1887
Volume 11, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2210-4070
  • E-ISSN: 2210-4097
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

The aim of the current paper is to reinterpret some results of two previous studies on the mastery of figurative expressions from the perspective of usage-based linguistics. The reanalysis aims to shed more light on the learning and use of figurative language by multilingual students by exploring the complex interplay of linguistic creativity, expressivity, and conventionality in figurative expressions. The reinterpretation shows that many of the examples that were previously categorized as used in students’ writing, can be analyzed as instances of regular patterns, i.e. constructions, with certain lexical idiosyncrasies. Modifications of conventionalized figurative expressions are discussed and reinterpreted in terms of strength of entrenchment of links between form and meaning within certain constructions or links between constructions and conventionalized pragmatic information in the multilinguals’ mental construction. Implications for the treatment of Swedish figurative expressions in the second language class room are, in line with previous research, that focusing on regularity might reduce unpredictability, often seen as the core difficulty in the learning of such expressions in an L2. The paper also offers some directions for further investigation of the socio-cognitive processes involved in the learning of figurative language in an additional language.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/msw.00017.pre
2021-10-12
2021-12-04
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Abrahamsson, N. & Hyltenstam, K.
    (2009) Age of Onset and Native-likeness in a Second Language: Listener Perception Versus Linguistic Scrutiny. Language Learning, 59, 249–306. 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2009.00507.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00507.x [Google Scholar]
  2. Bialystok, E.
    (2001) Bilingualism in Development. Language, Literacy, & Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511605963
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511605963 [Google Scholar]
  3. Blanco, C.
    (2015) Phrasem-Konstruktionen und lexikalische Idiom-Varianten: der Fall der komparativen Phraseme des Deutschen. InS. Engelberg, M. Meliss, K. Proost & E. Winkler (Eds.), Argumentstrukturen zwischen Valenz und Konstruktionen. Tübingen: Narr.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Bybee, J.
    (1998) The Emergent Lexicon. InM. Gruber, C. Higgins, K. Olson & T. Wysock (Eds.), CLS 34: The Panels (pp.421–439). Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. (2006) From Usage to Grammar: The Mind’s Response to Repetition. Language, 82, 711–733. 10.1353/lan.2006.0186
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2006.0186 [Google Scholar]
  6. (2010) Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511750526
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511750526 [Google Scholar]
  7. (2013) Usage-based theory and exemplar representations of constructions. InT. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar (pp.49–69). Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Casenhiser, D. & Goldberg, A.
    (2005) Fast mapping of phrasal form and meaning. Developmental Science, 8, 500–508. 10.1111/j.1467‑7687.2005.00441.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2005.00441.x [Google Scholar]
  9. De Knop, S. & Mollica, F.
    (2016) A construction-based analysis of German ditransitive phraseologisms for language pedagogy. InS. De Knop & G. Gilquin (Eds.), Applied Construction Grammar (pp.53–87). Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110458268‑004
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110458268-004 [Google Scholar]
  10. Ekberg, L.
    (1999) Användningen av komplexa predikat hos invandrarbarn i Rosengård. InL-G. Andersson, A. Lundqvist, K. Norén & L. Rogström (Eds.), Svenskans beskrivning. 23. Förhandlingar vid Tjugo-tredje sammankomsten för svenskans beskrivning (pp.86–95). Lund: Lund University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Ellis, N. C.
    (2013) Construction grammar and second language acquisition. InT. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar (pp.365–378). Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Ellis, N. C. & Wulff, S.
    (2014) Usage-based approaches to SLA. InB. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp.75–93). New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Fillmore, C. J.
    (1988) The mechanisms of construction grammar. InS. Axmaker, A. Jaisser & H. Singmaster (Eds.), Proceedings of the fourteenth annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society, February 13–15, 1988 : General session and parasession on grammaticalization (pp.35–55). Berkeley: BLS. 10.3765/bls.v14i0.1794
    https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v14i0.1794 [Google Scholar]
  14. Gilquin, G. & De Knop, S.
    (2016) Exploring L2 constructionist approaches. InS. De Knop & G. Gilquin (Eds.), Applied Construction Grammar (pp.2–17). Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Goldberg, A.
