Cross-linguistic perspectives on intensification in speech: A comparison of L1 French and L2 English and Dutch

Buntinx, Natacha;Van Goethem, Kristel
(2018) Using Corpora in Contrastive and Translation Studies (5th edition) (UCCTS 2018) — Location: Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium (12.September.2018)

Files

BuntinxVanGoethem2018_UCCTS.pdf
  • Open Access
  • Adobe PDF
  • 2.87 MB
Download

Details

Authors
Abstract
Following the framework of contrastive linguistics (especially Gast 2012), intensification of adjectives is taken as a tertium comparationis that allows a function-based approach of how different languages hypothetically use different linguistic forms to express the same ontological category. Using contrastive analysis to “describe[s] one language from the perspective of another” (König 2012: 22), we will study how intensification of adjectives is used and formally realised in the trilingual output of native French speakers in spoken French, non-native English and non-native Dutch. Learner language is considered as language showing features of the L1 of the learner (Gast 2012: 7), which allows for an assessment of the extent to which L2 users are able to use foreign languages with the same diversity of constructions and of semantic nuances as in their L1, while using constructions that are more typical of the L2. Intensification has been extensively described in terms of its semantic (Paradis 2001) and formal properties in English (Bolinger 1972, Ito & Tagliamonte 2003), Dutch (Broekhuis 2017, van der Wouden & Foolen 2017), and French (e.g., Riegel et al. 1994). These studies show that languages use a wide variety of constructions to express intensification, but that language-specific preferences can be observed (cf. Rainer 2015). Also, intensification has been studied from a second language acquisition perspective for non-native English (Granger 1998, Lorenz 1999, De Haan & van der Haagen 2012) and for non-native Dutch (Hendrikx et al. 2017), with a focus on learner writing. However, to our knowledge, no study of the kind has been conducted on speech corpora and no study took a cross-linguistic view on the semantic types of intensification into account. Beyond this, the contribution aims at exploring the effect of Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) on the use of intensification in the foreign languages under study. More specifically, we address the following research questions: i. Which semantic types of intensification do learners use in their L1 and L2s? ii. Which formal types of intensifying constructions do learners use in their L1 and L2s? iii. Is there a difference between the two L2s, English and Dutch, as regards the semantic and formal types used to express intensification? iv. Is there a difference between CLIL and non-CLIL learners in that regard? This study will examine these questions on the basis of a speech corpus, under the form of conversations about a holiday trip or a party. The corpus consists of spoken data from 64 students in the 6th grade from three different secondary schools and was collected in 2017, within the framework of an ongoing research project on CLIL in French-speaking Belgium (Hiligsmann et al. 2017). It represents a total of 16 English conversations (12 pupils in non-CLIL and 19 in CLIL), and 17 Dutch conversations (20 non-CLIL and 13 CLIL), comparable to similar data from the same students in L1 French. Based on the literature review, we have created a typology covering different semantic types (boosters, maximizers, totality markers, and excess markers), and intensifying constructions (syntactic, morphological, lexical, and prosodic constructions), which was then tested against the trilingual output of CLIL and non-CLIL students in L1 French, L2 English and L2 Dutch. This first step was followed by a comparison of their usage of intensification in terms of frequency, diversity of meanings and diversity of constructions and specific forms. The data was annotated in EXMARaLDA (Schmidt & Wörner 2012), and all intensifying constructions were tagged according to the semantic and formal criteria mentioned above. This procedure has already been applied to part of the data and led to some interesting preliminary results. With respect to the semantic analysis, the spoken data analysed in L1 and L2s in this study have been produced by the same students, however, they do not use the different types of semantic intensification similarly in their native language and in the interlanguages. In fact, both interlanguages tend to demonstrate less diversity in terms of semantic types of intensification, and more importantly, students intensify to a more neutral level via boosters in interlanguages than in L1 French, in which they prefer to maximize meaning. König (2017) points out that “ultimately, an evaluative utterance of this kind typically tells us more about the speaker than about ‘reality’” (König 2017: 30) and that “evaluations with intensifiers are extremely context-dependent” (König 2017: 28). The comparison of the ‘intensifying strength’ by the same speakers in their L1 and L2 