1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Review of Cognitive Linguistics. Published under the auspices of the Spanish Cognitive Linguistics Association
  4. Volume 22, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 22, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1877-9751
  • E-ISSN: 1877-976X
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Most usage-based research emphasizes the importance of implicit, input-driven learning in naturalistic environments, but recent studies have adopted usage-based grammatical descriptions for instructed learning in classrooms. These descriptions are intended to draw learners’ deliberate attention to relevant usage patterns in the input and thereby support intake. Most of these studies compare usage-based descriptions to other types of descriptions for their efficiency, while little attention has been paid to the ways in which learners understand and apply such descriptions. This study examines what foreign language learners understand of usage-based grammatical descriptions of target structures. In an experimental forced choice task, Chinese learners of German received usage-based descriptions of case structures and then classified target instances in variable contexts. A multivariate regression analysis indicated that choices were influenced by interactions of the type of description with participants’ target-language proficiency and the semantic and lexical target contexts. This is discussed in terms of noticing and category formation. This study argues that learners are able to use grammatical descriptions as some kind of auxiliary model for recognizing and categorizing target patterns. The descriptions thus make learners aware of the mechanisms underlying implicit learning and help them exploit these mechanisms for explicit learning.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00149.jac
2023-05-30
2025-04-23

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00149.jac
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Achard, M.
    (2004) Grammatical instruction in the natural approach: A cognitive grammar view. InM. Achard & S. Niemeier (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics, second language acquisition, and foreign language teaching (pp.165–194). Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110199857.165
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110199857.165 [Google Scholar]
  2. Achard, M., & Niemeier, S.
    (2004) Cognitive Linguistics, second language acquisition, and foreign language teaching. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110199857
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110199857 [Google Scholar]
  3. Baten, K.
    (2008) Der Regelkomplex der Wechselpräpositionen mit Blick auf den DaF-Unterricht. Deutsch als Fremdsprache, 45(1), 22–26. 10.37307/j.2198‑2430.2008.01.05
     https://doi.org/10.37307/j.2198-2430.2008.01.05 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S.
    (2015) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using Lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. 10.18637/jss.v067.i01
     https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01 [Google Scholar]
  5. Boers, F.
    (2004) Expanding learners vocabulary through metaphor awareness: What expansion, what learners, what vocabulary?InM. Achard & S. Niemeier (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics, second language acquisition, and foreign language teaching (pp.211–232). Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110199857.211
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110199857.211 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bybee, J.
    (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. Hoffman & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar (pp.49–69). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396683.013.0004
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396683.013.0004 [Google Scholar]
  8. Bybee, J., & Hopper, P.
    (Eds.) (2001) Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.45
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.45 [Google Scholar]
  9. Clark-Gareca, B., & Gui, M.
    (2018) Chinese and American EFL teachers’ beliefs about curricular and pedagogical practices: Cross-cultural similarities and differences. Language and Intercultural Communication, 19(2), 137–151. 10.1080/14708477.2018.1456546
     https://doi.org/10.1080/14708477.2018.1456546 [Google Scholar]
  10. Cobb, T., & Boulton, A.
    (2015) Classroom applications of corpus analysis. InD. Biber & R. Reppen (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of English Corpus Linguistics (pp.478–497). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139764377.027
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139764377.027 [Google Scholar]
  11. De Knop, S.
    (2008) Sociocultural conceptualizations: Schemas and metaphorical transfer as metalinguistic learning strategies for French learners of German. InM. Pütz & J. Neff-van Aertselaer (Eds.), Developing contrastive pragmatics: Interlanguage and cross-cultural perspectives (pp.47–66). Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110207217.1.47
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110207217.1.47 [Google Scholar]
  12. (2015) Visualization and conceptual metaphor as tools for the teaching of abstract motion in German. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 13(1), 167–190. 10.1075/rcl.13.1.07kno
     https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.13.1.07kno [Google Scholar]
  13. (2020) Expressions of motion events in German: An integrative constructionist approach for FLT. CogniTextes, 201. 10.4000/cognitextes.1882
     https://doi.org/10.4000/cognitextes.1882 [Google Scholar]
