Volume 5, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2215-1478
  • E-ISSN: 2215-1486
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



We investigate the cross-linguistic influence and the (longitudinal) impact of Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) on the acquisition of intensifying constructions, using corpora of written French, Dutch, and English productions by L1 speakers, and L2 English and L2 Dutch produced by French-speaking learners in CLIL and traditional foreign language education. We hypothesize that learners will benefit from similarities between the L1 and target language (TL) intensifying constructions, and secondly, that more input and use (through CLIL) will lead to a more target-like use of intensifying constructions. The analyses include quantitative measures of frequency and productivity, and covarying analyses (Gries, 2007). Our findings suggest that, as expected, CLIL students produce intensifying constructions in a more target-like manner. The effect of the duration of TL learning, however, is more apparent in English than in Dutch.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Baumeister, R. F. , Bratslavsky, E. , Finkenauer, C. & Vohs, K. D.
    (2001) Bad Is Stronger than Good. Review of General Psychology, 5(4), 323–370. 10.1037/1089‑2680.5.4.323
    https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.5.4.323 [Google Scholar]
  2. Biber, D. , Johansson, S. , Leech, G. , Conrad, S. & Finegan, E.
    (1999) Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Blondin, C.
    (2003) L’immersion linguistique dans l’enseignement fondamental en Communauté française de Belgique. Journal de l’Immersion, 25(2), 9–31.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Booij, G.
    (2010) Construction Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Boucher, J. & Charles, E. O.
    (1969) The Pollyana Hypothesis. Journal of verbal learning and verbal behavior, 8, 1–8. 10.1016/S0022‑5371(69)80002‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(69)80002-2 [Google Scholar]
  6. Brems, L.
    (2003) Measure noun constructions: An instance of semantically-driven grammaticalization. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 8(2), 283–312. 10.1075/ijcl.8.2.05bre
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.8.2.05bre [Google Scholar]
  7. (2007) The Synchronic Layering of Size Noun and Type Noun Constructions in English. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Leuven, Leuven.
  8. Bruton, A.
    (2011) Is CLIL so beneficial, or just selective? Re-evaluating some of the research. System, 39, 523–532. 10.1016/j.system.2011.08.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2011.08.002 [Google Scholar]
  9. Bulon, A. , Hendrikx, I. , Meunier, F. & Van Goethem, K.
    (2017) Using global complexity measures to assess second language proficiency: Comparing CLIL and non-CLIL learners of English and Dutch in French-speaking Belgium. InPapers of the Linguistic Society of Belgium, 11(1), 1–25. http//hdl.handle.net/2078.1/184992
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Bybee, J.
    (2010) Language, Usage and Cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511750526
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511750526 [Google Scholar]
  11. Chopey-Paquet, M.
    (2008) CLIL in French-speaking Belgium. Transforming paradox into potential. In C. M. Coonan (Ed.), CLIL e l’apprendimento delle lingue. Les fide del nuovo ambiente di apprendimento (pp.239–250). Venezia: Libreria Editrice Cafoscarina.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Coyle, D. , Hood, Ph. & Marsh, D.
    (2010) Content and Language Integrated Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Dalton-Puffer, C.
    (2008) Outcomes and processes in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL): current research from Europe. In W. Delanoy & V. Lauren (Eds.), Future Perspectives for English Language Teaching (pp.139–157). Heidelberg: Carl Winter.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. (2011) Content-and-language integrated learning: From practice to principles?. Annual Review of applied linguistics, 31, 182–204. 10.1017/S0267190511000092
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190511000092 [Google Scholar]
  15. De Angelis, G. , Jessner, U. , & Kresic, M.
    (Eds.) (2017) Crosslinguistic Influence and Crosslinguistic Interaction in Multilingual Language Learning (Reprint edition). London: Bloomsbury Academic.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. De Clerck, B. & Colleman, T.
    (2013) From noun to intensifier: massa and massa’s in Flemmisch varieties of Dutch. Language Sciences, 36, 147–160. 10.1016/j.langsci.2012.04.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2012.04.005 [Google Scholar]
  17. Deshors, S. C.
    (2016) Inside phrasal verb constructions: A co-varying collexeme analysis of verb-particle combinations in EFL and their semantic associations. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research, 2(1), 1–30. 10.1075/ijlcr.2.1.01des
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijlcr.2.1.01des [Google Scholar]
  18. Diessel, H.
    (2016) Frequency and lexical specificity in grammar. New York: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.120
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.120 [Google Scholar]
  19. Doetjes, J.
    (1997) Quantifiers and selection (HIL Dissertations 32). The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.
