Chapter published in:
Constructions in Contact 2: Language change, multilingual practices, and additional language acquisition
Edited by Hans C. Boas and Steffen Höder
[Constructional Approaches to Language 30] 2021
► pp. 309–338

Additional language acquisition as emerging multilingualism

A Construction Grammar approach

| Kiel University
| University of Gothenburg
| Swedish Language Council
Recent years have seen an increasing interest in applying Construction Grammar to additional language (AL) acquisition as well as in constructionist approaches to language contact and multilingualism, in particular Diasystematic Construction Grammar (DCxG; Höder, 2018). This paper combines both perspectives by proposing a usage-based constructionist model of AL acquisition as emerging multilingualism. In line with earlier work on DCxG, we assume that multilingual speakers store and process all of their languages in terms of constructions that are organized into one common constructicon. From that perspective, AL learning amounts to an extension and reorganization of the constructicon, resulting not only in the gradual entrenchment of new constructions that represent (a learner variety of) the AL, but also in modifications of previously acquired constructions and the links between them. The model is illustrated by examples from different kinds of AL acquisition scenarios and also discussed in relation to current key concepts within non-constructionist research in the field of AL acquisition.
Keywords: Diasystematic Construction Grammar, additional language acquisition, multilingualism, entrenchment
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction: Why a constructional approach?
  • 2.Building on previous research
    • 2.1A constructionist approach to multilingualism: Diasystematic Construction Grammar
    • 2.2Additional language acquisition and Construction Grammar
    • 2.3From interlanguage to the multilingual turn: Insights from non-constructionist research
  • 3.Modelling AL acquisition in Diasystematic Construction Grammar: A proposal
    • 3.1Gradual entrenchment of constructions
    • 3.2The emerging multilingual constructicon
    • 3.3Reorganizational processes
  • 4.Summary and outlook
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 03 June 2021
https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.30.10hod
References
Boas, H. C., & Höder, S.
(2018) Construction grammar and language contact. An introduction. In H. C. Boas, & S. Höder (Eds.), Constructions in contact. Constructional perspectives on contact phenomena in Germanic languages (pp. 5–36). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. L.
(2010) Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2013) Usage-based theory and exemplar representations. In T. Hoffmann, & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 49–69). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cappelle, B.
(2017) What’s pragmatics doing outside constructions? In I. Depraetere, & R. Salkie (Eds.), Semantics and pragmatics. Drawing a line (pp. 115–151). Cham: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cook, V. J.
(1991) The poverty-of-the-stimulus argument and multicompetence. Second Language Research, 7, 103–117.Google Scholar
(1993) Wholistic multi-competence – jeu d’esprit or paradigm shift? In B. Kettemann, & W. Wieden (Eds.), Current issues in European second language acquisition research (pp. 3–8). Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Cook, V. J., & Li Wei
(Eds.) (2016) The Cambridge handbook of linguistic multi-competence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dąbrowska, E.
(2019) Individual differences in grammatical knowledge. In E. Dąbrowska, & D. Divjak (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics, vol. 3: Key topics (pp. 231–250). Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
De Knop, S., & Gilquin, G.
(2016) Exploring L2 constructionist approaches. In S. De Knop, & G. Gilquin (Eds.), Applied Construction Grammar (pp. 3–8). Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Diessel, H.
(2013) Construction Grammar and first language acquisition. In T. Hoffmann, & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 347–364). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2019) Usage-based Construction Grammar. In E. Dąbrowska, & D. Divjak (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics, vol. 2: A survey of linguistic subfields (pp. 50–80). Berlin: de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Divjak, D., & Caldwell-Harris, C. L.
(2019) Frequency and entrenchment. In E. Dąbrowska, & D. Divjak (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics, vol. 1: Foundations of language (pp. 61–86). Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Eckman, F. R.
(2010) Linguistic typology and second language acquisition. In J. J. Song (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic typology (pp. 618–633). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C.
(2006) Selective attention and transfer phenomena in L2 acquisition. Contingency, cue competition, salience, interference, overshadowing, blocking, and perceptual learning. Applied Linguistics, 27, 164–194. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2013) Construction grammar and second language acquisition. In T. Hoffmann, & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 365–378). Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C., & Wulff, S.
(2014) Usage-based approaches to SLA. In B. VanPatten, & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition. An introduction (pp. 75–93). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
(2019) Second language acquisition. In E. Dąbrowska, & D. Divjak (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics, vol. 2: A survey of linguistic subfields (pp. 182–207). Berlin: de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
García, O.
(2009) Bilingual education in the 21st century. A global perspective. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
García, O., & Li Wei
(2014) Translanguaging: language, bilingualism and education. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gardner-Chloros, P.
(2009) Code-switching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E.
(2006) Constructions at work. The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2013) Constructionist approaches. In T. Hoffmann, & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 15–31). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2019) Explain me this. Creativity, competition, and the partial productivity of constructions. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Gries, S. Th., & Wulff, S.
(2005) Do foreign language learners also have constructions? Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 3, 182–200. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grosjean, F.
(1989) Neurolinguists, beware! The bilingual is not two monolinguals in one person. Brain and Language, 36, 3–15. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2008) Studying bilinguals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, M.
(2006) Against markedness (and what to replace it with). Journal of Linguistics 42, 25–70. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hendrikx, I.
(2019) The acquisition of intensifying constructions in Dutch and English by French-speaking CLIL and non-CLIL students: Cross-linguistic influence and exposure effects. Louvain-la-Neuve: Université catholique de Louvain. Ph.D. dissertation.Google Scholar