  14. De Knop, S., & Dirven, R.
    (2008) Motion and location events in German, French and English: A typological, contrastive and pedagogical approach. InS. de Knop & R. Dirven (Eds.), Cognitive approaches to pedagogical grammar: A volume in honour of René Dirven (pp.295–324). Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110205381.3.295
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110205381.3.295 [Google Scholar]
  15. DeKeyser, R. M.
    (1997) Beyond explicit rule learning: Automatizing second language morphosyntax. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(2), 195–221. 10.1017/S0272263197002040
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263197002040 [Google Scholar]
  16. (2003) Implicit and explicit learning. InC. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp.313–347). Oxford: Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470756492.ch11
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756492.ch11 [Google Scholar]
  17. (2015) Skill acquisition theory. InB. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition (2nd ed.) (pp.94–112). New York, NY: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Diessel, H.
    (2019) The grammar network: How linguistic structure is shaped by language use. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108671040
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108671040 [Google Scholar]
  19. Diessel, H., & Hilpert, M.
    (2016) Frequency effects in grammar. InOxford research encyclopedia of linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.120
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.120 [Google Scholar]
  20. Dolgova, N., & Tyler, A.
    (2019) Applications of usage-based approaches to language teaching. InX. Gao (Ed.), Second handbook of English language teaching (pp.940–961). Cham: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑030‑02899‑2_49
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02899-2_49 [Google Scholar]
  21. Doughty, C. J.
    (2003) Instructed SLA: Constraints, compensation, and enhancement. InC. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp.257–310). Malden, MA: Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470756492.ch10
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756492.ch10 [Google Scholar]
  22. Draye, L.
    (2014) German two-way prepositions and related phenomena. InN. Delbecque, K. Lahousse & W. Van Langendonck (Eds.), Non-nuclear cases (pp.95–126). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cagral.6.04dra
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cagral.6.04dra [Google Scholar]
  23. Ellis, N. C.
    (2005) At the Interface: Dynamic interactions of explicit and implicit language knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(2), 305–352. 10.1017/S027226310505014X
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226310505014X [Google Scholar]
  24. (2006) Selective attention and transfer phenomena in L2 acquisition: Contingency, cue competition, salience, interference, overshadowing, blocking, and perceptual learning. Applied Linguistics, 27(2), 164–194. 10.1093/applin/aml015
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/aml015 [Google Scholar]
  25. (2015) Implicit and explicit language learning: Their dynamic interface and complexity. InP. Rebuschat (Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languague (pp.3–23). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/sibil.48.01ell
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.48.01ell [Google Scholar]
  26. Ellis, N. C., & Ferreira-Junior, F.
    (2009a) Construction learning as a function of frequency, frequency distribution, and function. Modern Language Journal, 93(3), 370–386. 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.2009.00896.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00896.x [Google Scholar]
  27. (2009b) Constructions and their acquisition: Islands and the distinctiveness of their occupancy. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 7(1), 187–220. 10.1075/arcl.7.08ell
     https://doi.org/10.1075/arcl.7.08ell [Google Scholar]
  28. Ellis, N. C., Römer, U., & O’Donnell, M. B.
    (2016) Usage-based approaches to language acquisition and processing: Cognitive and corpus investigations of Construction Grammar. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Ellis, N. C., & Wulff, S.
    (2020) Usage-based approaches to L2 acquisition. InB. VanPatten, G. D. Keating & S. Wulff (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp.63–82). New York, NY: Routledge. 10.4324/9780429503986‑4
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429503986-4 [Google Scholar]
  30. Ellis, R.
    (2004) The definition and measurement of L2 explicit knowledge. Language Learning, 54(2), 227–275. 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2004.00255.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2004.00255.x [Google Scholar]
  31. Erlam, R.
    (2020) Explicit knowledge and grammar explanation in second language instruction. InC. A. Chapelle (Ed.), The concise encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics (pp.455–459). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell. 10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0404.pub2
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0404.pub2 [Google Scholar]
  32. Evers-Vermeul, J., & Tribushinina, E.
    (Eds.) (2017) Usage-based approaches to language acquisition and language teaching. Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9781501505492
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501505492 [Google Scholar]
  33. Funk, H., Kuhn, C., & Winzer-Kiontke, B.
    (2019) Studio 21: Das Deutschbuch: Deutsch als Fremdsprache A2. Berlin: Cornelsen.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Godfroid, A.