  20. Doetjes, J. & Rooryk, J.
    (2003) Generalizing over quantitative and qualitative constructions. In M. Coene , & Y. D’hulst (Eds.), From NP to DP, the Syntax and Semantics of Noun Phrases1 (pp.277–296). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. 10.1075/la.55.13doe
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.55.13doe [Google Scholar]
  21. Ellis, R.
    (1994) The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Ellis, N. C. & Sagarra, N.
    (2011) Learned attention in adult language acquisition. Studies in Second language Acquisition, 33(4), 589–624. doi:  10.1017/S0272263111000325
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263111000325 [Google Scholar]
  23. Ellis, N. C. & Wulff, S.
    (2008) Usage-based approaches to second language acquisition. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), (2nd Edition). Theories in Second Language Acquisition: An Introduction (pp.75–93). New York & London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Forlot, G. & Beaucamp, J.
    (2008) Heurs et malheurs de la proximité linguistique dans l’enseignement de l’anglais au primaire, Ela. Études de linguistique appliquée, 1 (149), 77–92. 10.3917/ela.149.0077
    https://doi.org/10.3917/ela.149.0077 [Google Scholar]
  25. Gass, S. M.
    (1970) Language transfer and universal grammatical relations. Language Learning, 29(2), 327–344. doi:  10.1111/j.1467‑1770.1979.tb01073.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1979.tb01073.x [Google Scholar]
  26. Geerts, G. , Haeseryn, W. , de Rooij, J. , & van den Toorn, M. C.
    (1984) Algemene Nederlandse Spraakkunst. Leuven: Wolters.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Goldberg, A. E.
    (2006) Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Grandi, N.
    (2017) Chapter 3. Intensification processes in Italian. In M. Napoli & M. Ravetto (Eds.), Exploring Intensification. Synchronic, diachronic and crosslinguistic perspectives (pp.55–77). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.189.04gra
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.189.04gra [Google Scholar]
  29. Granger, S.
    (1998) Prefabricated Patterns in Advanced EFL Writing: Collocations and Lexical Phrases. In A. Cowie (Ed.), Phraseology: theory, analysis and applications (pp.145–160). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Gries, S. & Stefanowitsch, A.
    (2004) Co-varying Collexemes in the Into-causatives. In M. Achard & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Language, Culture and Mind (pp.225–236). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Gyselinck, E. & Colleman, T.
    (2016) Je dood vervelen of je te pletter amuseren? Het intensiverende gebruik van de pseudoreflexieve resultatiefconstructie in hedendaags Belgisch en Nederlands Nederlands. Handelingen: Koninglijke zuid-nederlandse maatschappij voor taal- en letterkunde en geschiedenis, 69, 103–136.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Hendrikx, I. , Van Goethem, K. , Meunier, F. , & Hiligsmann, Ph.
    (2017) Language-specific tendencies towards morphological or syntactic constructions: A corpus study on adjective intensification in L1 Dutch, L1 French and L2 Dutch. Nederlandse Taalkunde, 3, 389–420. doi:  10.5117/NEDTAA2017.3.HEND
    https://doi.org/10.5117/NEDTAA2017.3.HEND [Google Scholar]
  33. Herbst, Th.
    (2016) Foreign language learning is construction learning – what Else? Moving towards Pedagogical Construction Grammar. In S. De Knop & G. Gilquin (Eds.), Applied Construction Grammar (pp.21–52). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110458268‑003
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110458268-003 [Google Scholar]
  34. Hiligsmann, Ph. , Van Mensel, L. , Galand, B. , Mettewie, L. , Meunier, F. , Szmalec, A. , Van Goethem, K. , Bulon, A. , De Smet, A. , Hendrikx, I. & Simonis, M.
    (2017) Assessing Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) in French-speaking Belgium Linguistic, cognitive and educational perspectives. Les Cahiers de Recherche du Girsef, 17(109). 1–25. http//hdl.handle.net/2078.1/187429
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Hoeksema, J.
