Receptive knowledge of intensifying compounds: Belgian French-speaking learners of Dutch and English
(2018) Cogling8 — Location: Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium (13.December.2018)
Files
Cogling8_2018_Hendrikx.pdf
Open Access - Adobe PDF
- 2.34 MB
Details
- Authors
Hendrikx, Isa 
- Abstract
- Intensification can be expressed cross-linguistically by several morphological and syntactic constructions (among others, Ito & Tagliamonte, 2003; Hoeksema 2011, 2012; Rainer 2015). While intensifying adjectival compounds (henceforth IAC) (e.g. ice-cold) 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. Within the context of a research project on Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) in French-speaking Belgium (cf. Hiligsmann et al. 2017), we explore the impact of CLIL input on the acquisition of IAC in the L2. Our 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 an overall greater written proficiency (in terms of lexical diversity among others) (Bulon et al. 2017) and a more native-like use of intensifying constructions (Hendrikx et al. forth.). Since IAC were quite infrequent in the learner corpora, the present study uses a multiple-choice exercise to evaluate the learners’ receptive knowledge of IAC. Based on the literature on the acquisition of vocabulary and collocations (Laufer & Paribakht 1998; Pignot-Shahov 2012; Koya 2005; Gylstad 2007), we hypothesize that their receptive knowledge of IAC will exceed their productive knowledge. In order to distill the effect of CLIL, we include other target language exposure variables in our analysis (i.e. the number of years of target language learning and the current informal contact with the target language). We also include measures of receptive L2 vocabulary knowledge (PPVT-IV or PPVT-III-NL ) and of productive L2 vocabulary knowledge (MTLD ), as predictors for a learner’s receptive knowledge of IAC. Preliminary results indicate that CLIL pupils develop greater receptive knowledge of IAC, both for L2 Dutch and L2 English. In English, current informal contact and the number of years of target of language instruction do not significantly affect this result, but the learner’s receptive and productive vocabulary knowledge do. In Dutch, CLIL is the best predictor for receptive knowledge of IAC, but in contrast to English, current informal contact also has a small significant effect on the receptive knowledge of IAC. Surprisingly, receptive and productive vocabulary knowledge do not predict receptive knowledge of Dutch IAC. Overall, we conclude that CLIL positively affects receptive knowledge of IAC. References Bulon, A., Hendrikx, I., Meunier, F. & Van Goethem, K. (2017). Using global complexity measures to assess second language proficiency Comparing CLIL and non-CLIL learners of English and Dutch in French-speaking Belgium. Papers of the Linguistic Society of Belgium, 11(1), 1-25. Dunn, L. M., Dunn, D. M., & Pearson Assessments. (2007). PPVT-4: Peabody picture vocabulary test. Minneapolis, MN: Pearson Assessments. 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. 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). Assessing Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) in French-speaking Belgium Linguistic, cognitive and educational perspectives. Les Cahiers de Recherche du Girsef, 17(109), 1-25. Hendrikx, I., Van Goethem, K., & Wulff, S. (submitted) Intensifying constructions in French-speaking L2 learners of English and Dutch: cross-linguistic influence and exposure effects. 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. 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. 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. 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. Schlichting, L. (2005). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-III-NL. Handleiding. Amsterdam: Harcourt Test Publishers.
- Affiliations
Citations
Hendrikx, I. (2018). Receptive knowledge of intensifying compounds: Belgian French-speaking learners of Dutch and English. Cogling8, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium. https://hdl.handle.net/2078.5/93625