Volume 24, Issue 2
  • ISSN 0929-0907
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9943
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



This study traces the individual learning trajectories of an adult beginner L2 Finnish learner in expressing the extralinguistic concept of evaluation from a dynamic usage-based perspective. Our results provide support for the view of learner language as a dynamic system in which patterns wax and wane and in which a change in one component has the potential to affect the whole system. In the early stages of learning there was a strong preference to use lexical verbs first, and then adjectives. The study also shows that variability plays a role. Finally, the study confirms that the learning of L2 constructions is in some cases item based. However, another highly frequent and superficially similar verbal construction in our data did not develop from a fixed formula. The role of instruction and the learner’s explicit knowledge as well as possibly input frequencies may have played a role in the different developmental trajectories.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Abbot-Smith, Kirsten & Heike Behrens
    2006 How known constructions influence the acquisition of other constructions: The German passive and future constructions. Cognitive Science30(6). 995–1026. 10.1207/s15516709cog0000_61
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0000_61 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bot, Kees de, Wander Lowie & Marjolijn Verspoor
    2007 A dynamic systems theory approach to second language acquisition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition10(1). 7–21. 10.1017/S1366728906002732
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728906002732 [Google Scholar]
  3. Cadierno, Teresa
    2008 Learning to talk about motion in a foreign language. InPeter Robinson & Nick C. Ellis (eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition, 239–275. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Caspi, Tal
    2010A dynamic perspective on second language development. Groningen: Doctoral dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Cefling – Linguistic Basis of the Common European Framework for L2 English and L2 Finnish
    Cefling – Linguistic Basis of the Common European Framework for L2 English and L2 Finnish. Research project, University of Jyväskylä 2007–2009, https://www.jyu.fi/hytk/fi/laitokset/kivi/tutkimus/hankkeet/paattyneet-tutkimushankkeet-kansio/cefling/suom (16 May 2017).
  6. CEFR – Common European Framework for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment
    CEFR – Common European Framework for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment 2006 Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  7. Dąbrowska, Ewa & Elena Lieven
    2005 Towards a lexically specific grammar of children’s question constructions. Cognitive Linguistics16(3). 437–474. 10.1515/cogl.2005.16.3.437
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2005.16.3.437 [Google Scholar]
  8. Dahl, Östen
    2008 Kuinka eksoottinen kieli suomi on?Virittäjä4/2008. 545–595.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. DeKeyser, Robert
    2007 The future of practice. InRobert DeKeyser (ed.), Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology, 287–304. New York: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511667275.016
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511667275.016 [Google Scholar]
  10. Dijk, Marijn van, Marjolijn Verspoor & Wander Lowie
    2011 Variability and DST. InMarjolijn Verspoor, Kees de Bot & Wander Lowie (eds.), A dynamic approach to second language development: Methods and techniques, 55–84. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/lllt.29.04van
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.29.04van [Google Scholar]
  11. Ellis, Nick C.
    2002 Frequency effects in language processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition24(2). 143–188. 10.1017/S0272263102002024
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263102002024 [Google Scholar]
  12. Ellis, Nick C. & Teresa Cadierno
    2009 Constructing a second language: Introduction to the special section. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics7(1). 111–139. 10.1075/arcl.7.05ell
    https://doi.org/10.1075/arcl.7.05ell [Google Scholar]
  13. Eskildsen, Søren W.
    2008 Constructing another language – Usage-based linguistics in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics30(3). 335–357. 10.1093/applin/amn037
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amn037 [Google Scholar]
  14. 2012 L2 negation constructions at work. Language Learning62(2). 335–372. 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2012.00698.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00698.x [Google Scholar]
  15. 2015 What counts as a developmental sequence? Exemplar-based L2 learning of English questions. Language Learning65(1). 33–62. 10.1111/lang.12090
    https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12090 [Google Scholar]
  16. Eskildsen, Søren W. & Teresa Cadierno
    2007 Are recurring multi-word expressions really syntactic freezes? Second language acquisition from the perspective of usage-based linguistics. InMarja Nenonen & Sinikka Niemi (eds.), Collocations and idioms 1: Papers from the first nordic conference on syntactic freezes, 86–99. Joensuu, Finland, May19–29 2006.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Geert, Paul van
    2008 The dynamic systems approach in the study of L1 and L2 acquisition: An introduction. The Modern Language Journal92(2). 179–199. 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.2008.00713.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2008.00713.x [Google Scholar]
  18. Geert, Paul van & Marijn van Dijk
    2002 Focus on variability: New tools to study intra-individual variability in developmental data. Infant Behavior and Development25(4). 340–374. 10.1016/S0163‑6383(02)00140‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0163-6383(02)00140-6 [Google Scholar]