    (2012) Elative compounds in Dutch: Properties and developments. In G. Oebel (Ed.), Intensivierungskonzepte bei Adjektiven und Adverben im Sprachenvergleich / Crosslinguistic comparison of intensified adjectives and adverbs (pp.97–142). Hamburg: Kovač Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Hoffmann, T. & Trousdale, G.
    (2013) The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396683.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396683.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  37. Hüning, M. , Vogl, U. , Van der Wouden, T. & Verhagen, A.
    (2006) Nederlands tussen Duits en Engels. Handelingen van de workshop aan de Freie Universität Berlin. Leiden: Stichting Neerlandistiek Leiden.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Jach, D.
    (2017) A Usage-Based Approach to Preposition Placement in English as a Second Language: Preposition Placement in L2 English. Language Learning, 68(1), 271–304. doi:  10.1111/lang.12277
    https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12277 [Google Scholar]
  39. Jarvis, S. & Pavlenko, A.
    (2008) Crosslinguistic influence in language and cognition. New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203935927
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203935927 [Google Scholar]
  40. Jexenflicker, S. & Dalton-Puffer, C.
    (2010) The CLIL differential: Comparing the writing of CLIL and non-CLIL students in higher colleges of technology. In C. Dalton-Puffer , T. Nikula , & U. Smit (Eds.), Language use and language learning in CLIL classrooms (pp.169–190). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/aals.7.09jex
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aals.7.09jex [Google Scholar]
  41. Jing-Schmidt, Z.
    (2007) Negativity bias in language: A cognitive-affective model of emotive intensifiers. Cognitive Linguistics, 18(3), 417–443. 10.1515/COG.2007.023
    https://doi.org/10.1515/COG.2007.023 [Google Scholar]
  42. Joosten, F.
    (2003) Collectiva en Aggregaatsnamen in het Nederlands: Begripsbepaling en Typologie. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Leuven, Leuven.
  43. Josse, A.
    (2015) Vergelijkend onderzoek naar het gebruik van positiewerkwoorden door immersie- en niet- immersieleerlingen (Unpublished Master thesis). Université catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve.
  44. Lamiroy, B.
    (2011) Degrés de grammaticalisation à travers les langues de même famille. Mémoires de la Société de linguistique de Paris. Nouvelle Série, 19, 167–192.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Liebrecht, C.
    (2015) Intens krachtig: stilistische intensiveerders in evaluatieve teksten. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Radboud Universiteit, Nijmegen.
  46. Liebrecht, C. , Lettica, H. & van Mulken, M.
    (2013) Waarom het glas toch echt half leeg is. Onderzoek naar de kracht van positieve en negatieve evaluaties. In: R. Boogaart & H. Jansen (Eds.), Studies in Taalbeheersing4 (pp.269–278). Assen: Van Gorcum.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Lo, Y.-Y. & Murphy, V. A.
    (2010) Vocabulary knowledge and growth in immersion and regular language-learning programmes in Hong Kong. Language and Education, 24, 215–238. 10.1080/09500780903576125
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09500780903576125 [Google Scholar]
  48. Lorenz, G. R.
    (1999) Adjective intensification. Learners versus native speakers: A corpus study of argumentative writing. Rodopi BV: Amsterdam.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Meunier, F.
    (2012) Formulaic Language and Language Teaching. In: Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32(1). 111–129. doi:  10.1017/S0267190512000128
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190512000128 [Google Scholar]
  50. Norde, M. & Van Goethem, K.
    (2014) Bleaching, productivity and debonding of prefixoids: A corpus-based analysis of “giant” in German and Swedish. Lingvisticae Investigationes, 37(2), 256–274. 10.1075/li.37.2.05nor
    https://doi.org/10.1075/li.37.2.05nor [Google Scholar]
  51. (2015) Emancipatie van affixen en affixoïden: degrammaticalisatie of lexicalisatie?Nederlandse Taalkunde, 20(1), 109–148. 10.5117/NEDTAA2015.1.NORD
    https://doi.org/10.5117/NEDTAA2015.1.NORD [Google Scholar]
  52. Odlin, T.
    (1989) Language Transfer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139524537
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524537 [Google Scholar]
  53. Odlin, T. & Yu, L.
    (2016) Introduction. In L. Yu & T. Odlin (Eds.), New Perspectives on Transfer in Second Language Learning (pp.1–16). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Paradis, C.