may shed new light on the importance of subjectivity and context in the analysis of intensification and it remains to be verified if the observed differences should be related to the typical properties of the interlanguage of the speaker (e.g. more limited vocabulary), the context of speech (L1 or L2) or the intrinsic properties of the target language. As regards the formal types of intensification, interlanguages tend to show less balanced proportions in terms of construction types than in the native language. The native language shows more variation in the specific forms used for intensification. L2 Dutch and L2 English show different patterns of intensification, with a significant role played by prosody in L2 English, especially in non-CLIL contexts where this strategy might be compensating for a lack of vocabulary, whereas it is almost absent from L2 Dutch. CLIL learners show more diversity at all levels than non-CLIL learners but not in significant proportions, except as regards the specific forms used to express intensification. Non-CLIL learners indeed tend to use almost only all-rounders (such as very and heel), whereas CLIL learners show a more diverse range of adverbials. These preliminary results point to interesting perspectives for further research in terms of expressivity and diversity of intensifying constructions in native and non-native speech. In the next step of the research, the remaining data will be analysed and prosodic constructions will be further examined to refine the results concerning their use in the native language and in the interlanguages. Moreover, the different semantic profiles of intensification found in L2 Dutch and L2 English will be compared to native spoken corpora. References Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S. & Finegan E. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Longman. Bolinger, D. 1972. Degree Words. The Hague: Mouton. Broekhuis, H. 2017. 3.1.2. Modification by an intensifier. Taalportaal. <http://taalportaal.org/taalportaal/topic/link/syntax__Dutch__ap__a3__a3_Modification.3.1.2.xml> (accessed 02 November 2017). De Haan, P. & van der Haagen, M. 2012. Modification of adjectives in very advanced Dutch EFL writing: A development study. The European Journal of Applied Linguistics and TEFL.14p. Gast, V. 2012. Contrastive linguistics: Theories and methods. In B. Kortmann & J. Kabatek (Eds.), Dictionaries of Linguistics and Communication Science: Linguistic Theory and Methodology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 9p. Granger, S. 1998. Prefabricated patterns in advanced EFL writing: Collocations and lexical phrases. In A. P. Cowie (red.), Phraseology: Theory, Analysis and Applications (145–160). Oxford: Clarendon Press. Hendrikx, I., Van Goethem, K., Meunier, F. & Hiligsmann, Ph. 2017. Language-specific tendencies towards morphological or syntactic constructions: A corpus study on adjective intensification in L1 Dutch, L1 French and L2 Dutch. Nederlandse Taalkunde/Dutch Linguistics, 22(3), 389-420. Hiligsmann, Ph., Van Mensel, L., Galand, B., Mettewie, L., Meunier, F., Szmalec, A., Van Goethem, K., Bulon, A., De Smet, A., Hendrikx, I. & Simonis, M. 2017. Content and Language Integrated Learning: linguistic, cognitive and educational perspectives. Cahiers du Girsef. 109. Ito, R. & Tagliamonte, S. 2003. Well weird, right dodgy, very strange, really cool: Layering and recycling in English intensifiers. Language in Society, 32(2), 257-279. König, E. 2012. Contrastive linguistics and language comparison. Languages in Contrast, 12(1), 3-26. König, E. 2017. The comparative basis of intensification. In M. Napoli, & M. Ravetto (Eds.), Exploring Intensification. Synchronic, diachronic and cross-linguistic perspectives (15-32). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Lorenz, G.R. 1999. Adjective Intensification: Learners Versus Native Speakers: A Corpus Study of Argumentative Writing. Amsterdam & Atlanta: Rodopi BV. Paradis, C. 2001. Adjectives and boundedness. Cognitive Linguistics, 12(1) ,47–65. Rainer, F. 2015. Intensification. In P. O. Müller, I. Ohnheiser, S. Olsen, & F. Rainer (red.), Word-Formation: An International Handbook of the Languages of Europe (1340-1351). Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. Riegel, M., Pellat, J. & Rioul, R. 1994. Grammaire Méthodique du Français (1e éd. ed.). Paris: Presses universitaires de France. Schmidt, T. & Wörner, K. 2012. EXMARaLDA. In Durand J., Ulrike G., & Kristoffersen, G. (eds.), Handbook on corpus phonology (402–419). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wouden, van der T. & Foolen, A. 2017. A most serious and extraordinary problem. Intensification of adjectives in Dutch, German, and English. Leuvense Bijdragen, 101. 82-100.
Affiliations

Citations

  • APA
  • Chicago
  • FWB

Buntinx, N., & Van Goethem, K. (2018). Cross-linguistic perspectives on intensification in speech: A comparison of L1 French and L2 English and Dutch. Using Corpora in Contrastive and Translation Studies (5th edition) (UCCTS 2018), Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium. https://hdl.handle.net/2078.5/125538