    (2006) Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199268511.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199268511.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  16. (2013) Constructionist approaches. InT. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar (pp.15–31). Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Håkansson, C., Lyngfelt, B. & Brasch, B.
    (2019) Typfall och mönsterigenkänning – konstruktionsbaserad andraspråksundervisning i praktiken. InM. Bianchi, D. Håkansson, B. Melander, L. Pfister, M. Westman & C. Östman (Eds.), Svenskans beskrivning36 (pp.107–117), Uppsala.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Herbst, T.
    (2016) Foreign language learning is construction learning – what else? Moving towards pedagogical construction grammar. InS. DeKnop & G. Gilquin (Eds.), Applied Construction Grammar (pp.355–377). Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter Mouton, 21–51. 10.1515/9783110458268‑003
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110458268-003 [Google Scholar]
  19. Höder, S., Prentice, J. & Tingsell, S.
    (2021) Additional language acquisition as emerging multilingualism. A Construction Grammar approach. InH. C. Boas & S. Höder, Constructions in Contact 2: Language change, multilingual practices, and additional language acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.30.10hod
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.30.10hod [Google Scholar]
  20. Holme, R.
    (2010) A construction grammar for the classroom. IRAL48(4). 10.1515/iral.2010.015
    https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.2010.015 [Google Scholar]
  21. Hyltenstam, K.
    (1992) Non-native features of Near-native speakers: On the Ultimate Attainment of Childhood L2 Learners. InR. Harris (Ed.), Cognitive Processing in Bilinguals (pp.351–368). Amsterdam, London, New York & Tokyo: North Holland. 10.1016/S0166‑4115(08)61505‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4115(08)61505-8 [Google Scholar]
  22. Källström, R. & Lindberg, I.
    (2011) Introduction. InR. Källström & I. Lindberg (Eds.) Young Urban Swedish: Variation and change in multilingual settings. (Göteborgsstudier i Nordisk Språkvetenskap 14.) Göteborg: Institutionen för svenska språket, Göteborgs universitet.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Konopka, A. E. & Bock, K.
    (2009) Lexical or syntactic control of sentence formulation? Structural generalizations from idiom production. Cognitive Psychology, 58, 68–101. 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2008.05.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2008.05.002 [Google Scholar]
  24. Lakoff, G.
    (1993) The contemporary theory of metaphor. InA. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and Thought (2nd ed.) (pp.202–51). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139173865.013
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173865.013 [Google Scholar]
  25. Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M.
    (1980) Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Littlemore, J.
    (2009) Applying Cognitive Linguistics to Second Language Learning. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230245259
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230245259 [Google Scholar]
  27. Loenheim, L., Lyngfelt, B., Olofsson, J., Prentice, J. & Tingsell, S.
    (2016) Constructicography meets (second) language education. On constructions in teaching aids and the usefulness of a Swedish constructicon. InS. DeKnop & G. Gilquin (Eds.), Applied Construction Grammar (pp.327–355). Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110458268‑013
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110458268-013 [Google Scholar]
  28. Mühlenbock, K.
    (2009) Readable, legible or plain word: Presentation of an easy-to-read Swedish corpus. Multilingualism, Proceedings of the 23rd Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics, Studia Linguistica Upsaliensia8, 325–327.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Mühlenbock, K. & Johansson Kokkinakis, S.
    (2009) LIX 68 revisited. An extended readability measure. Conference paper atCorpus Linguistics Conference (CL) 2009. University of Liverpool, UK20–23July 2009.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Olofsson, J. & Prentice, J.
    (2020) För tre enorma öl sedan: Befästning av semi-schematiska konstruktioner i L2-svenska. Språk och Stil. Tidskrift för svensk språkforskning30, 91-16. uu.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1513248
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Pavlenko, A.