    (1997) Degree modifiers of adjectives in spoken British English. Lund: Lund University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Pérez-Paredes, P. & Díez-Bedmar, M. B.
    (2012) Intensifying adverbs in learner writing. In Y. Tono , Y. Kawaguchi & M. Minegishi (Eds.), Developmental and Crossslinguistic Perspectives in Learner Corpus Research (pp.105–123). Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/tufs.4.11per
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tufs.4.11per [Google Scholar]
  56. Quirk, R. , S. Greenbaum , G. Leech & Svartvik, J.
    (1997) A comprehensive grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Rainer, F.
    (2015) 77. Intensification. In P. O. Müller (Ed.), Word-Formation: An International Handbook of the Languages of Europe (pp.1340–1351). Berlin/ Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Rankin, T.
    (2017) The distribution of reflexive intensifiers in learner English. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research, 3(1), 36–60. doi:  10.1075/ijlcr.3.1.02ran
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijlcr.3.1.02ran [Google Scholar]
  59. Rey, A. , Duval, F. & Siouffi, G.
    (2007) Mille ans de langue française, histoire d’une passion. Paris: Perrin.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Rey-Debove, J. & Robert, P.
    (2014) Le Petit Robert : dictionnaire alphabétique et analogique de la langue française. Paris: Le Robert.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Riegel, M. , Pellat, J.-C. & Rioul, R.
    (1994) Grammaire méthodique du français. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Ringbom, H.
    (2016) Comprehension, learning and production of foreign languages: the role of transfer. In R. Alonso Alonso (Ed.), Crosslinguistic Influence in Second Language Acquisition (pp.38–52). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. C. M. L.
    (2010) First language and age in CLIL and non-CLIL contexts. International CLIL Research Journal, 1(3), 60–66.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. (2011) Which language competencies benefit from CLIL? An insight into applied linguistics research. In Y. Ruiz de Zarobe , J. M. Sierra & F. G. del Puerto (Eds.), Content and Foreign Language Integrated Learning. Contributions to Multilingualism in European Contexts (pp.129–153). Bern: Peter Lang. 10.3726/978‑3‑0351‑0171‑3
    https://doi.org/10.3726/978-3-0351-0171-3 [Google Scholar]
  65. Rumlich, D.
    (2016) Evaluating bilingual education in Germany: CLIL students’ general English proficiency, EFL self-concept and interest. Frankfurt am Main: Lang. 10.3726/978‑3‑653‑06460‑5
    https://doi.org/10.3726/978-3-653-06460-5 [Google Scholar]
  66. Seikkula-Leino, J.
    (2007) CLIL learning: achievement levels and affective factors. Language and Education, 21(4), 328–341. 10.2167/le635.0
    https://doi.org/10.2167/le635.0 [Google Scholar]
  67. Stefanowitsch, A.
    (2013) Collostructional Analysis. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar (pp.215–229). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Stefanowitsch, A. & Gries, S. T.
    (2005) Covarying collexemes. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 1(1), 1–43. 10.1515/cllt.2005.1.1.1
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt.2005.1.1.1 [Google Scholar]
  69. Štekauer, P. , Valera, S. & Kőrtvélyessy, L.
    (2012) Word-Formation in the World’s Languages: A Typological Survey. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511895005
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511895005 [Google Scholar]
  70. Tomasello, M.
    (2003) Constructing a language. Boston: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Van der Wouden, T. & Foolen, A.
    (2017) A most serious and extraordinary problem. Intensification of adjectives in Dutch, German, and English. Leuvense Bijdragen, 101, 82–100.
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Van Haeringen, C. B.
    (1956) Nederlands tussen Duits en Engels. The Hague: Servire.
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Van Mensel, L. , Bulon, A. , Hendrikx, I. , Meunier, F. & Van Goethem, K.
    ( in preparation ). Effects of input on L2 writing skills in English and Dutch CLIL and non-CLIL learners in French-speaking Belgium.
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Verhagen, A.
    (2005) Constructiegrammatica en “usage based” taalkunde. Nederlandse Taalkunde, 10(3/4), 197–221.
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Verspoor, M. , de Bot, K. & Xu, X.
