Cover not available
Part of
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. 375–428

Intensifying constructions in second language acquisition

A diasystematic-constructionist approach

| F.R.S.-FNRS, Belgium | Université catholique de Louvain, Belgium
| Université catholique de Louvain, Belgium
This study analyzes the acquisition of Dutch intensifying constructions by French-speaking learners in Belgium. Additionally, it compares learners enrolled in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) programs with learners following traditional second language instruction. Within the framework of Diasystematic Construction Grammar, we study the potential impact of CLIL on the acquisition of Dutch intensification by conducting an in-depth constructional analysis at three different levels of schematization.
The results of our study indicate that a beneficial CLIL effect is apparent throughout the different levels of abstraction. Moreover, the results allow us to unveil specific reorganizational processes that occur in the diasystem of French-speaking learners of Dutch, such as the overgeneralization of particular schematic patterns and the inaccurate tagging of specific intensifiers.
Keywords: intensification, L1 French, L2 Dutch, Diasystematic Construction Grammar, Second Language Acquisition, Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL), learner corpus research
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Multilingualism and DCxG
    • 2.1Multilingualism and language contact in Belgium
    • 2.2Multilingualism and SLA
      • 2.2.1Holistic view of multilingualism
      • 2.2.2Exposure-induced implicit learning
      • 2.2.3Cross-linguistic influence
    • 2.3A DCxG view of multilingualism and SLA
  • 3.Intensifying constructions in French and Dutch: A DCxG view
    • 3.1Intensification from a CxG perspective
    • 3.2Intensifying constructions at the formal level
    • 3.3Intensifying constructions at the semantic level
    • 3.4A diasystematic constructional network of intensification in Dutch and French
  • 4.Corpus data and methods
    • 4.1Participants
    • 4.2Task and collected data
    • 4.3Annotation of the data and methods
  • 5.Intensifying constructions in the diasystem of French-speaking learners of Dutch (non-CLIL and CLIL)
    • 5.1Intensifying constructions at the schematic level
      • 5.1.1Formal properties
      • 5.1.2Semantic properties
    • 5.2Intensifying constructions at the semi-schematic level
      • 5.2.1Variation in use: General observations
      • 5.2.2Semi-schematic constructions with a lexically specified intensifier
      • 5.2.3Semi-schematic constructions with a lexically specified adjective
      • 5.2.4Semi-schematic L1 idioconstructions
    • 5.3Intensifying constructions at the substantive level
      • 5.3.1Mutually attracted intensifier-adjective pairs
      • 5.3.2Types of non-target-like use of intensifying constructions
    • 5.4Discussion: Intensifying constructions in the diasystem of French-speaking learners of Dutch
  • 6.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
  • Appendix
Published online: 3 June 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.30.12van
References (93)
References
Athanasopoulos, P. (2006). Effects of the grammatical representation of number on cognition in bilinguals. Bilingualism, Language and Cognition, 9, 89–96. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011). Cognitive restructuring in bilingualism. In A. Pavlenko (Ed.), Thinking and speaking in two languages. Bristol etc.: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beheydt, L. (2014). Immersieonderwijs en contrastieve taalkunde. In L. Degand, Ph. Hiligsmann, L. Rasier, M. Sergier, S. Vanasten, & K. Van Goethem (Eds.), In het teken van identiteit. Taal en cultuur van de Nederlanden (pp. 161–178). Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses Universitaires de Louvain.Google Scholar
Belgische kinderen hebben drempelvrees voor vreemde talen [‘Belgian children are afraid of foreign languages’] (2016, September 29). De Standaard. Retrieved from [URL]
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Pearson Education Limite.Google Scholar
Blondin, C. (2003). L’immersion linguistique dans l’enseignement fondamental en communauté française de Belgique: l’état de la question. Journal de l’immersion, 25(2), 19–31.Google Scholar
Boas, H., & Höder, S. (Eds.) (2018). Constructions in Contact. Constructional perspectives on contact phenomena in Germanic languages ( Constructional Approaches to Language, 24). Amsterdam / Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Booij, G. (2002). Constructional idioms, morphology, and the Dutch lexicon. Journal of Germanic Linguistics, 14(4), 301–329. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010). Construction Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(Ed.) (2018). The Construction of Words. Advances in Construction Morphology. ( Studies in Morphology 4). Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Broekhuis, H. (2018). 1.3.2.2. Semantic classification. Taalportaal. [URL]. [Last accessed 01-08-2019]
Buntinx, N., & Van Goethem, K. (2018). Cross-linguistic perspectives on intensification in speech: A comparison of L1 French and L2 English and Dutch. Poster presented at the Using Corpora in Contrastive and Translation Studies Conference (5th edition). Sept. 2018, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium.
