Intensifying compounds in the Diasystem of Belgian French-speaking learners of Dutch and English
(2019) Mediterranean Morphology Meeting — Location: Ljubljana (27.June.2019)
Files
MMM2019_poster_7.pdf
Open Access - Adobe PDF
- 1.66 MB
Details
- Authors
Hendrikx, Isa 
- Abstract
- Languages vary significantly in their preferences for morphological and syntactic constructions (among others, Van Goethem 2009; Schlücker 2019). The present study focuses on adjectival intensification: [[X]INT [Y]ADJ]ADJ/AP ↔ ‘very Y’ (e.g. very proud). The diversity of constructions (such as degree adverbs, intensifying prefixes, compounds, etc.) and the language-specific preferences for particular types of intensification (Hoeksema 2011, 2012; Rainer 2015) may complicate the acquisition of intensifying constructions for second language learners (Lorenz 1999). Specifically intensifying adjectival compounds (henceforth IAC) (e.g. ice-cold) are expected to be difficult to acquire. While these constructions are a productive means to express intensification in Dutch and in English, in French this construction is hardly productive. In consequence, French-speaking learners may encounter difficulties acquiring IAC in L2 Dutch/English. This study is situated within the theoretical framework of usage-based Construction Grammar (cf. Tomasello 2003; Ellis & Cadierno 2009 among others). More specifically, the results are interpreted taking the approach of Diasystematic Construction Grammar (DCxG) (Höder 2012, 2014) which conceptualizes the linguistic competence of multilingual speakers as an ‘interlingual network of constructions with different degrees of schematicity’ (Höder 2012: 255). Analyzing the interlanguage of French-speaking learners of Dutch and English through the lens of DCxG allows one to identify the diasystematic links between intensifying constructions in French (L1) and the target languages of these learners. In this contribution I will address the following research question: Does more target language exposure provided through Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) lead to a deeper entrenchment of (more) diasystematic constructions and target language idioconstructions? Within the context of a research project on CLIL in French-speaking Belgium (cf. Authors 2017), I assess the impact of CLIL input on the acquisition of IAC in the L2. The sample consists of French-speaking sixth grade secondary school pupils (aged 17-19), in CLIL and non-CLIL settings, learning Dutch (CLIL n=132; non-CLIL n=100) or English (CLIL n=90; non-CLIL n=90). A corpus study on written productions of these learners has already revealed that the CLIL students display a more target-like use of intensifying constructions (Authors 2019). Since IAC are quite infrequent in the learner corpora, the present study uses a multiple-choice exercise to evaluate the learners’ receptive knowledge of IAC. In this manner both the learners’ productive use and receptive knowledge of IAC are analyzed and presented. Based on the literature on the acquisition of vocabulary and collocations (Laufer & Paribakht 1998; Pignot-Shahov 2012; Koya 2005; Gylstad 2007), I hypothesize that their receptive knowledge of IAC will exceed their productive knowledge. Preliminary results indicate that CLIL pupils develop greater receptive knowledge of IAC, both for L2 Dutch and L2 English. Interpreting the findings within the framework of Diasystematic Construction Grammar (DCxG), different levels of linkage between the L1 and the target language can be observed. On the one hand, cross-linguistic similarities lead to entrenched diasystematic constructions, for instance [ADVbooster+ADJscalar] (instantiated by e.g. heel leuk / very nice). On the other hand, despite different degrees of productivity between particular native and target language constructions, input can favor the formation of diasytematic links. Indeed we observed that French-speaking CLIL learners of Dutch used more IAC [N/A/V+Adj]ADJ (e.g. doodmoe ‘lit. dead tired’) than non-CLIL learners thanks to more input and use of Dutch. References Ellis, N. & T. Cadierno (2009). Constructing a Second Language. Introduction to the Special Section. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 7, 111-139. Gyllstad, H. (2007). Testing English Collocations: Developing Receptive Test for Use with Advanced Swedish Learners. Published PhD thesis. Printed by Media-Tryck in Lund. ISBN: 978-91-628-7296-0. Authors (2017) Authors (2019) Höder, S. (2012). Multilingual constructions: a diasystematic approach to common structures. In: K. Braunmüller & Chr. Gabriel (Eds.), Multilingual individuals and multilingual societies (Hamburg studies on multilingualism 13), Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins, 241–257. Höder, S. (2014). Constructing diasystems: Grammatical organisation in bilingual groups. In T. A. Åfarli & B. Maehlum (Eds.), Studies in Language Companion Series 154. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 137-152. Hoeksema, J. (2011). Bepalingen van graad in eerste-taalverwerving. TABU, 39(1/2), 1-22. Hoeksema, J. (2012). Elative compounds in Dutch: Properties and developments. In G. Oebel (Ed.), Intensivierungskonzepte bei Adjektiven und Adverben im Sprachvergleich. Hamburg: Verlag Dr. Kovac, 97-142. Koya, T. (2005). The Acquisition of Basic Collocations by Japanese Learners of English. Unpublished PhD thesis presented to the Graduate School of Waseda University. pp. 427. Laufer, B & Paribakht, T. S. (1998). The relationship between passive and active vocabularies : Effects of language learning context. Language Learning, 48(3), 365-391. Lorenz, G.R. (1999). Adjective intensification. Learners versus native speakers: A corpus study of argumentative writing. Rodopi BV: Amsterdam. Pignot-Shahov, V. (2012). Measuring L2 receptive and productive vocabulary knowlede. Language Studies Working Papers, 4(1), 37-45. Rainer, F. (2015). 77. Intensification. In P.O. Müller (Ed.), Word-Formation: An International Handbook of the Languages of Europe. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton, 1339-1351. Schlücker, B. (Ed.). (2019). Complex lexical units: compounds and multi-word expressions. Berlin: De Gruyter. Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition. Boston: Harvard University Press. Van Goethem, K. (2009). Choosing between A+N compounds and lexicalised A+N phrases: The position of French in comparison to Germanic languages. Word Structure, 2, 241-253.
- Affiliations
Citations
Hendrikx, I. (2019). Intensifying compounds in the Diasystem of Belgian French-speaking learners of Dutch and English. Mediterranean Morphology Meeting, Ljubljana. https://hdl.handle.net/2078.5/95593