    (2015) The effects of English bilingual education in the Netherlands. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 3, 4–27. doi:  10.1075/jicb.3.1.01ver
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jicb.3.1.01ver [Google Scholar]
  76. Vooys, C. G. N. de
    (1947) Nederlandse Spraakkunst. Revised 7th edition. Groningen: J.B. Wolters.
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Vos, R.
    (1999) A Grammar of Partitative Constructiuons (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Tilburg University, Tilburg.
  78. Wagner, S.
    (2017) Totally new and pretty awesome: Amplifier-adjective bigrams in GloWbE. Lingua200, 63–83. 10.1016/j.lingua.2017.08.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2017.08.004 [Google Scholar]
  79. Wode, H.
    (1994) Bilinguale Unterrichtserprobung in Schleswig-Holstein. Band II Analytische Auswertungen. Kiel: L&F Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Zydatiß, W.
    (2007) Deutsch-Englische Züge in Berlin (DEZIBEL). Eine Evaluation des bilingualen Sachfachunterrichts in Gymnasien: Kontext, Kompetenzen, Konsequenzen. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Corpus Hedendaags Nederlands (CHN): The corpus is a combination of the 5, 27 and 38 Million Words Corpora and the PAROLE Corpus, supplemented with newspaper texts from NRC and De Standaard (until 2013) Available online atcorpushedendaagsnederlands.inl.nl/
  82. Davies, M.
    (2008) The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA): 560 million words, 1990-present. Available online athttps://corpus.byu.edu/coca/
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Dürlich, L. & François, T.
    (2018) EFLLex: A Graded Lexical Resource for Learners of English as a Foreign LanguageIn Proceedings of the11th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2018). Miyazaki, Japan, 7–12 May. EFLLex available atcental.uclouvain.be/cefrlex/efllex/. All recources available at CERFLexcental.uclouvain.be/cefrlex/
    [Google Scholar]
  84. Gries, S. Th.
    (2007) Coll.analysis 3.2a. A program for R for Windows 2.x.
    [Google Scholar]
  85. Leipzig Corpora Collection
    Leipzig Corpora Collection (2002)  English corpus based on a mixture of sources (like news material, Web text, etc.) from 2002. Leipzig Corpora Collection. Dataset. Retrieved fromwortschatz.uni-leipzig.de/en/download
  86. Leipzig Corpora Collection
    Leipzig Corpora Collection (2012) French corpus based on a mixture of sources (like news material, Web text, etc.) from 2012. Leipzig Corpora Collection. Dataset. Retrieved fromwortschatz.uni-leipzig.de/en/download
  87. Leipzig Corpora Collection
    Leipzig Corpora Collection (2012) Dutch corpus based on a mixture of sources (like news material, Web text, etc.) from 2012. Leipzig Corpora Collection. Dataset. Retrieved fromwortschatz.uni-leipzig.de/en/download
  88. Qualtrics
    Qualtrics. [Computer software]. Provo, UT, USA: Qualtrics. Retrieved fromwww.qualtrics.com
  89. Schmid, H.
    (1994) Probabilistic Part-of-Speech Tagging Using Decision Trees. Proceedings of International Conference on New Methods in Language Processing, Manchester, UK.
    [Google Scholar]
  90. Schmitz, C. , Gac, L. , Härstedt, O. , Flür, M. , Kondziella, S.
    , Chirițoiu D. Lime Survey 200. [Computer software]. RetrievedMarch 15, 2018, fromhttps://www.limesurvey.org
  91. Broekhuis, H. Introduction [Google Scholar]
  92. Coppen, P. A. , Haeseryn, W. , & de Vriend, F.
    Website Algemene Nederlandse Spraakkunst (E-ANS). RetrievedMarch 15, 2018, fromans.ruhosting.nl/
    [Google Scholar]
  93. Larousse.fr : encyclopédie et dictionnaires gratuits en ligne. RetrievedJune 12, 2018, fromwww.larousse.fr/
  94. Oxford Learner Dictionary
    Oxford Learner Dictionary. RetrievedJune 12, 2018, fromhttps://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/
  95. Van Dale
    Van Dale. RetrievedJune 12, 2018, fromwww.vandale.nl/
  96. Van der Wouden, T.
    (2017, October12). aller-. Taalportaal. RetrievedOctober 26, 2017, fromwww.taalportaal.org/taalportaal/topic/pid/topic-14038748079352798
    [Google Scholar]

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