1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Pedagogical Linguistics
  4. Volume 5, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 5, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2665-9581
  • E-ISSN: 2665-959X
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Second language acquisition studies have mainly considered transfer between two or more languages as a binary setting, it either happens or does not. However, research emerging out of usage-based approaches show that such transfer effects might be more gradient than ever thought before (e.g., Goschler & Stefanowitsch, 2019). Investigating a construction that has been reported to pose problems such as overpassivization to L2 English learners, i.e., unaccusatives, this study aims to trace gradient transfer effects between Turkish and English in the intransitive-unaccusative construction in Turkish learners of English. Following Goschler and Stefanowitsch’s (2019) method to analyze, extract experimental items from English and Turkish corpora, and experiment with collostructional transfer effects, the study revealed similar findings. Findings suggest that learners are likely to transfer strongly entrenched L1 items into the L2 even at advanced proficiency levels. Interestingly, when the item is weakly entrenched in L1, speakers attune to the input in L2 with growing proficiency. Furthermore, proficiency or experience helps with preempting non-optimal constructional combinations. Pedagogically, the study suggests that collo-profiles may help teachers and students with mitigating unconventional item-construction combinations at advanced levels.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/pl.22019.ged
2023-01-30
2025-04-21

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/pl.22019.ged
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Abdullayeva, O.
    (1993) The acquisition of English ergative verbs by Turkish EFL students (MA Thesis). Bilkent University. Ankara, Turkey.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Anthony, L.
    (2014) TagAnt (2.0.4) [Computer Software]. Tokyo. Retrieved fromhttps://www.laurenceanthony.net/software
     [Google Scholar]
  3. (2022) AntConc (4.0.10) [Computer Software]. Tokyo. Retrieved fromhttps://www.laurenceanthony.net/software
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Azazil, L.
    (2020) Frequency effects in the L2 acquisition of the catenative verb construction – evidence from experimental and corpus data. Cognitive Linguistics, 31(3), 417–451. 10.1515/cog‑2018‑0139
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2018-0139 [Google Scholar]
  5. Balcom, P. A.
    (2001) An application of second language acquisition research to ESL grammar teaching: What to do with novel passives. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 4(1), 3–23.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Bardovi-Harlig, K., Mossman, S., & Vellenga, H. E.
    (2015) Developing Corpus-Based Materials to Teach Pragmatic Routines. TESOL Journal, 6(3), 499–526. 10.1002/tesj.177
     https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.177 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bartning, I., & Hammarberg, B.
    (2007) The functions of a high-frequency collocation in native and learner discourse: The case of French c’est and Swedish det är. IRAL – International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 45(1), 1–43. 10.1515/IRAL.2007.001
     https://doi.org/10.1515/IRAL.2007.001 [Google Scholar]
  8. Bidgood, A., Pine, J., Rowland, C., Sala, G., Freudenthal, D., & Ambridge, B.
    (2021) Verb argument structure overgeneralisations for the English intransitive and transitive constructions: Grammaticality judgments and production priming. Language and Cognition, 13(3), 397–437. 10.1017/langcog.2021.8
     https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2021.8 [Google Scholar]
  9. Burt, M. K., & Kiparsky, C.
    (1972) The Gooficon: A Repair Manual for English.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Cabrera, M., & Zubizarreta, M. L.
    (2005) Overgeneralization of causatives and transfer in L2 Spanish and L2 English. Selected Proceedings of the 6th Conference on the Acquisition of Spanish and Portuguese as First and Second Languages, 15–30. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Can, A.
    (2000) The use of ergative verbs by Turkish learners of English (Master’s Thesis). Anadolu Üniversitesi, Eskişehir, Turkey.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. (2009) Acquisition of English ergative verbs by Turkish students: Yesterday and today. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1(1), 2832–2837. 10.1016/j.sbspro.2009.01.504
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2009.01.504 [Google Scholar]
  13. Chung, T.
    (2011) The input of L2 English unaccusative verbs: EFL textbooks and teachers’ knowledge. 영어학 [Anglistics], 11(2), 437–464.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Dąbrowska, E.