    (2021) Implicit and explicit learning and knowledge. InH. Mohebbi & C. Coombe (Eds.), Research questions in language education and Applied Linguistics: A reference guide (pp.823–829). Cham: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑030‑79143‑8_142
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-79143-8_142 [Google Scholar]
  35. Goldberg, A. E.
    (2006) Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Goo, J., Granena, G., Yilmaz, Y., & Novella, M.
    (2015) Implicit and explicit instruction in L2 learning: Norris & Ortega (2000) revisited and updated. InP. Rebuschat (Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages (pp.443–482). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/sibil.48.18goo
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.48.18goo [Google Scholar]
  37. Gries, S. Th
    (2021) (Generalized Linear) Mixed-effects modeling: A learner corpus example. Language Learning, 71(3), 757–798. 10.1111/lang.12448
     https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12448 [Google Scholar]
  38. Grotjahn, R.
    (Ed.) (2014) Der C-Test: Aktuelle Tendenzen. The C-Test: Current trends. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. 10.3726/978‑3‑653‑04578‑9
     https://doi.org/10.3726/978-3-653-04578-9 [Google Scholar]
  39. Han, Z., & Finneran, R.
    (2013) Re-engaging the interface debate: Strong, weak, none, or all?International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 24(3), 370–389. 10.1111/ijal.12034
     https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12034 [Google Scholar]
  40. Hoey, M.
    (2005) Lexical priming: A new theory of words and language. New York, NY: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Hoffmann, T., & Trousdale, G.
    (2013) The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396683.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396683.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  42. Hu, G.
    (2002) Psychological constraints on the utility of metalinguistic knowledge in second language production. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(3), 347–386. 10.1017/S0272263102003017
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263102003017 [Google Scholar]
  43. Jach, D.
    (2021) Revisiting German two-way prepositions: Towards a usage-based account of case. Zeitschrift Für Sprachwissenschaft, 40(2), 95–133. 10.1515/zfs‑2021‑2029
     https://doi.org/10.1515/zfs-2021-2029 [Google Scholar]
  44. (2022) Korpus Einfaches Deutsch: Materialgrundlage für die daten-getriebene Lehre von Deutsch als fremder Bildungssprache auf niedrigem Sprachniveau. InY. Li, F. Liu, & Z. Wang (Eds.), Didactica, Cultura, Lingua – Perspektiven des Deutschen (pp.231–244). München: Iudicium.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Johns, T.
    (1991) Should you be persuaded: Two samples of data-driven learning materials. Empirical Language Research, 41, 1–16.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Johnson, K.
    (2008) Quantitative methods in linguistics. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Johnson, M.
    (2018) The embodiment of language. InA. Newen, L. De Bruin & S. Gallagher (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of 4E cognition (pp. 622–640). Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198735410.013.33
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198735410.013.33 [Google Scholar]
  48. Kim, H., Hwang, H., & Rah, Y.
    (2017) Young EFL students’ reliance on path-breaking verbs in the use of English argument structure constructions. Journal of Cognitive Science, 18(3), 341–366. 10.17791/jcs.2017.18.3.341
     https://doi.org/10.17791/jcs.2017.18.3.341 [Google Scholar]
  49. Kolb, P.
    (2008) Disco: A multilingual database of distributionally similar words. InA. Storrer, A. Geyken, A. Siebert & K.-M. Würzner (Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th KONVENS (2008) in Berlin (pp.37–44). Tübingen: De Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Kövecses, Z.
    (2016) Conceptual metaphor theory. InE. Semino & Z. Demjén (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of metaphor and language (pp.13–27). London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Krashen, S. D.
    (1981) Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford: Pergamon.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Lam, Y.
    (2009) Applying Cognitive Linguistics to teaching the Spanish prepositions por and para. Language Awareness, 18(1), 2–18. 10.1080/09658410802147345
     https://doi.org/10.1080/09658410802147345 [Google Scholar]
  53. Langacker, R. W.
    (1999) Assessing the cognitive linguistic enterprise. InT. Janssen & G. Redeker (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics: Foundations, scope, and methodology (pp.13–59). Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110803464.13
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110803464.13 [Google Scholar]
  54. (2008) Cognitive Grammar: A basic introduction. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  55. Leys, O.
