The impact of foreign language input on the acquisition of intensifying constructionsa case study from CLIL and non-CLIL learners in French-speaking Belgium

Hendrikx, Isa;Van Goethem, Kristel;Meunier, Fanny
(2016) Constructionist Approaches to Language Pedagogy — Location: Bâle, Suisse (10.June.2016)

Files

Presentation_CALP08062016.pdf
  • Open Access
  • Adobe PDF
  • 719.9 KB
Download

Details

Authors
Abstract
Our contribution presents the first results of a research project on the acquisition of Dutch and English intensifying constructions by Belgian French-speaking secondary school pupils. This study forms part of a broader interdisciplinary project on Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) in French-speaking Belgium. CLIL classrooms provide greater input frequency of the foreign language than traditional education. Comparing the two education systems allows us to measure the impact of foreign language input on L2 acquisition in general, and on intensifying constructions specifically. From a constructional perspective (cf. Tomasello, 2003; Goldberg, 2010), foreign language acquisition is presumed to be more complex than L1 acquisition because of the competition between the specific constructions of the foreign language with the L1 constructions (Ellis & Cadierno, 2009), which can lead to “constructional transfer”. We can thus hypothesize that French-speaking learners of Dutch and English will i) underuse typical Germanic means of intensification such as ‘elative’ compounds [<N> [ADJ]]ADJ (e.g. ijskoud/ ice-cold) (Hoeksema, 2012) and ii) overuse syntactic constructions frequently used in French, like adverbial modification [[ADV] [ADJ]]AP (e.g. tout rouge, ‘completely red’) and adjectival reduplication [[ADJ] [ADJ]]AP (e.g. rouge rouge ‘completely red’) (Riegel, Pellat, & Rioul, 1994: 620, 622). As CLIL programs can be considered closer to L1 acquisition because of their inherent usage-based approach, we can also expect a more native-like acquisition of intensifying constructions by CLIL pupils. To test these hypotheses, we analyse the language productions of 378 5th graders in French-speaking Belgium: 198 CLIL learners of Dutch or English, and 180 learners of Dutch or English in non-CLIL education. We compare the results to similar productions by Dutch and English native speakers. Each group carries out two (already piloted) tests (Authors, 2015): the first one consists of a “fill-the-gaps-exercise” in which an adjective has to be intensified; the second one is the production of a written text (email) on a topic prompting the use of intensifiers. A first pilot study on intensification in Dutch (Authors, 2015), carried out with French-speaking learners of Dutch, confirms that native speakers of Dutch use more morphological intensifying constructions than native speakers of French, who favour syntactic constructions. Learner Dutch can be situated ‘in-between’ as, for instance, compared to natives in Dutch, the French-speaking learners use fewer compounds and more intensifying adverbs, which could be a result of “constructional transfer” from French. In our talk, we present the detailed outcomes of the quantitative and qualitative analysis of the Dutch and the French data. Besides the analysis of the construction types, we also examine the extent of lexical variation and productivity of the intensifiers in the different language groups (type/token ratio, number of hapax legomena), compare the most frequent intensifiers, and observe possible difficulties related to collocational specialization. The comparison of the results obtained by the CLIL and non-CLIL learners allows us to assess the impact of CLIL education - in terms of foreign language input - on the production of intensifiers. References Hendrikx & Van Goethem 2015. “Alle leerlingen hebben het vrieskoud! Intensivering van adjectieven door Franstalige leerders van het Nederlands” In: S. Lestrade, P. de Swart & L. Hogeweg, Addenda. Artikelen voor Ad Foolen, Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen: Nijmegen, 2015, p. 131-147. Ellis, N., & Cadierno, T. (2009). Constructing a Second Language. Introduction to the Special Section. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 7, 111-139. Goldberg, A. (2010) [2006]. Constructions at Work. The nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hoeksema, J. (2012). Elative compounds in Dutch: Properties and developments. In Oebel, G. (Eds.), Intensivierungskonzepte bei Adjektiven und Adverben im Sprachvergleich, (pp. 97-142). Hamburg: Verlag Dr. Kovac. Riegel, M., Pellat, J.-C., Rioul, R. (1994). Grammaire méthodique du français. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition. Boston: Harvard University Press.
Affiliations

Citations

  • APA
  • Chicago
  • FWB

Hendrikx, I., Van Goethem, K., & Meunier, F. (2016). The impact of foreign language input on the acquisition of intensifying constructionsa case study from CLIL and non-CLIL learners in French-speaking Belgium. Constructionist Approaches to Language Pedagogy, Bâle, Suisse. https://hdl.handle.net/2078.5/183498