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

Hendrikx, Isa [UCL] Van Goethem, Kristel [UCL] Meunier, Fanny [UCL]

Intensification can be expressed cross-linguistically by several morphological and syntactic constructions (among others, Kirschbaum 2002; Hoeksema 2011, 2012; Zeschel 2012; 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 complex because of the competition between L1 and L2 constructions (Ellis & Cadierno 2009). This study focuses on one specific case of such constructional competition, namely the expression of adjectival 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 Haeringen 1956; Lamiroy 2011) and assume that this also holds for intensification (Van der Wouden & Foolen forth.). Accordingly, we hypothesize that French-speaking learners of Dutch will (i) underuse typical Germanic morphological means of intensification such as elative compounds [ [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 constructions such as [[ADJ] as [NP]]AP (e.g. fort comme un Turc ‘very strong’) (Riegel, Pellat & Rioul 1994: 620, 622). More specifically, we will address 3 research questions: (i) To what extent can we observe constructional transfer in L2 Dutch? (e.g. underuse of morphological constructions and overuse of syntactic intensifying constructions?) (ii) Which (formal and semantic) constraints can be identified in the preferences for specific intensifying constructions in the native and learner language? (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 written productions of 473 5th graders (aged 16-17) in French-speaking Belgium, including 132 CLIL learners of Dutch, 100 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 the native and learner corpora are subjected to a collostructional analysis, namely a covarying collexeme analysis (Gries 2007), which expresses the degree of attraction/repulsion of a lexeme to an intensifying construction in the form of pbin-values (Stefanowitsch and Gries 2003; Gries 2007; Ellis and Ferreira Junior 2009). 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). In addition, we will discuss unusual [Intensifier + Adjective] collocations and mistakes in the learners’ productions discovered through the collostructional analysis, such as *veel leuk ‘many nice’ (pbin 1,533 for non-CLIL learners). The collostructional analysis allows us to identify constructional preferences for morphological or syntactic intensifying construction in L1 French, L1 Dutch and L2 Dutch by French-speaking learners. Moreover, the lexical diversity and productivity of the learners’ use of intensifiers will be compared across groups, to gain insights into the impact of CLIL and traditional foreign language classes on the acquisition of intensification in a second language. 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. Gries, Stefan Th. (2007). Coll.analysis 3.2a. A program for R for Windows 2.x. Hiligsmann, P., Galand, B., Mettewie, L., Meunier, F., Szmalec, A., Van Goethem, K., Van Mensel, L., Bulon, A., De Smet, A., Hendrikx, I., Simonis, M. (in preparation) Content and Language Integrated Learning: linguistic, cognitive and educational perspectives. 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 Oebel, G. (Eds.), Intensivierungskonzepte bei Adjektiven und Adverben im Sprachvergleich, (pp. 97-142). Hamburg: Verlag Dr. Kovac. Kirschbaum, I. (2002). Schrecklig Nett Und Voll Verrückt Muster Der Adjektiv-Intensivierung Im Deutschen. Thesis. Düsseldorf, Universität, Diss 2002. Düsseldorf. 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 Linguistics 8:2. 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. Zeschel, A. (2012). Incipient Productivity. A Construction-Based Approach to Linguistic Creativity. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. Retrieved 25 Jan. 2017, from http://www.degruyter.com/view/product/180582