Intensifying constructions in French-speaking L2 learners of Dutch: a collostructional analysis

Hendrikx, Isa;Van Goethem, Kristel;Meunier, Fanny;Wulff, Stefanie
(2017) colloque de l’ Association Française Linguistique Cognitive (AFLiCo) “Discours, Cognition et Constructions : Implications et Applications” — Location: Liège, Belgique (31.May.2017)

Files

Presentation_AFLICO_290520171.pdf
  • Open Access
  • Adobe PDF
  • 435.94 KB
Download

Details

Authors
Abstract
Intensification can be expressed cross-linguistically by several morphological and syntactic constructions (Rainer 2015). The diversity of constructions available to express a single function implies a form-function asymmetry, alongside marked language-specific preferences for particular types of intensification complicate the acquisition of intensifying constructions for second language learners. Our study is situated within the theoretical framework of usage-based Construction Grammar (cf. Tomasello 2003; Goldberg 2010 among others). Second language acquisition is presumed to be more complex than L1 acquisition because of the competition between L1 and L2 constructions (Ellis & Cadierno 2009). We focus here on one specific case of such constructional competition, namely the expression of intensification in the interlanguage of French-speaking learners of Dutch. Previous studies found idiosyncratic preferences for morphological vs. syntactic constructions in Germanic and Romance languages, respectively (Van der Wouden & Foolen forth.; Van Haeringen 1956; Lamiroy 2011). Accordingly, we hypothesize that French-speaking learners of Dutch will (i) underuse typical Germanic morphological 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 petit ‘very small’) and adjectival reduplication [[ADJ] [ADJ]]AP (e.g. petit petit ‘very small’) (Riegel, Pellat & Rioul 1994: 620, 622). More specifically, we will address 3 research questions: (i) To what extent can we observe variation in the use of intensifying constructions between the native and learner language? (ii) Which (formal and semantic) constraints can be identified in the preferences for specific intensifying constructions? (iii) Does more input provided through a Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) approach lead to a more native-like acquisition of intensifying constructions? The data for this study come from a corpus of the written productions of 473 5th graders (aged16-17) in French-speaking Belgium, including 141 CLIL learners of Dutch, 114 learners of Dutch in non-CLIL education, and a control group of 63 native speakers of Dutch of the same age . All instances of intensifying constructions observed in that corpus are subjected to a collostructional analysis, which expresses the degree of attraction/repulsion of a lexeme to an intensifying construction in the form of pbin-values (Stefanowitsch and Gries 2003; Ellis and Ferreira Junior 2009; Hoffmann 2011). We will compare the results across speaker groups in order to identify constructional preferences, as well as to reveal the semantic and formal differences in preferences for particular [Intensifier + Adjective] combinations in each group. Preliminary analysis shows, for instance, that learners underuse the compound bloedheet lit. ‘blood-hot’ (pbin=2,668 in native Dutch); and native speakers use more inherently strong adjectives such as (not intensified) prachtig ‘wonderful’ (pbin 1,807 in native Dutch). In addition, we will discuss unusual [Intensifier + Adjective] collocations and mistakes in the learners’ productions discovered in the collostructional analysis, such as *veel leuk ‘many nice’ (pbin 1,449 for non-CLIL learners). References Ellis, N., & Cadierno, T. (2009). Constructing a Second Language. Introduction to the Special Section. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 7, 111-139. Ellis, N. & Ferreira-Junior, F. (2009). Constructions and their acquisition: Islands and the distinctiveness of their occupancy. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 7. 187-220. 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. Hoffmann, T. (2011). Preposition Placement in English: A Usage-Based Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lamiroy, B. (2011). Degrés de grammaticalisation à travers les langues de même famille. Mémoires de la Société de linguistique de Paris 19, 167-192. Rainer, F. (2015) 77. Intensification. In Peter O. Müller (Ed.), Word-Formation: An International Handbook of the Languages of Europe. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. Riegel, M., Pellat, J.-C., Rioul, R. (1994). Grammaire méthodique du français. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. Stefanowitsch, A. & Gries, S. (2003). Collostructions: Investigating the interaction of words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics8:2. 209-243. Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition. Boston: Harvard University Press. Van der Wouden & Foolen, forth. A most serious and extraordinary problem. Intensification of adjectives in Dutch, German, and English. Paper delivered at A Germanic Sandwich 2013. Dutch between English and German, a Comparative Linguistic Conference. Leuven (Belgium), January 11-12, 2013.To appear in Leuvense bijdragen/Leuven Contributions in Linguistics and Philology. Van Haeringen, C.B. (1956). Nederlands tussen Duits en Engels. Den Haag: Servire.
Affiliations

Citations

  • APA
  • Chicago
  • FWB

Hendrikx, I., Van Goethem, K., Meunier, F., & Wulff, S. (2017). Intensifying constructions in French-speaking L2 learners of Dutch: a collostructional analysis. colloque de l’ Association Française Linguistique Cognitive (AFLiCo) “Discours, Cognition et Constructions : Implications et Applications”, Liège, Belgique. https://hdl.handle.net/2078.5/226807