    (1989) Aspekt und Rektion räumlicher Präpositionen. Deutsche Sprache, 171, 97–113.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Li, C. N., & Thompson, S. A.
    (1981) Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N.
    (2013) How languages are learned. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Loewen, S.
    (2020) Instructed second language acquisition. InC. A. Chapelle (Ed.), The concise encyclopedia of applied linguistics (pp.580–582). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Loewen, S., & Sato, M.
    (2019) Instructed second language acquisition and English language teaching: Theory, research, and pedagogy. InX. Gao (Ed.), Second handbook of English language teaching (pp.1131–1148). Cham: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑030‑02899‑2_60
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02899-2_60 [Google Scholar]
  60. Long, M.
    (1991) Focus on Form. InK. de Bot, R. B. Ginsberg, & C. Kramsch (Eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective (pp.39–52). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/sibil.2.07lon
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.2.07lon [Google Scholar]
  61. MacWhinney, B.
    (2012) The logic of the unified model. InS. M. Gass & A. Mackey (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp.211–227). London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  62. (2018) A unified model of first and second language learning. InM. Hickmann, E. Veneziano, & H. Jisa (Eds.), Sources of Variation in First Language Acquisition: Languages, Contexts, and Learners (pp.287–312). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tilar.22.15mac
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tilar.22.15mac [Google Scholar]
  63. Min, L., & Nerlich, M.
    (2004) Studienweg Deutsch: Band 1. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Ninio, A.
    (1999) Pathbreaking verbs in syntactic development and the question of prototypical transitivity. Journal of Child Language, 26(3), 619–653. 10.1017/S0305000999003931
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000999003931 [Google Scholar]
  65. Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L.
    (2001) Does type of instruction make a difference? Substantive findings from a meta-analytic review. Language Learning, 51(S1), 157–213. 10.1111/j.1467‑1770.2001.tb00017.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.2001.tb00017.x [Google Scholar]
  66. Ortega, L., Tyler, A. E., Park, H. I., & Uno, M.
    (Eds.) (2016) The usage-based study of language learning and multilingualism. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  67. Paradis, M.
    (2004) A neurolinguistic theory of bilingualism. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/sibil.18
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.18 [Google Scholar]
  68. (2009) Declarative and procedural determinants of second languages. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/sibil.40
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.40 [Google Scholar]
  69. Paul, H.
    (1920) Deutsche Grammatik: Band IV: Syntax. Halle: Max Niemeyer.
     [Google Scholar]
  70. R Core Team
    R Core Team (2021) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/
     [Google Scholar]
  71. Raatz, U., & Klein-Braley, C.
    (1981) The C-Test–A modification of the cloze procedure. InT. Culhane, C. Klein-Braley & D. K. Stevenson (Eds.), Practice and problems in language testing IV. Proceedings of the fourth international language testing symposium of the Interuniversitäre Sprachtestgruppe held at the University of Essex (pp.113–138). Colchester: University of Essex.
     [Google Scholar]
  72. Reber, A. S.
    (1989) Implicit learning and tacit knowledge. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 118(3), 219–235. 10.1037/0096‑3445.118.3.219
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.118.3.219 [Google Scholar]
  73. Rebuschat, P.
    (2013) Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge in second language research. Language Learning, 63(3), 595–626. 10.1111/lang.12010
     https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12010 [Google Scholar]
  74. Roche, J., & EL-Bouz, K.
    (2018) Raum für Grammatik. Zeitschrift für Interkulturellen Fremdsprachenunterricht, 23(2), 86–99.
     [Google Scholar]
  75. (2020) Zur Räumlichkeit temporaler Präpositionen – kognitionsdidaktischer Ansatz. Zeitschrift für Interkulturellen Fremdsprachenunterricht, 25(1), 1395–1405.
