Intensifying constructions in the diasystem of Belgian French-speaking learners of Dutch and English
(2018) International Conference on Construction Grammar 10 — Location: Paris, France (16.July.2018)
Files
Presentation_ICCG_17_07_2018_102.pdf
Open Access - Adobe PDF
- 1.09 MB
Details
- Authors
Hendrikx, Isa 
- Abstract
- Intensifying constructions in the diasystem of Belgian French-speaking learners of Dutch and English Intensification can be expressed cross-linguistically by several morphological and syntactic constructions (among others, Hoeksema 2011, 2012; Rainer 2015). We focus on adjectival intensification and represent an intensifying construction as follows: [[X]INT [Y]ADJ]ADJ/AP ↔ ‘very Y’ (e.g. very proud). The diversity of constructions (with degree adverbs, intensifying prefixes, compounds, etc.) and the language-specific preferences for particular types of intensification complicate the acquisition of intensifying constructions for second language learners (Lorenz 1999). Within the context of a research project on Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) in French-speaking Belgium (cf. Hiligsmann et al. forth.), we explore the longitudinal impact of CLIL input on the acquisition of intensifying constructions in an L2 (Dutch or English). Our research is situated within the theoretical framework of usage-based Construction Grammar (cf. Tomasello 2003; Ellis & Cadierno 2009 among others). More specifically we interpret our data 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 us to identify the diasystematic links between intensifying constructions in French (L1) and the target languages of these learners. In our talk we address the following research questions: (i) Which intensifying constructions are shared by the native language and target language of the learners, and which ones are not represented in their diasystem? (ii) Does more input provided through a CLIL approach lead to a deeper entrenchment of (more) diasystematic constructions? (iii) From a longitudinal point of view (over the course of two academic years) can we observe a reorganization of the learners’ diasystem of intensifying constructions? The data for this study come from a corpus of written productions in the form of fictional e-mails on the subject of a party or holidays. We compare texts written in 2015 and in 2017 by the same French-speaking secondary school pupils (aged 16-18), in CLIL and non-CLIL settings learning Dutch (CLIL n=132; non-CLIL n=100) or English (CLIL n=90; non-CLIL n=90) as a foreign language, and control groups of 63 native speakers of Dutch and 68 native speakers of English of about the same age. To answer the research questions we use a collostructional analysis (viz. covarying collexeme analysis), which expresses the degree of attraction/repulsion between the intensifier and the adjective in the form of pbin-values (Stefanowitsch & Gries 2003; Gries 2007). Preliminary results indicate three levels of linkage between the L1 and the target language. First, cross-linguistic similarities lead to entrenched diasystematic constructions, for instance [ADVbooster+ADJscalar] (instantiated by e.g. heel leuk / very nice). Secondly, 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 intensifying compounds [N/A/V+Adj]ADJ (e.g. doodmoe ‘lit. dead tired’) than non-CLIL learners thanks to more input in Dutch. Thirdly, some constructions cannot lead to shared representations because they only exist either in the L1, e.g. [ADJ + comme tout] (e.g. sympa comme tout ‘very pleasant’), or in the target language, e.g. [ADJsuperlative + ever] (e.g. the coolest ever). References Ellis, N. & T. Cadierno (2009). Constructing a Second Language. Introduction to the Special Section. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 7, 111-139. Gries, S. Th. (2007). Coll.analysis 3.2a. A program for R for Windows 2.x. Hiligsmann, P., Van Mensel, L., Galand, B., Mettewie, L., Meunier, F., Szmalec, A., Van Goethem, K., Bulon, A., De Smet, A., Hendrikx, I., Simonis, M. (forth.). Content and Language Integrated Learning: linguistic, cognitive and educational perspectives. Cahiers du Girsef. 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. Lorenz, G.R. (1999). Adjective intensification. Learners versus native speakers: A corpus study of argumentative writing. Rodopi BV: Amsterdam. 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. Stefanowitsch, A. & Gries, S. (2003). Collostructions: Investigating the interaction of words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8:2, 209-243. Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition. Boston: Harvard University Press.
- Affiliations
Citations
Hendrikx, I., & Van Goethem, K. (2018). Intensifying constructions in the diasystem of Belgian French-speaking learners of Dutch and English. International Conference on Construction Grammar 10, Paris, France. https://hdl.handle.net/2078.5/125985