Bybee, J. L. (2008). Usage-based grammar and second language acquisition. In P. Robinson, & N. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition (pp. 216–236). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
(2010). Language, Usage and Cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chopey-Paquet, M. (2008). CLIL in French-Speaking Belgium: Transforming Paradox into Potential. In C. M. Coonan (Ed.), CLIL e l’Apprendimento delle Lingue. Le Sfide del Nuovo Ambiented di Apprendimento (pp. 239–250). Venezia: Libreria Editrice Cafoscarina.Google Scholar
Cook, E. P. V. (2016). Transfer and the relationship between the languages of multi-competence. In R. A. Alonso (Ed.) Crosslinguistic Influence in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 24–37). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Corpus Hedendaags Nederlands. [URL]
Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL: Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cummins, J. (1979). Cognitive/academic language proficiency, linguistic interdependence, the optimum age question and some other matters. Working Papers on Bilingualism, 19, 121–129.Google Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2007). Discourse in Content and Language Integrated (CLIL) Classrooms. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Groot, A. (2011). Language and Cognition in Bilinguals and Multilinguals. An Introduction. New York and Hove: Psychology Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Knop, S., & Gilquin, G. (Eds.). (2016). Applied Construction Grammar. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diessel, H. (2016). Frequency and lexical specificity in grammar. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dürlich, L., & François, T. (2018). EFLLex: A Graded Lexical Resource for Learners of English as a Foreign Language. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2018). Miyazaki, Japan, 7–12 May. EFLLex available at [URL]
Doughty, C. (1991). Second language instruction does make a difference: Evidence from an empirical study of SL relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 431–469. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C., & Cadierno, T. (2009). Constructing a Second Language. Introduction to the Special Section. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 7, 111–139. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C., & Sagarra, N. (2011). Learned attention in adult language acquisition. Studies in Second language Acquisition, 33(4), 589–624. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C., & Wulff, S. (2008). Usage-based approaches to second language acquisition. In B. VanPatten, & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in Second Language Acquisition: An Introduction (2nd Edition) (pp. 75–93). New York & London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Eurostat. (2016). More than 80% of primary school pupils in the EU were studying a foreign language in 2014. Retrieved from [URL] [Last accessed 11-01-2019]
Eurydice. (2012). Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) at school in Europe. Belgium – French Community: national description – 2004/05. Retrieved from [URL] [Last accessed 26-12-2018]
García, O., & Li Wei. (2014). Translanguaging. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
García, O., & Otheguy, R. (2015). Spanish and Hispanic Bilingualism. In M. Lacorte (Ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Hispanic Applied Linguistics (pp. 639–658). New York and London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gilquin, G. (2015). The use of phrasal verbs by French-speaking EFL learners. A constructional and collostructional corpus-based approach. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 11(1), 51–88. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grandi, N. (2017). Chapter 3. Intensification processes in Italian. In M. Napoli, & M. Ravetto (Eds.), Exploring Intensification. Synchronic, diachronic and crosslinguistic perspectives (pp. 55–77). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Granger, S. (1998). Prefabricated Patterns in Advanced EFL Writing: Collocations and Lexical Phrases. In: A. Cowie (Ed.), Phraseology: theory, analysis and applications (pp. 145–160). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Gries, S. (2007). Coll.analysis 3.2a. A program for R for Windows 2.x. Collostructional analysis: Computing the degree of association between words and words/constructions. Available at [URL] [Last accessed 29-04-2020]
Gries, S., & Stefanowitsch, A. (2004). Co-varying Collexemes in the Into-causatives. In M. Achard, & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Language, Culture and Mind (pp. 225–36). Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. (2006). Constructions at Work: the nature of generalisation in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2019). Explain Me This: Creativity, Competition, and the Partial Productivity of Constructions. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Hartsuiker, R. J., Pickering, M. J., & Veltkamp, E. (2004). Is syntax separate or shared between languages? Cross-linguistic syntactic priming in Spanish-English bilinguals. Psychological Science, 15(6), 409–414. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hartsuiker, R. J., & Bernolet, S. (2017). The development of shared syntax in second language learning. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 20(2), 219–234. DOI logoGoogle 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. Unpublished PhD thesis. Université catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium.Google Scholar
