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



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.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  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]

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