1887
Volume 17, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1877-9751
  • E-ISSN: 1877-976X
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This paper argues that the cognitive usage-based model enhanced by a complexity theory perspective can provide useful insights into L2 learners’ non-target-like use of L2 phraseological chunks. Firstly, L2 chunks are conceptualized here as L2 complex form-meaning mappings subject to developmental schematization and entrenchment, as well as productive cut-and-paste mechanisms. Traces of these mechanisms at community level are interpreted as emergent patterns, a complexity theory concept in line with the cognitive usage-based model. Next, learner expressions for two task-elicited notions ( and ) in a community of L2 English learners ( = 167; L1 Dutch) are analyzed for emergent patterns at different levels of schematicity. The findings indicate that L2 phraseological chunks are not constructed from a target-like initial exemplar that becomes entrenched or schematized. The paper concludes that within the cognitive usage-based model this is a major impeding factor in L2 learners’ target-like use of L2 phraseological chunks.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00040.gus
2020-01-10
2020-04-08
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Beckner, C., Blythe, R., Bybee, J., Christiansen, M. H., Croft, W., Ellis, N. C., Holland, J., Ke, J., Larsen-Freeman, D., & Schoenemann, T.
    (2009) Language is a complex adaptive system. Position paper, Language Learning, 59, Supplement1, 1–26. 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2009.00533.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00533.x [Google Scholar]
  2. Bybee, J.
    (2008) Usage-based Grammar and Second Language Acquisition. InP. Robinson & N. C. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition (pp.216–236). New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. (2010) Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511750526
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511750526 [Google Scholar]
  4. Croft, W.
    (2015) Functional approaches to grammar. InJ. D. Wright (Ed.), International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed., Vol.9 (pp.470–475). Oxford: Elsevier. 10.1016/B978‑0‑08‑097086‑8.53009‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.53009-8 [Google Scholar]
  5. Dabrowska, E.
    (2012, March). Reduce, reuse, recycle: The ecology of language use. Keynote Address, 5th Conference of the Formulaic Language Research Network, Tilburg, The Netherlands.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. (2014) Recycling utterances: A speaker’s guide to sentence processing. Cognitive Linguistics, 25(4), 167–653. 10.1515/cog‑2014‑0057
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2014-0057 [Google Scholar]
  7. (2015) Language in the mind and in the community. InJ. Daems, E. Zenner, K. Heylen, D. Speelmand, & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), Change of Paradigms – New Paradoxes: Recontextualizing Language and Linguistics (pp.221–235). Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Dabrowska, E., & Lieven, E.
    (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]
  9. De Bot, K., & Larsen-Freeman, D.
    (2011) Researching second language development from a dynamic systems theory perspective. InM. H. Verspoor, K. de Bot & W. Lowie (Eds.), A dynamic approach to second language development: Methods and techniques (pp.5–23). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/lllt.29.01deb
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.29.01deb [Google Scholar]
  10. De Bot, K., Lowie, W., & Verspoor, M.
    (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]
  11. Ellis, N. C.
    (2014) Construction learning as category learning: A cognitive analysis. InT. Herbst, S. Schueller & H.-J. Schmid (Eds.), Constructions – Collocations – Patterns (pp.63–89). Berlin: de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Ellis, N. C., & Cadierno, T.
    (2009) Constructing a Second Language: Introduction to the Special Section. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 7, 111–139. 10.1075/arcl.7.05ell
    https://doi.org/10.1075/arcl.7.05ell [Google Scholar]
  13. Ellis, N. C., & Ferreira-Junior, F.
    (2009a) Construction Learning as a function of Frequency, Frequency Distribution, and Function. 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]
  14. (2009b) Constructions and their acquisition: islands and the distinctiveness of their occupancy. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 7, 187–220. 10.1075/arcl.7.08ell
    https://doi.org/10.1075/arcl.7.08ell [Google Scholar]
  15. 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]
  16. (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]
  17. (2014) What’s new? A usage-based classroom study of linguistic routines and creativity in L2 learning. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 52, 1–30. 10.1515/iral‑2014‑0001
    https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2014-0001 [Google Scholar]
  18. (2015) What Counts as a Developmental Sequence? Exemplar-Based L2 Learning of English Questions. Language Learning, 65(1), 33–62. 10.1111/lang.12090
    https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12090 [Google Scholar]
  19. Goldberg, A.
    (2006) Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Granger, S., & Paquot, M.
    (2012) Formulaic Language in Learner Corpora. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32, 130–149. doi: 10.1017/S0267190512000098
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190512000098 [Google Scholar]
  21. Gustafsson, H., & Verspoor, M. H.
    (2017) The Development of Chunks in Dutch L2 Learners of English. InJ. Evers-Vermeul & E. Tribushinina (Eds.), Usage-Based Approaches to Language Acquisition and Language Teaching (pp.235–262). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9781501505492‑011
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501505492-011 [Google Scholar]
  22. Hoey, M.
    (2005) Lexical priming. A new theory of words and language. London and New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Hopper, P. J.
    (1998) Emergent Grammar. InM. Tomasello (Ed.), The New Psychology of Language (pp.155–175). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Jolsvai, H., McCauley, S. M., & Christiansen, M. H.