     [Google Scholar]
  76. Roehr-Brackin, K.
    (2014) Explicit Knowledge and Processes From a Usage-Based Perspective: The Developmental Trajectory of an Instructed L2 Learner. Language Learning, 64(4), 771–808. 10.1111/lang.12081
     https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12081 [Google Scholar]
  77. (2018) Metalinguistic Awareness and second language acquisition. New York, NY: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315661001
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315661001 [Google Scholar]
  78. Rousse-Malpat, A., Steinkrauss, R., Wieling, M., & Verspoor, M.
    (2022) Communicative language teaching: structure-based or dynamic usage-based?Journal of the European Second Language Association, 6(1), 20–33. 10.22599/jesla.86
     https://doi.org/10.22599/jesla.86 [Google Scholar]
  79. Rys, J., Willems, K., & De Cuypere, L.
    (2014) Akkusativ und Dativ nach Wechselpräpositionen im Deutschen. Eine Korpusanalyse von versinken, versenken, einsinken und einsenken in. InI. Doval & B. Lübke (Eds.), Raumlinguistik und Sprachkontrast: Neue Beiträge zu spatialen Relationen im Deutschen, Englischen und Spanischen (pp.217–234). München: Iudicium.
     [Google Scholar]
  80. Schmid, H.-J.
    (2018) Unifying entrenched tokens and schematized types as routinized commonalities of linguistic experience. InB. Hampe & S. Flach (Eds.), Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association, 61 (pp.167–182). Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/gcla‑2018‑0008
     https://doi.org/10.1515/gcla-2018-0008 [Google Scholar]
  81. Schmidt, R. W.
    (1990) The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129–158. 10.1093/applin/11.2.129
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/11.2.129 [Google Scholar]
  82. (2012) Attention, awareness, and individual differences in language learning. InW. M. Chan, K. N. Chin, S. Bhatt & I. Walker (Eds.), Perspectives on individual characteristics and foreign language education (pp.27–50). Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9781614510932.27
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614510932.27 [Google Scholar]
  83. Smith, M. B.
    (1995) Semantic motivation Vs. arbitrariness in grammar: Toward a more general account of the DAT/ACC contrast with German two-way prepositions. InI. Rauch & G. F. Carr (Eds.), Insights in Germanic linguistics: Methodology in transition (pp.293–323). Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110810868.293
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110810868.293 [Google Scholar]
  84. Spada, N., & Tomita, Y.
    (2010) Interactions between type of instruction and type of language feature: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60(2), 263–308. 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2010.00562.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00562.x [Google Scholar]
  85. Sylla, B.
    (1999) Zum Problem der Kasuswahl nach Wechselpräpositionen. Deutsch als Fremdsprache, 36(3), 150–155. 10.37307/j.2198‑2430.1999.03.05
     https://doi.org/10.37307/j.2198-2430.1999.03.05 [Google Scholar]
  86. Tomasello, M.
    (1992) First verbs: A case study of early grammatical development. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511527678
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511527678 [Google Scholar]
  87. (2003) Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Havard University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  88. Tyler, A.
    (2010) Usage-based approaches to language and their applications to second language learning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 301, 270–291. 10.1017/S0267190510000140
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190510000140 [Google Scholar]
  89. Tyler, A. E., Ortega, L., Uno, M., & Park, H. I.
    (Eds.) (2018) Usage-inspired L2 instruction: Researched pedagogy. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/lllt.49
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.49 [Google Scholar]
  90. Willems, K., De Cuypere, L., & Rys, J.
    (2018) Case alternation in argument structure constructions with prepositional verbs: A case study in corpus-based constructional analysis. InH. C. Boas & A. Ziem (Eds.), Constructional approaches to syntactic structures in German (pp.85–130). Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110457155‑003
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110457155-003 [Google Scholar]
  91. Wilmots, J., & Moonen, E.
    (1997) Der Gebrauch von Akkusativ und Dativ nach Wechselpräpositionen. Deutsch als Fremdsprache, 34(3), 144–149. 10.37307/j.2198‑2430.1997.03.04
     https://doi.org/10.37307/j.2198-2430.1997.03.04 [Google Scholar]
  92. Zwarts, J.
    (2006) Case marking direction: The accusative in German PPs. InJ. Bunting, S. Desai, R. Peachey, C. Straughn & Z. Tomkova (Eds.), Proceedings from panels of the 42nd meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 42(2), (pp.93–107). Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00149.jac
Loading
What foreign language learners make of grammatical descriptions depends on description type, proficiency, and context
Review of Cognitive Linguistics. Published under the auspices of the Spanish Cognitive Linguistics Association 22, 36 (2024); https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00149.jac
/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00149.jac
/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00149.jac
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): case; foreign language learning; grammar; instructed learning; L1 Chinese; L2 German; two-way prepositions; usage-based learning

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