    (2018) Experience, aptitude and individual differences in native language ultimate attainment. Cognition, 1781, 222–235. 10.1016/j.cognition.2018.05.018
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2018.05.018 [Google Scholar]
  15. Demirci, M.
    (2001) Acquisition of binding of English reflexives by Turkish L2 learners: A neo-gricean pragmatic account. Journal of Pragmatics, 33(5), 753–775. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(00)00017‑5
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(00)00017-5 [Google Scholar]
  16. Ellis, N. C., & Ferreira-Junior, F.
    (2009) Construction Learning as a Function of Frequency, Frequency Distribution, and Function. The Modern Language Journal, 93(3), 370–385. 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.2009.00896.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00896.x [Google Scholar]
  17. Ellis, N. C., O’Donnell, M. B., & Römer, U.
    (2014) Second language verb-argument constructions are sensitive to form, function, frequency, contingency, and prototypicality. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 4(4), 405–431. 10.1075/lab.4.4.01ell
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.4.4.01ell [Google Scholar]
  18. Grady, M. W.
    (1969) Syntax and Semantics of the English Verb Phrase. Berlin: Mouton.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Garibyan, A., Balog, E., & Herbst, T.
    (2019) L2-constructions that go together–more on valency constructions and learner language. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association, 7(1), 9–30. 10.1515/gcla‑2019‑0002
     https://doi.org/10.1515/gcla-2019-0002 [Google Scholar]
  20. Gedik, T. A.
    (2022a, July). Creating lexicogrammatical language materials: A practical guide for foreign language teachers. Presented at theCorpus Approaches to Lexicogrammar, Edgehill University, UK.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. (2022b) An Analysis of Lexicogrammatical Development in English Textbooks in Turkey: A Usage-Based Construction Grammar Approach. Explorations in English Language and Linguistics, 9(1), 26–55. 10.2478/exell‑2022‑0002
     https://doi.org/10.2478/exell-2022-0002 [Google Scholar]
  22. Gedik, T. A., & Kolsal, Y. S.
    (2022) A Corpus Based Approach to English University Entrance Exams and English High School Textbooks in Turkey. TAPSLA, 8(1), 157–176. 10.31261/TAPSLA.9152
     https://doi.org/10.31261/TAPSLA.9152 [Google Scholar]
  23. Gedik, T. A., & Uslu, F.
    (2022) L1-L2 Transfer in the Ditransitive Construction: A Usage-based Replication Study with Turkish speakers of English. Advances in Second/Foreign Language Acquisition. Presented atthe ASeFoLA, Nicosia, Cyprus. Retrieved fromhttps://asefola.weebly.com/uploads/1/4/0/2/140216775/book_of_abstracts_-_asefola_conference.pdf
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Goldberg, A. E.
    (1995) Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. CA: University of California Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. (2003) Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(5), 219–224. 10.1016/S1364‑6613(03)00080‑9
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(03)00080-9 [Google Scholar]
  26. (2006) Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. (2019) Explain me this: Creativity, competition, and the partial productivity of constructions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Goldberg, A. E., & Casenhiser, D. M.
    (2008) Construction learning and second language acquisition. InP. J. Robinson & N. C. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition (pp.197–215). NY: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Goldberg, A. E., & Ferreira, F.
    (2022) Good-enough language production. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 26(4), 300–311. 10.1016/j.tics.2022.01.005
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2022.01.005 [Google Scholar]
  30. Goschler, J., & Stefanowitsch, A.
    (2019) Generalization and Transfer in L2 Acquisition: The Role of Entrenchment in L1 and L2. Presented at theICLC. Retrieved fromhttps://iclc2019.site/wp-content/uploads/abstracts/applied/ICLC-15_paper_202.pdf
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Gries, S. T.
    (2014) Coll.analysis 3.5. A script for R to compute perform collostructional analyses.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Gries, S. Th., & Stefanowitsch, A.
    (2003) Collostructions: Investigating the interaction of 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]
  33. Gries, S. Th., & Wulff, S.
    (2005) Do foreign language learners also have constructions?Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 3(1), 182–200. 10.1075/arcl.3.10gri
     https://doi.org/10.1075/arcl.3.10gri [Google Scholar]
  34. Herbst, T.
    (2016) Foreign language learning is construction learning – what Else? Moving towards Pedagogical Construction Grammar. InS. De Knop & G. Gilquin (Eds.), Applied Construction Grammar. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110458268‑003
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110458268-003 [Google Scholar]
  35. (2018) Is Language a Collostructicon? A Proposal for Looking at Collocations, Valency, Argument Structure and Other Constructions. InP. Cantos-Gómez & M. Almela-Sánchez (Eds.), Lexical Collocation Analysis (pp.1–22). Cham: Springer International Publishing. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑92582‑0_1
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92582-0_1 [Google Scholar]
  36. (2020) Constructions, generalizations, and the unpredictability of language: Moving towards colloconstruction. Constructions and Frames, 12(1), 56–95. 10.1075/cf.00035.her
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.00035.her [Google Scholar]
  37. Herbst, T., Heath, D., Roe, I. F., & Götz, D.
    (2013) A valency dictionary of English: A corpus-based analysis of the complementation patterns of English verbs, nouns and adjectives. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Ju, M. K.