    (2009) Conceptual Representation in the Bilingual Lexicon and Second Language Vocabulary Learning. InA. Pavlenko (Ed.), The Bilingual Mental Lexicon: Interdisciplinary Approaches (pp.125–160). Bristol, Buffalo & Toronto: Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781847691262‑008
    https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847691262-008 [Google Scholar]
  32. Pitzl, M. L.
    (2017) Communicative ‘success’, creativity and the need for de-mystifying L1 use: Some thoughts on ELF and ELT. Lingue e Linguaggi, 24, 37–46. doi: 10.1285/i22390359v24p37
    https://doi.org/10.1285/i22390359v24p37 [Google Scholar]
  33. Prentice, J.
    (2010a) På rak sak: Om ordförbindelser och konventionaliserade uttryck bland unga språkbrukare i flerspråkiga miljöer. (Göteborgsstudier i Nordisk Språkvetenskap 13.) Göteborg: Institutionen för svenska språket, Göteborgs universitet.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. (2010b) Käppen i hjulen: Behärskning av svenska konventionaliserade uttryck bland gymnasieelever med varierande språklig bakgrund. Rapporter i svenska som andraspråk (ROSA12.)Göteborg: Institutet för svenska som andraspråk, Göteborgs universitet.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Prentice, J. & Sköldberg, E.
    (2010) Klättra på väggarna eller bara vara ett med soffan? Om figurativa ordförbindelser bland ungdomar i flerspråkiga skol-miljöer. Språk och stil: tidskrift för svensk språkforskning, 20, 5–35.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. (2011) Figurative word combinations in texts written by adolescents in multilingual school environments. InR. Källström & I. Lindberg (Eds.) Young Urban Swedish: Variation and change in multilingual settings (pp.195–218). (Göteborgsstudier i Nordisk Språkvetenskap 14.) Göteborg: Institutionen för svenska språket, Göteborgs universitet.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Schmid, H.-J.
    (2015) A blueprint of the Entrenchment-and-Conventionalization Model. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association, 3, 3–25. 10.1515/gcla‑2015‑0002
    https://doi.org/10.1515/gcla-2015-0002 [Google Scholar]
  38. (2016) Why cognitive linguistics must embrace the social and pragmatic dimension of language and how it could do so more seriously. Cognitive Linguistics, 27, 543–557. 10.1515/cog‑2016‑0048
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2016-0048 [Google Scholar]
  39. (2017) A framework for understanding linguistic entrenchment and its psychological foundations. InH.-J. Schmid (Ed.), Entrenchment and the psychology of language learning: How we reorganize and adapt linguistic knowledge (pp.9–36). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton/Washington: American Psychological Association. 10.1037/15969‑002
    https://doi.org/10.1037/15969-002 [Google Scholar]
  40. (2020) The dynamics of the linguistic system: Usage, conventionalization and entrenchment. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780198814771.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198814771.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  41. Språkbanken Text, Korp
    Språkbanken Text, Korp (2020) <https://spraakbanken.gu.se/korp/ [viewed1 May 2020].
  42. Sullivan, K.
    (2013) Frames and Constructions in Metaphoric Language. (Constructional Approaches to Language 14.) Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.14
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.14 [Google Scholar]
  43. Svenskt språkbruk: Ordbok över konstruktioner och fraser
    Svenskt språkbruk: Ordbok över konstruktioner och fraser (2003) Utgiven av Svenska språknämnden Stockholm: Norstedts ordbok.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Tay, D.
    (2015) Lakoff and the Theory of Conceptional Metaphor. InJ. Littlemore & J. R. Taylor (Eds.), The Bloomsbury Companion to Cognitive Linguistics (pp.49–59). London/New York: Bloomsbury.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Tomasello, Michael
    (2003) Constructing a Language: A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Wee, L.
    (2007) Construction Grammar and English language teaching. Indonesian Journal of English Language Teaching, 3(121), 20–32.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Wray, A.
    (2008) Formulaic Language: Pushing the Boundaries. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/msw.00017.pre
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/msw.00017.pre
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