    (2013) Meaning overrides frequency in idiomatic and compositional multiword chunks. InM. Knauff, M. Pauen, N. Sebanz & I. Wachsmuth (Eds.), Proceedings of the 35th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp.692–697). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Langacker, R. W.
    (1987) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. (2000) A dynamic usage-based model. InM. Barlow & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Usage-Based Models of Language (pp.1–63). Stanford: CSLI.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. (2008a) Cognitive grammar as a basis for language instruction. InP. Robinson & N. C. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition (pp.66–88). New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. (2008b) Cognitive Grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford University Press: New York. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  29. Larsen-Freeman, D.
    (2006) The emergence of complexity, fluency, and accuracy in the oral and written production of five Chinese learners of English. Applied linguistics, 27(4), 590–619.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. (2012) Complexity Theory / Dynamic Systems Theory. InP. Robinson (Ed.), The Routledge Encyclopedia Of Second Language Acquisition (pp.103–105). Routledge: London and New York.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Larsen-Freeman, D., & Cameron, L.
    (2008) Complex Systems and Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Levin, B.
    (2008) Dative Verbs: A Crosslinguistic Perspective. Lingvisticæ Investigationes, 31, 285–312. 10.1075/li.31.2.12lev
    https://doi.org/10.1075/li.31.2.12lev [Google Scholar]
  33. Li, P., Eskildsen, S. W., & Cadierno, T.
    (2014) Tracing an L2 learner’s motion constructions over time – A usage-based classroom investigation. Modern Language Journal, 98, 612–628. 10.1111/modl.12091
    https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12091 [Google Scholar]
  34. Lowie, W. M., & Verspoor, M. H.
    (2004) Input versus transfer? The role of frequency and similarity in the acquisition of L2 propositions. InS. Niemeier & M. Achard (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics, Second Language Acquisition, and Foreign Language Acquisition (pp.77–94). Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110199857.77
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110199857.77 [Google Scholar]
  35. Nesselhauf, N.
    (2005) Collocations in a learner corpus. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.14
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.14 [Google Scholar]
  36. Odlin, T.
    (2008) Conceptual transfer and meaning extensions. InP. Robinson & N. C. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition (pp.306–340). New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Paquot, M., & Granger, S.
    (2012) Formulaic Language in Learner Corpora. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics. 32, 130–149. 10.1017/S0267190512000098
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190512000098 [Google Scholar]
  38. Pawley, A., & Syder, F. H.
    (1983) Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Native-like selection and native-like fluency. InJ. C. Richards & R. W. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and Communication (pp.163–199). New York: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Renouf, A., Kehoe, A., & Banerjee, J.
    (2007) WebCorp: an integrated system for web text search. InC. Nesselhauf, M. Hundt & C. Biewer (Eds.), Corpus Linguistics and the Web (pp.47–68). Amsterdam: Rodopi. 10.1163/9789401203791_005
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789401203791_005 [Google Scholar]
  40. Slobin, D.
    (1996) From “thought and language” to “thinking for speaking”. InJ. Gumperz & S. Levinson (Eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity (pp.97–114). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Smiskova, H., Verspoor, M. H., & Lowie, W. M.
    (2012) Conventionalized ways of saying things (CWOSTs) and L2 development. Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 125–142. 10.1075/dujal.1.1.09smi
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dujal.1.1.09smi [Google Scholar]
  42. Smiskova-Gustafsson, H.
    (2013) Chunks in L2 development: A usage-based perspective. Doctoral dissertation. Grodil: University of Groningen.
  43. Tomasello, M.
    (2000) Do young children have adult syntactic competence?Cognition, 74, 209–253. 10.1016/S0010‑0277(99)00069‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00069-4 [Google Scholar]
  44. Tyler, A.
    (2012) Cognitive Linguistics and SLA. InP. Robinson (Ed.), The Routledge Encyclopedia Of Second Language Acquisition (pp.88–90). Routledge: London and New York.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Verspoor, M. H., Schuitemaker-King, J., van Rein, E., de Bot, C. J., & Edelenbos, P.
    (2010) Tweetalig onderwijs: vormgeving en prestaties. Onderzoeksrapportage. Available online athttps://www.nuffic.nl/publicaties/tweetalig-onderwijs-vormgeving-en-prestaties/
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Verspoor, M., Schmid, M. S., & Xu, X.
    (2012) A dynamic usage based perspective on L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(3), 239–263. 10.1016/j.jslw.2012.03.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.03.007 [Google Scholar]
  47. Wray, A.
    (2002) Formulaic Language and the Lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511519772
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511519772 [Google Scholar]
  48. (2012) What Do We (Think We) Know About Formulaic Language? An Evaluation of the Current State of Play. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32, 231–254. 10.1017/S026719051200013X
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S026719051200013X [Google Scholar]
  49. Yuldashev, A., Fernandez, J., & Thorne, S. L.
    (2013) Second language learners’ contiguous and discontiguous MWU use over time. Modern Language Journal, 97, 31–45. 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.2012.01420.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2012.01420.x [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00040.gus
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00040.gus
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