instructional designs. But where Krashen’s main focus (Krashen, 1992) is on the quality of the input (comprehensibility), DUB theories also focus on input frequency, a more quantitative aspect, and on associative learning, re ective of learners using simple learning processes to statistically generalize over masses of input data (Ellis & Wul , 2015), as well as on output and practice. From a DUB perspective, language exposure consists of language items that have a form and meaning, referred to as “constructions” in much of the usage-based literature (cf. Ellis, 2008c). Schmid (2020), in his uni ed model, stresses the fact that pragmatic context (usually multimodal) is essential for entrenchment and conventionalization of constructions to occur. To stress the role of contextualized use, Verspoor (2017) suggests calling conventionalized word sequences “form use meaning mappings” (FUMMs). FUMMs result from a social and pragmatic process of conventionalization of language items and are activated and entrenched in the mind as a function of their (repeated) use (Verspoor, 2017). Both entrenchment and conventionalization are thus dynamic processes shaped by repeated use and exposure (Schmid, 2017). From a pedagogical perspective, language input can be enhanced in such a way that FUMMs are frequently and saliently available to learners. To illustrate the di erence between an SB and a DUB approach, we will take one sentence from a short French narrative (with idiomatic English translation) as an example.