1887
Volume 24, Issue 3
  • ISSN 1384-6655
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9811
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This article reports initial findings from a study that uses written data from second language (L2) learners of English at different proficiency levels (CEFR A1 to C1) in a large-scale investigation of verb-argument construction (VAC) emergence. The findings provide insights into first VACs in L2 learner production, changes in the learners’ VAC repertoire from low to high proficiency levels, and changes in learners’ dominant verb-VAC associations from low to high proficiency levels. The article also addresses the question what role formulaic sequences play in the L2 acquisition of VACs. Data analyses indicate that, from lowest to highest proficiency levels, the VAC repertoire of L2 English learners shows an increase in VAC types, growth in VAC productivity and complexity, and a development from predominantly fixed sequences to more flexible and productive ones. The findings help to expand our understanding of the processes that underlie construction acquisition in an L2 context.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ijcl.00013.roe
2019-08-27
2019-09-17
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Alexopoulou, T., Geertzen, J., Korhonen, A., & Meurers, D.
    (2015) Exploring big educational learner corpora for SLA research: Perspectives on relative clauses. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research, 1(1), 96–129. 10.1075/ijlcr.1.1.04ale
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijlcr.1.1.04ale [Google Scholar]
  2. Allan, L. G.
    (1980) A note on measurement of contingency between two binary variables in judgment tasks. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 15(3), 147–149. 10.3758/BF03334492
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03334492 [Google Scholar]
  3. Altenberg, B., & Granger, S.
    (2001) The grammatical and lexical patterning of MAKE in native and non-native student writing. Applied Linguistics, 22(2), 173–195. 10.1093/applin/22.2.173
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/22.2.173 [Google Scholar]
  4. Ambridge, B., & Lieven, E.
    (2015) A constructivist account of child language acquisition. InB. MacWhinney & W. O’Grady (Eds.), The Handbook of Language Emergence (pp.478–510). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Anthony, L.
    (2014a) AntConc (Version 3.4.2) [Computer Software]. Tokyo: Waseda University. Retrieved fromwww.laurenceanthony.net/software (last accessedJuly 2019).
    [Google Scholar]
  6. (2014b) TagAnt (Version 1.1.0) [Computer Software]. Tokyo: Waseda University. Retrieved fromwww.laurenceanthony.net/software (last accessedJuly 2019).
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Barlow, M.
    (2015) Collocate (Version 2.0) [Computer Software]. Houston, TX: Athelstan.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Behrens, H.
    (2009) Usage-based and emergentist approaches to language acquisition. Linguistics, 47(2), 383–411. 10.1515/LING.2009.014
    https://doi.org/10.1515/LING.2009.014 [Google Scholar]
  9. Bybee, J.
    (2010) Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511750526
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511750526 [Google Scholar]
  10. Chen, D., & Manning, C. D.
    (2014) A fast and accurate dependency parser using neural networks. InProceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) (pp.740–750). Retrieved fromhttps://cs.stanford.edu/~danqi/papers/emnlp2014.pdf (last accessedApril 2019). 10.3115/v1/D14‑1082
    https://doi.org/10.3115/v1/D14-1082 [Google Scholar]
  11. Council of Europe
    Council of Europe (2001) Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Davies, M.
    (2008–) The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA): 560 million words, 1990-present. Available online athttps://www.english-corpora.org/coca/ (last accessedApril 2019).
    [Google Scholar]
  13. de Marneffe, M.-C., & Manning, C. D.
    (2008) Stanford typed dependencies manual (revised for the Stanford Parser v. 3.5.2 in April 2015). Retrieved fromhttps://nlp.stanford.edu/software/dependencies_manual.pdf (last accessedApril 2019).
  14. Díez-Bedmar, M. B.
    (2012) The use of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages to evaluate compositions in the English exam section of the university admissions examination. Revista de Educación, 357, 55–79.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Eeg-Olofsson, M., & Altenberg, B.
    (1994) Discontinuous recurrent word combinations in the London-Lund Corpus. InU. Fries, G. Tottie, & P. Schneider (Eds.), Creating and Using English Language Corpora: Papers from the Fourteenth International Conference on English Language Research on Computerized Corpora (pp.63–77). Amsterdam: Rodopi.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Ellis, N. C.