    (2000) Overpassivization errors by second language learners: The effect of conceptualizable agents in discourse. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22(1), 85–111. 10.1017/S0272263100001042
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100001042 [Google Scholar]
  39. Juffs, A.
    (2000) An overview of the second language acquisition of links between verb semantics and morpho-syntax. InJ. Archibald (Ed.), Second language acquisition and linguistic theory (pp.170–179). NY: Wiley-Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Karacaer, Z.
    (1998) Anadili Türkçe olan öğrencilerin İngilizce’deki istemsiz geçişsiz fiillerde karşılaştıkları sorunlar ve bu fiillerin öğretimine ilişkin öneriler. [Problems That Turkish Learners of English Encounter during the Acquisition of Ergatives and Some Suggestions about Teaching These Verbs] Anadolu Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 1–2.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Kellerman, E.
    (1978) Giving learners a break: Native language intuitions as a source of predictions about transferability. Working Papers on Bilingualism Toronto, (15), 59–92.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Kim, H., & Hwang, H.
    (2022) Assessing Verb-Construction Integration in Young Learners of English as a Foreign Language: Analyses of Written and Spoken Production. Language Learning, 72(2), 497–533. 10.1111/lang.12480
     https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12480 [Google Scholar]
  43. Kim, H., Rah, Y., & Hwang, H.
    (2020) Testing Usage-Based Approaches to Assessing EFL Learners’ Development of English Argument Structure Constructions. English Teaching, 75(1), 55–78. 10.15858/engtea.75.s1.202006.55
     https://doi.org/10.15858/engtea.75.s1.202006.55 [Google Scholar]
  44. Kondo, T., Otaki, A., Suda, K., & Shirahata, T.
    (2016) Occurrences of Unaccusative Verbs in English Textbooks and Their Acquisition (Experimental Studies, The 45th CELES Conference in Wakayama). Journal of the Chubu English Language Education Society, 451, 53–60.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Le Foll, E.
    (2021) Creating Corpus-Informed Materials for the English as a Foreign Language Classroom: A step-by-step guide for (trainee) teachers using online resources. Zenodo. 10.5281/ZENODO.4992504
     https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.4992504 [Google Scholar]
  46. Lee, J.-H., & Kim, H. M.
    (2011) The L2 developmental sequence of English constructions and underlying factors. 영어학 [Anglistics], 11(3), 577–600.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Lee, J.-H., & Kim, S.-S.
    (2016) Korean College Students’ Knowledge on English Argument Structure Constructions Depending on English Proficiency. 영어학 [Anglistics], 16(2), 121–142.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Liang, J.
    (2002) Sentence comprehension by Chinese learners of English: Verb-centered or construction-based (Unpublished MA Thesis). Guangdong University of Foreign Studies, Guangdong, China.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Madlener, K.
    (2015) Frequency Effects In Instructed Second Language Acquisition:DeGruyter. 10.1515/9783110405538
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110405538 [Google Scholar]
  50. (2016) Input optimization: Effects of type and token frequency manipulations in instructed second language learning. InH. Behrens & S. Pfänder (Eds.), Experience Counts: Frequency Effects in Language (pp.133–174). Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110346916‑007
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110346916-007 [Google Scholar]
  51. Martinez-Garcia, M. T., & Wulff, S.
    (2012) Not wrong, yet not quite right: Spanish ESL students’ use of gerundial and infinitival complementation. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 22(2), 225–244. 10.1111/j.1473‑4192.2012.00310.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2012.00310.x [Google Scholar]
  52. Matthys, J.
    (2015) Collostructional transfer in the dative alternation (Master’s Thesis). Universiteit Gent, Ghent, Brussels.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Nakipoğlu-Demiralp, M.
    (2001) The referential properties of the implicit arguments of impersonal passive constructions. InE. Erguvanlı-Taylan (Ed.), The verb in Turkish (pp.129–150). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Oshita, H.