  19. Goldberg, Adele E.
    2006Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Grzega, Joachim
    2012 Lexical-semantic variables. InJuan Manuel Hernández-Campoy & Juan Camilo Conde-Silvestre (eds.), The handbook of historical sociolinguistics, 271–292. Chichester: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.10.1002/9781118257227.ch15
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118257227.ch15 [Google Scholar]
  21. Ivaska, Ilmari
    2015Edistyneen oppijansuomen konstruktiopiirteitä korpusvetoisesti: avainrakenneanalyysi. Turku: doctoral dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Kajander, Mikko
    2013Suomen eksistentiaalilause toisen kielen oppimisen polulla. Jyväskylä: doctoral dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Karlsson, Fred
    2015Finnish: An essential grammar, 3rd edn.Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Kielitoimiston sanakirja [The New Dictionary of Modern Finnish] 2017 Helsinki: Kotimaisten kielten keskus. URN:NBN:fi:kotus-201433. Verkkojulkaisu HTML. This publication is updated regularly. Last update23 Feb 2017. [Date of reference31 May 2017].
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Kielitoimiston ohjepankki (Guideline Database of the Finnish Language Office): Rektioita: rakastaa uuden kokeilemista vai rakastaa kokeilla uutta?Lahde (reference): www.kielitoimistonohjepankki.fi/haku/rakastaa/ohje/610 [Viittauspaiva (date of reference)31 May 2017]
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Langacker, Ronald W.
    1987Foundations of cognitive grammar. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. 1999Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110800524
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110800524 [Google Scholar]
  28. 2009 A dynamic view of usage and language acquisition. Cognitive Linguistics20(3). 627–640. 10.1515/COGL.2009.027
    https://doi.org/10.1515/COGL.2009.027 [Google Scholar]
  29. Larsen-Freeman, Diane
    2006 The emergence of complexity, fluency, and accuracy in the oral and written production of five Chinese learners of English. Applied Linguistics27(4). 590–619. 10.1093/applin/aml029
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/aml029 [Google Scholar]
  30. Larsen-Freeman, Diane & Lynne Cameron
    2013Complex systems and applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Lieven, Elena, Dorothé Salomo & Michael Tomasello
    2009 Two-year-old children’s production of multiword utterances: A usage-based analysis. Cognitive Linguistics20(3). 481–507. 10.1515/COGL.2009.022
    https://doi.org/10.1515/COGL.2009.022 [Google Scholar]
  32. MacWhinney, Brian
    2000 The CHILDES project: Tools for analyzing talk, 3rd edn.. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  33. 2004 A unified model of language acquisition. InJudith F. Kroll & Annette M. B. de Groot (eds.), Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches, 49–67. New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Martin, James R. & Peter P. R. R. White
    2005The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230511910
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230511910 [Google Scholar]
  35. Martin, Maisa, Sanna Mustonen, Nina Reiman & Marja Seilonen
    2010 On becoming an independent user. InInge Bartning, Maisa Martin & Ineke Vedder (eds.), Communicative proficiency and linguistic development, intersections between SLA and language testing research, 57–80. EUROSLA Monograph Series 1.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Mellow, J. Dean
    2006 The emergence of second language syntax: A case study of the acquisition of relative clauses. Applied Linguistics27(4). 645–670. 10.1093/applin/aml031
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/aml031 [Google Scholar]
  37. Mustonen, Sanna
    2015Käytössä kehittyvä kieli. Paikat ja tilat suomi toisena kielenä -oppijoiden teksteissä. Jyväskylä: Doctoral dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Peltier, John
    2009 PTS LOESS Smoothing Utility [Computer Software]. Retrieved frompeltiertech.com/loess-utility-awesome-update/26 April 2018
  39. Penris, Wouter & Marjolijn Verspoor
    2017 Academic writing development: A complex, dynamic process. InSimone Pfenniger & Judit Navracsics (eds.), Future research directions for applied linguistics, 215–242. Bristol: Multilingual Matters Ltd.10.21832/9781783097135‑012
    https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783097135-012 [Google Scholar]