    (2002) Frequency effects in language processing: A review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(2), 143–188. 10.1017/S0272263102002024
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263102002024 [Google Scholar]
  17. (2003) Constructions, chunking, and connectionism: The emergence of second language structure. InC. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp.63–103). Malden, MA: Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470756492.ch4
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756492.ch4 [Google Scholar]
  18. Ellis, N. C., & Cadierno, T.
    (2009) Constructing a second language. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 7 (Special section), 111–290. 10.1075/arcl.7.05ell
    https://doi.org/10.1075/arcl.7.05ell [Google Scholar]
  19. Ellis, N. C., & Ferreira-Junior, F.
    (2009) Constructions and their acquisition: Islands and the distinctiveness of their occupancy. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 7, 188–221. 10.1075/arcl.7.08ell
    https://doi.org/10.1075/arcl.7.08ell [Google Scholar]
  20. Ellis, N. C., & Larsen-Freeman, D.
    (2009) Language emergence: Implications for applied linguistics – Introduction to the special issue. Applied Linguistics, 27(4), 558–589. 10.1093/applin/aml028
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/aml028 [Google Scholar]
  21. Ellis, N. C., & O’Donnell, M. B.
    (2014) Construction learning as category learning: A cognitive analysis. InT. Herbst, H. J. Schmid & S. Faulhaber (Eds.), Constructions Collocations Patterns (pp.71–97). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Ellis, N. C., O’Donnell, M. B., & Römer, U.
    (2013) Usage-based language: Investigating the latent structures that underpin acquisition. Language Learning, 63(Supp. 1), 25–51. 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2012.00736.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00736.x [Google Scholar]
  23. Ellis, N. C., Römer, U., & O’Donnell, M. B.
    (2016) Usage-based Approaches to Language Acquisition and Processing: Cognitive and Corpus Investigations of Construction Grammar. Malden, MA: Wiley.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Eskildsen, S. W.
    (2009) Constructing another language: Usage-based linguistics in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 30(3), 335–357. 10.1093/applin/amn037
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amn037 [Google Scholar]
  25. (2012) L2 negation constructions at work. Language Learning, 62(2), 335–372. 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2012.00698.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00698.x [Google Scholar]
  26. Eskildsen, S. W., & Cadierno, T.
    (2007) Are recurring multi-word expressions really syntactic freezes? Second language acquisition from the perspective of usage-based linguistics. InM. Nenonen & Niemi, S. (Eds.). Collocations and Idioms 1. Papers from the First Nordic Conference on Syntactic Freezes (pp.86–99). Joensuu: Joensuu University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Eskildsen, S. W., Cadierno, T., & Li, P.
    (2015) On the development of motion constructions in four learners of L2 English. InT. Cadierno & S. W. Eskildsen (Eds.), Usage-based Perspectives on Second Language Learning (pp.207–232). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Gass, S., & Selinker, L.
    (Eds.) (1983) Language Transfer in Language Learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Geertzen, J., Alexopoulou, T., & A. Korhonen
    (2013) Automatic linguistic annotation of large scale L2 databases: The EF-Cambridge Open Language Database (EFCAMDAT). InSelected Proceedings of the 31st Second Language Research Forum (SLRF) (pp.240–254). Carnegie Mellon University: Cascadilla Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Goldberg, A. E.
    (1995) Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. (2003) Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Science, 7, 219–224. 10.1016/S1364‑6613(03)00080‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(03)00080-9 [Google Scholar]
  32. (2006) Constructions at Work. The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Goldberg, A. E., Casenhiser, D. M., & Sethuraman, N.
    (2004) Learning argument structure generalizations. Cognitive Linguistics, 15(3), 289–316. 10.1515/cogl.2004.011
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2004.011 [Google Scholar]
  34. Gries, S. T. & Ellis, N. C.
    (2015) Statistical measures for usage-based linguistics. Language Learning, 65(S1), 228–255. 10.1111/lang.12119
    https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12119 [Google Scholar]
  35. Gries, S. T., & Stefanowitsch, A.
    (2004) Extending collostructional analysis: A corpus-based perspective on alternations. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 9(1), 97–129. 10.1075/ijcl.9.1.06gri
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.9.1.06gri [Google Scholar]
  36. Hawkins, J. A., & P. Buttery
    (2010) Criterial features in learner corpora: Theory and illustrations. English Profile Journal, 1(1), 1–23. 10.1017/S2041536210000036
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S2041536210000036 [Google Scholar]
  37. Jarvis, S.
    (2011) Conceptual transfer: Crosslinguistic effects in categorization and construal. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 14(Special Issue), 1–8. 10.1017/S1366728910000155
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728910000155 [Google Scholar]
  38. (2013) Crosslinguistic influence and multilingualism. InC. A. Chapelle (Ed.), The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Retrieved fromonlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0291/full (last accessedApril 2019).