Hendrikx, I., Van Goethem, K., Meunier, F., & Hiligsmann, Ph. (2017). Language-specific tendencies towards morphological or syntactic constructions: A corpus study on adjective intensification in L1 Dutch, L1 French and L2 Dutch. Nederlandse Taalkunde, 3, 389–420. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hendrikx, I., Van Goethem, K., & Wulff, S. (2019). Intensifying constructions in French-speaking L2 learners of English and Dutch: cross-linguistic influence and exposure effects. International journal of Learner Corpus Research, 5(1). 63–163. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Herbst, T. (2016). Foreign language learning is construction learning – what else? Moving towards Pedagogical Construction Grammar. In De Knop, S. & Gilquin, G. (Eds.), Applied Construction Grammar (pp. 21–52). Berlin; Boston: de Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hiligsmann, Ph., Degrave, P., Van Goethem, K., Rasier, L. (2017a). 100 fautes: Les erreurs courantes des francophones. Louvain-la-Neuve: De Boeck Supérieur.Google Scholar
Hiligsmann, Ph., Van Mensel, L., Galand, B., Mettewie, L., Meunier, F., Szmalec, A., Van Goethem, K., Bulon, A., De Smet, A., Hendrikx, I., & Simonis, M. (2017b). Assessing Content and Language Integrated Learning in the French-speaking Community of Belgium: linguistic, cognitive and educational perspectives. Cahiers du GIRSEF, 109, 1–24. Retrieved from [URL]
Hilpert, M., & Östman, J.-O. (2014). Reflections on constructions across grammars. Constructions and Frames, 6(2), 137–142. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014a). Constructing diasystems: Grammatical organisation in bilingual groups. In: T. A. Åfarli, & B. Maehlum (Eds.), Studies in Language Companion Series 154 (pp. 137–152). Amsterdam / Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014b). Convergence vs. divergence from a diasystematic perspective. In K. Braunmüller, S. Höder, & K. Kühl (Eds.), Stability and divergence in language contact: Factor and mechanisms (pp. 39–60). Amsterdam / Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018). Grammar is community-specific. Background and basic concepts of Diasystematic Construction Grammar. In H. Boas, & S. Höder (Eds.), Constructions in Contact. Constructional perspectives on contact phenomena in Germanic languages (pp. 37–70). Amsterdam / Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Höder, S., Prentice, J., & Tingsell, S. (2021). Additional language acquisition as emerging multilingualism. A Construction Grammar approach. [this volume].Google Scholar
Hoffmann, T., & Trousdale, G. (2013). The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Housen, A., Schoonjans, E., Janssens, S., Welcomme, A., Schoonheere, E., & Pierrard, M. (2011). Conceptualizing and measuring the impact of contextual factors in instructed SLA – the role of language prominence. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 49(2). 83–112. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hüning, M., Vogl, U., Van der Wouden, T., & Verhagen, A. (2006). Nederlands tussen Duits en Engels. Handelingen van de workshop aan de Freie Universität Berlin. Leiden: Stichting Neerlandistiek Leiden.Google Scholar
Jach, D. (2017). Usage-Based Approach to Preposition Placement in English as a Second Language: Preposition Placement in L2 English. Language Learning, 68(1), 271–304. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jarvis, S. (2000). Methodological Rigor in the Study of Transfer: Identifying L1 Influence in the Interlanguage Lexicon. Language Learning, 50(2), 245–309. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jarvis, S., & Pavlenko, A. (2008). Crosslinguistic influence in language and cognition. New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
König, E. (2017). Chapter 1. The comparative basis of intensification. In M. Napoli, & M. Ravetto (Eds.), Exploring Intensification: Synchronic, diachronic and cross-linguistic perspectives (pp. 15–32). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lambelet, A., & Berthele, R. (2015). Age and foreign language learning in school. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lamiroy, B. (2011). Degrés de grammaticalisation à travers les langues de même famille. Mémoires de la Société de linguistique de Paris, 19, 167–192.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. 1. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Leipzig Corpora Collection (2002–2012). Abteilung Automatische Sprachverarbeitung, Universität Leipzig. Accessible at [URL] [Last accessed 29-04-2020]
Long, M., & Sato, C. (1983). Classroom foreigner talk discourse: Forms and functions of teachers’ questions. In H. Seliger, & M. Long (Eds.), Classroom oriented research in second language acquisition (pp. 268–285). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Lorenz, G. R. (1999). Adjective intensification: Learners versus native speakers: a corpus study of argumentative writing. Amsterdam & Atlanta: Rodopi BV.Google Scholar
Mettewie, L., & Van Mensel, L. (2009). Multilingualism at all costs. Language use and language needs in business in Brussels. Sociolinguistica, 23, 131–149. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Michaelis, L. A. (2004). Type shifting in construction grammar: An integrated approach to aspectual coercion. Cognitive Linguistics, 15(1), 1–68. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Muñoz, C. (2014). Contrasting effects of starting age and input on the oral performance of foreign language learners. Applied Linguistics, 35(4), 463–482. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Norde, M., & Van Goethem, K. (2014). Bleaching, productivity and debonding of prefixoids: A corpus-based analysis of “giant” in German and Swedish. Lingvisticae Investigationes, 37(2), 256–274. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018). Debonding and clipping of prefixoids in Germanic: Constructionalization or constructional change? In G. Booij (Ed.), The Construction of Words. Advances in Construction Morphology (pp. 475–518), Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oebel, G. (Ed.), Intensivierungskonzepte bei Adjektiven und Adverben im Sprachenvergleich / Crosslinguistic comparison of intensified adjectives and adverbs. Hamburg: Kovač Verlag.