  40. Peters, Ann M.
    1983The units of language acquisition. New York: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Reiman, Nina
    2011a Transitiivikonstruktio ikkunana syntaksin kehitykseen: infiniittiset rakenteet ja passiivi taidon indikaattoreina S2-oppijoiden teksteissä [The transitive construction as a window into syntax development: Infinite structures and passive as indicators of proficiency in F2 students’ texts]. InEsa Lehtinen, Sirkku Aaltonen, Merja Koskela, Elina Nevasaari & Mariann Skog-Södersved (eds.), AFinLa-E soveltavan kielitieteen tutkimuksia, 142–157.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. 2011b Two faces of complexity: Structural measures and diversity of constructions. Nordand. Nordisk tidsskrift for andrespråkforskning2. 9–33.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Robinson, Peter
    2005 Cognitive complexity and task sequencing: Studies in a componential framework for second language task design. IRAL – International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching43(1). 1–32. 10.1515/iral.2005.43.1.1
    https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.2005.43.1.1 [Google Scholar]
  44. Roehr-Brackin, Karen
    2014 Explicit knowledge and processes from a usage-based perspective: The developmental trajectory of an instructed L2 learner. Language Learning64(4). 771–808. 10.1111/lang.12081
    https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12081 [Google Scholar]
  45. Saukkonen, Pauli, Marjatta Haipus, Antero Niemikorpi & Helena Sulkala
    1979Suomen kielen taajuussanasto. [A Frequency Dictionary of Finnish]. Helsinki: WSOY.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Seilonen, Marja
    2013Epäsuora henkilöön viittaaminen oppijansuomessa. Jyväskylä: Doctoral dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Siiroinen, Mari
    2001Kuka pelkää, ketä pelottaa: Nykysuomen tunneverbien kielioppia ja semantiikkaa. Helsinki: Doctoral dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Skehan, Peter
    2003 Task-based instruction. Language Teaching36(1). 1–14. 10.1017/S026144480200188X
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S026144480200188X [Google Scholar]
  49. Smiskova-Gustafsson, Hana
    2013Chunks in L2 development: A usage-based perspective. Groningen: Doctoral dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Spoelman, Marianne & Marjolijn Verspoor
    2010 Dynamic patterns in development of accuracy and complexity: A longitudinal case study in the acquisition of Finnish. Applied Linguistics31(4). 532–553. 10.1093/applin/amq001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amq001 [Google Scholar]
  51. Steinkrauss, Rasmus
    2017 L1 acquisition beyond input frequency. InJacqueline Evers-Vermeul & Elena Tribushinina (eds.), Usage-based approaches to language acquisition and language teaching, 117–142. Boston/Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9781501505492‑006
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501505492-006 [Google Scholar]
  52. Tilma, Corinne
    2014The dynamics of foreign versus second language development in Finnish writing. Jyväskylä: Doctoral dissertation.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Tomasello, Michael
    2003Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Topling – Paths in Second Language Acquisition
    Topling – Paths in Second Language Acquisition. Research Project, University of Jyväskylä 2007–2009https://www.jyu.fi/hytk/fi/laitokset/kivi/tutkimus/hankkeet/paattyneet-tutkimushankkeet-kansio/topling/en (16.5.2017).
  55. Verspoor, Marjolijn & Heike Behrens
    2011 Dynamic systems theory and a usage-based approach to second language development. InMarjolijn Verspoor, Kees de Bot & Wander Lowie (eds.), A dynamic approach to second language development: Methods and techniques, 25–38. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/lllt.29.02ver
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.29.02ver [Google Scholar]
  56. Verspoor, Marjolijn & Marijn van Dijk
    2011 Visualizing interactions between variables. InMarjolijn Verspoor, Kees de Bot & Wander Lowie (eds.), A dynamic approach to second language development: Methods and techniques, 85–98. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/lllt.29.05ver
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.29.05ver [Google Scholar]
  57. Verspoor, Marjolijn & Kim Sauter
    2000English sentence analysis: An introductory course. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.100
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.100 [Google Scholar]
  58. Verspoor, Marjolijn, Monika S. Schmid & Xiaoyan Xu
    2012 A dynamic usage based perspective on L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing21(3). 239–263. 10.1016/j.jslw.2012.03.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.03.007 [Google Scholar]
  59. VISK = Hakulinen, Auli, Maria Vilkuna, Riitta Korhonen, Vesa Koivisto, Tarja Riitta Heinonen & Irja Alho
    2004Iso suomen kielioppi. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura. Electronic Database [29 Dec. 2017]. Retrieved from: scripta.kotus.fi/visk. URN:978-952-5446-35-7
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Wray, Alison
    2007 ‘Needs only’ analysis in linguistic ontogeny and phylogeny. InCaroline Lyon, Chrystopher L. Nehaniv & Angelo Cangelosi (eds.), Emergence of communication and language, 53–70. London: Springer London. 10.1007/978‑1‑84628‑779‑4_3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84628-779-4_3 [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