Hilpert, M.
(2019) Construction grammar and its application to English. 2nd edn. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Hilpert, M., & Diessel, H.
(2017) Entrenchment in Construction Grammar. In H.-J. Schmid (Ed.), Entrenchment and the psychology of language learning. How we reorganize and adapt linguistic knowledge (pp. 57–74). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton/Washington: American Psychological Association. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Höder, S.
(2012) Multilingual constructions: a diasystematic approach to common structures. In K. Braunmüller, & C. Gabriel. (Eds.), Multilingual individuals and multilingual societies (pp. 241–257). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2014a) Constructing diasystems. Grammatical organisation in bilingual groups. In T. A. Åfarli, & B. Mæhlum (Eds.), The sociolinguistics of grammar (pp. 137–152). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2014b) Phonological elements and Diasystematic Construction Grammar. Constructions and Frames, 6, 202–231. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2018) Grammar is community-specific: Background and basic concepts of Diasystematic Construction Grammar. In H. C. Boas, & S. Höder (Eds.), Constructions in contact. Constructional perspectives on contact phenomena in Germanic languages (Constructional Approaches to Language 24) (pp. 37–70). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2019) Phonological schematicity in multilingual constructions: a diasystematic perspective on lexical form. Word Structure, 12, 334–352. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jarvis, S., & Pavlenko, A.
(2008) Crosslinguistic influence in language and cognition. New York, Abingdon: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Johansson, S.
(2008) Contrastive analysis and learner language: A corpus-based approach. Oslo: University of Oslo.Google Scholar
Lado, R.
(1957) Linguistics across cultures. Applied linguistics for language teachers. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D.
(2011) A complexity theory approach to second language development/acquisition. In D. Atkinson (Ed.), Alternative approaches to second language acquisition (pp. 48–72). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Li, Wei
(2011) Moment Analysis and translanguaging space: Discursive construction of identities by multilingual Chinese youth in Britain. Journal of Pragmatics, 5, 1222–1235.Google Scholar
(2018) Translanguaging as a practical theory of language. Applied Linguistics, 39, 9–30. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Loenheim, L.
(2019) Att tolka det sammansatta. Befästning och mönster i första- och andraspråkstalares tolkning av sammansättningar (Meijerbergs arkiv för svensk ordforskning 43). Göteborg: Meijerbergs institut för svensk etymologisk forskning, Göteborgs universitet.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B.
(2017) Entrenchment in second-language learning. In H.-J. Schmid (Ed.), Entrenchment and the psychology of language learning. How we reorganize and adapt linguistic knowledge (pp. 343–366). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton/Washington: American Psychological Association. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Matras, Y.
(2009) Language contact. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Matthews, D., & Krajewski, G.
(2019) First language acquisition. In E. Dąbrowska, & D. Divjak (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics, vol. 2: A survey of linguistic subfields (pp. 159–181). Berlin: de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
May, S.
(Ed.) (2013) The multilingual turn. The implications for SLA, TESOL and bilingual education. New York/London: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ortega, L.
(2009) Understanding second language acquisition. London. Routledge.Google Scholar
(2019) SLA and the study of equitable multilingualism. The Modern Language Journal, 103, 23–38. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pavlenko, A.
(2003) “I never knew I was a bilingual”: Reimagining teacher identities in TESOL. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 2, 251–268. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Peirce, B. N.
(1995) Social identity, investment, and language learning. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 9–31. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Perani, D., & Abutalebi, J.
(2005) The neural basis of first and second language processing. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 15, 202–206. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ringbom, H.
(1978) The influence of the mother tongue on the translation of lexical items. Interlanguage Studies Bulletin, 3, 80–101.Google Scholar
Römer, U., O’Donnell, M. B., & Ellis, N. C.
(2014) Second language learner knowledge of verb-argument constructions. Effects of language transfer and typology. The Modern Language Journal, 98, 952–975. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sabino, R.
(2018)  Languaging without languages. Beyond metro-, multi-, poly-, pluri- and translanguaging (Brill’s Studies in Language, Cognition and Culture 18). Leiden/Boston: Brill. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schmid, H.-J.
(2015) A blueprint of the Entrenchment-and-Conventionalization Model. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association, 3, 3–25. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2016) Why cognitive linguistics must embrace the social and pragmatic dimensions of language and how it could do so more seriously. Cognitive Linguistics, 27, 543–557. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2017) A framework for understanding linguistic entrenchment and its psychological foundations. In H.-J. Schmid (Ed.), Entrenchment and the psychology of language learning. How we reorganize and adapt linguistic knowledge (pp. 9–36). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton/Washington: American Psychological Association. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Selinker, L.
(1969) Language transfer. General Linguistics, 9, 67–92.Google Scholar
(1972) Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 10, 209–232. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Steinkrauss, R., & Schmid, M. S.
(2017) Entrenchment and language attrition. In H.-J. Schmid (Ed.), Entrenchment and the psychology of language learning. How we reorganize and adapt linguistic knowledge (pp. 367–384). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton/Washington: American Psychological Association. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Theakston, A. L.
(2017) Entrenchment in first language learning. In H.-J. Schmid (Ed.), Entrenchment and the psychology of language learning. How we reorganize and adapt linguistic knowledge (pp. 315–342). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton/Washington: American Psychological Association. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M.
(2003) Constructing a language. A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Volodina, E. et al.
(2016) SweLL on the rise: Swedish Learner Language corpus for European Reference Level studies. In N. Calzolari et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2016), Portorož, Slovenia, May 23–28 2016.Google Scholar
Weinreich, U.
(1953) Languages in contact. Findings and problems (Publications of the Linguistic Circle of New York 1). New York.Google Scholar