Ortega, L. (2013). Understanding Second Language Acquisition. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Paradis, C. (1997). Degree modifiers of adjectives in spoken British English. Lund: Lund University Press.Google Scholar
(2001). Adjectives and boundedness. Cognitive Linguistics, 12, 47–64. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985/1997). A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman Group Limited.Google Scholar
Rainer, F. (2015). Intensification. In P. O. Müller, I. Ohnheiser, S. Olsen, & F. Rainer (Eds.), Word-Formation: An International Handbook of the Languages of Europe (pp. 1340–1351). Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Rasier, L., Bui, A. V., Jouniaux, A., & Hiligsmann, Ph. (2014). Klemtoon in het Nederlands van Franstalige immersie- en niet-immersieleerlingen. In L. Degand, P. Hiligsmann, L. Rasier, M. Sergier, S. Vanasten, & K. Van Goethem (Eds.), In het teken van identiteit. Taal en cultuur van de Nederlanden (pp. 203–220). Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses Universitaires de Louvain.Google Scholar
Rey-Debove, J., & Robert, P. (2014). Le Petit Robert : dictionnaire alphabétique et analogique de la langue française. Dictionnaires Le Robert.Google Scholar
Riegel, M., Pellat, J.-C., & Rioul, R. (1997). Grammaire méthodique du français. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Ringbom, H. (2016). Comprehension, learning and production of foreign languages: the role of transfer. In R. Alonso Alonso (Ed.). Crosslinguistic Influence in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 38–52). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Zarobe, Y., Sierra, J. M., & del Puerto, F. G. (Eds.). (2011). Content and Foreign Language Integrated Learning. Contributions to Multilingualism in European Contexts. Bern: Peter Lang. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rumlich, D. (2016). Evaluating bilingual education in Germany CLIL students’ general English proficiency, EFL self-concept and interest. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Schmid, H. (1994). Probabilistic Part-of-Speech Tagging Using Decision Trees. Proceedings of International Conference on New Methods in Language Processing, Manchester, UK. Retrieved from [URL]
(2015). A blueprint of the Entrenchment-and-Conventionalization Model. In P. Uhrig, & Th. Herbst (Eds.), Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association 3 (pp. 3–27). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 10(3), 209–231. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014). Interlanguage 40 years on. Three themes from here. In Z. Han, & E. Tarone (Eds.), Interlanguage. Forty years later (pp. 221–246). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Treffers-Daller, J., & Tidball, F. (2015). Can L2 learners learn new ways to conceptualise events? Evidence from motion event construal among English-speaking learners of French. In P. Guijarro-Fuentes, K. Schmit, & N. Müller (Eds.), The acquisition of French in multilingual contexts (145–184). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tribushinina, E. (2011). Boundedness and relativity: A contrastive study of English and Russian. Languages in Contrast, 11(1), 106–128. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van der Wouden, T., & Foolen, A. (2017). A most serious and extraordinary problem. Intensification of adjectives in Dutch, German, and English. Leuvense Bijdragen, 101, 82–100.Google Scholar
Van Haeringen, C. B. (1956). Nederlands tussen Duits en Engels. The Hague: Servire.Google Scholar
Van Mensel, L., Hiligsmann, Ph., Mettewie, L., & Galand, B. (2020). CLIL, an elitist language learning approach? A background analysis of English and Dutch CLIL pupils in French-speaking Belgium. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 33(1), 1–14. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verspoor, M. H., & Behrens, H. (2011). Dynamic systems theory and a usage based approach to second language development. In M. Verspoor, K. de Bot, & W. Lowie (Eds.), A dynamic approach to second language development: methods and techniques (pp. 25–38). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Hendrikx, Isa & Kristel Van Goethem
2024. Dutch compound constructions in additional language acquisition. Constructions and Frames 16:1 ► pp. 64 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.