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Jarvis, S., & Pavlenko, A.
    (2008) Crosslinguistic Influence in Language and Cognition. New York, NY: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203935927
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203935927 [Google Scholar]
  40. Kumar, U., Kumar, V., & Kapur, J. N.
    (1986) Normalized measures of entropy. International Journal of General Systems, 12(1), 55–69. 10.1080/03081078608934927
    https://doi.org/10.1080/03081078608934927 [Google Scholar]
  41. Kyle, K.
    (2016) Measuring Syntactic Development in L2 Writing: Fine Grained Indices of Syntactic Complexity and Usage-Based Indices of Syntactic Sophistication (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Kyle, K., & Crossley, S.
    (2017) Assessing syntactic sophistication in L2 writing: A usage-based approach. Language Testing, 34(4), 513–535. 10.1177/0265532217712554
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532217712554 [Google Scholar]
  43. Li, P., Eskildsen, S. W., & Cadierno, T.
    (2014) Tracing an L2 learner’s motion constructions over time: A usage-based classroom investigation. The Modern Language Journal, 98(2), 612–628. 10.1111/modl.12091
    https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12091 [Google Scholar]
  44. Lieven, E., Pine, J. M., & Baldwin, G.
    (1997) Lexically-based learning and early grammatical development. Journal of Child Language, 24(1), 187–219. 10.1017/S0305000996002930
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000996002930 [Google Scholar]
  45. Murakami, A.
    (2013) L1 Influence and Individual Variation in the L2 Accuracy Development of Grammatical Morphemes: Insights from Learner Corpora (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Cambridge, UK.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Nesselhauf, N.
    (2005) Collocations in a Learner Corpus. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.14
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.14 [Google Scholar]
  47. Ninio, A.
    (1999) Pathbreaking verbs in syntactic development and the question of prototypical transitivity. Journal of Child Language, 26(3), 619–653. 10.1017/S0305000999003931
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000999003931 [Google Scholar]
  48. (2006) Language and the Learning Curve: A New Theory of Syntactic Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199299829.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199299829.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  49. Nisioi, S.
    (2015) Feature analysis for native language identification. InA. Gelbukh (Ed.), Computational Linguistics and Intelligent Text Processing. CICLing 2015 (pp.644–657). Cham: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑18111‑0_49
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-18111-0_49 [Google Scholar]
  50. Perfors, A., Tenenbaum, J. B., & Wonnacott, E.
    (2010) Variability, negative evidence, and the acquisition of verb argument constructions. Journal of Child Language, 37(3), 607–642. 10.1017/S0305000910000012
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000910000012 [Google Scholar]
  51. R Development Core Team
    R Development Core Team (2017) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing [Computer software]. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Römer, U., & Garner, J. R.
    (forthcoming). The development of verb constructions in spoken learner English: Tracing effects of usage and proficiency. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Stefanowitsch, A., & Gries, S. T.
    (2003) Collostructions: Investigating the interaction between words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 8(2), 209–243. 10.1075/ijcl.8.2.03ste
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.8.2.03ste [Google Scholar]
  54. Tomasello, M.
    (1992) First Verbs: A Case Study of Early Grammatical Development of Cognition and Action. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511527678
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511527678 [Google Scholar]
  55. (2003) Constructing a Language. A Usage-based Theory of Language Acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Tono, Y., & Díez-Bedmar, M. B.
    (2014) Focus on learner writing at the beginning and intermediate stages: The ICCI corpus. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 19(2), 163–177. 10.1075/ijcl.19.2.01ton
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.19.2.01ton [Google Scholar]
  57. Trousdale, G., & Hoffmann, T.
    (Eds.) (2013) Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Tyler, A. E., & Ortega, L.
    (2018) Usage-inspired L2 instruction: An emergent, researched pedagogy. InTyler, A. E., L. Ortega, M. Uno & H. I. Park (Eds.), Usage-inspired L2 Instruction: Researched Pedagogy (pp.3–26). Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. 10.1075/lllt.49.01tyl
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.49.01tyl [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/ijcl.00013.roe
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/ijcl.00013.roe
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error