    (1997) “The unaccusative trap”: L2 acquisition of English intransitive verbs. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Southern California. CA, USA.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. (2001) The unaccusative trap in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23(2), 279–304. 10.1017/S0272263101002078
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263101002078 [Google Scholar]
  56. Perlmutter, D. M.
    (1978) Impersonal passives and the unaccusative hypothesis. Annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 41, 157–190. 10.3765/bls.v4i0.2198
     https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v4i0.2198 [Google Scholar]
  57. Pinker, S.
    (1989) Learnability and Cognition, new edition: The Acquisition of Argument Structure. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Phoocharoensil, S.
    (2013) Cross-Linguistic Influence: Its Impact on L2 English Collocation Production. English Language Teaching, 6(1), 1–10.
     [Google Scholar]
  59. R Core Team
    R Core Team (2021) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved fromhttps://www.r-project.org/
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Römer, U., & Berger, C. M.
    (2019) Observing the Emergence of Constructional Knowledge: Verb Patterns in German and Spanish Learners of English at Different Proficiency Levels. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 41(5), 1089–1110. 10.1017/S0272263119000202
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263119000202 [Google Scholar]
  61. Römer, U., Roberson, A., O’Donnell, M. B., & Ellis, N. C.
    (2014) Linking learner corpus and experimental data in studying second language learners’ knowledge of verb-argument constructions. ICAME Journal, 38(1), 115–135. 10.2478/icame‑2014‑0006
     https://doi.org/10.2478/icame-2014-0006 [Google Scholar]
  62. Römer, U., & Yilmaz, S.
    (2019) Effects of L2 usage and L1 transfer on Turkish learners’ production of English verb-argument constructions. Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics, (16), 107–134. 10.35869/vial.v0i16.95
     https://doi.org/10.35869/vial.v0i16.95 [Google Scholar]
  63. Selinker, L.
    (1972) Interlanguage. IRAL – International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 10(1–4). 10.1515/iral.1972.10.1‑4.209
     https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.1972.10.1-4.209 [Google Scholar]
  64. Shetreet, E., Friedmann, N., & Hadar, U.
    (2009) The neural correlates of linguistic distinctions: Unaccusative and unergative verbs. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 22(10), 2306–2315. 10.1162/jocn.2009.21371
     https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2009.21371 [Google Scholar]
  65. Shin, G.-H.
    (2010) On the contribution of argument structure constructions to sentence meaning for Korean learners of English. ENGLISH TEACHING (영어교육), 65(4), 209–227. 10.15858/engtea.65.4.201012.209
     https://doi.org/10.15858/engtea.65.4.201012.209 [Google Scholar]
  66. Sorace, A.
    (1995) Acquiring linking rules and argument structures in a second language: The unaccusative/unergative distinction. InL. Eubank, L. Selinker, & M. Sharwood Smith (Eds.), The Current State of Interlanguage (p.153). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/z.73.13sor
     https://doi.org/10.1075/z.73.13sor [Google Scholar]
  67. TNC
    TNC (2014) Turkish National Corpus. Retrieved fromtnc.org.tr
  68. Valenzuela, J. V., & Rojo, A. M.
    (2008) What can language learners tell us about constructions?Applications of Cognitive Linguistics, 91, 197.
     [Google Scholar]
  69. Viana, V.
    (2022) Teaching English with Corpora: A Resource Book (1st ed.). London: Routledge. 10.4324/b22833
     https://doi.org/10.4324/b22833 [Google Scholar]
  70. White, L.
    (2003) Second language acquisition and universal grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511815065
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511815065 [Google Scholar]
  71. Wolter, B., & Gyllstad, H.
    (2011) Collocational links in the L2 mental lexicon and the influence of L1 intralexical knowledge. Applied Linguistics, 32(4), 430–449. 10.1093/applin/amr011
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amr011 [Google Scholar]
  72. Zughoul, M. R., & Abdul-Fattah, H. S.
    (2001) Collocational Competence of Arabic Speaking Learners of English: A Study in Lexical Semantics. ERIC, 191.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/pl.22019.ged
Loading
Collostructional transfer effects in Turkish learners of English
Pedagogical Linguistics 5, 103 (2024); https://doi.org/10.1075/pl.22019.ged
/content/journals/10.1075/pl.22019.ged
/content/journals/10.1075/pl.22019.ged
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): collostructions; construction grammar; transfer effects; Turkish; unaccusative

Most Cited

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