Cover not available
Part of
Constructional Approaches to Nordic Languages
Edited by Evie Coussé, Steffen Höder, Benjamin Lyngfelt and Julia Prentice
[Constructional Approaches to Language 37] 2023
► pp. 179–211

Chapter 7
The entrenchment of semi-schematic time constructions by German foreign language learners of Swedish

| University West
| University of Gothenburg
This chapter investigates the entrenchment of semi-schematic time constructions by a group of foreign language learners of Swedish. Results from a phrasal decision experiment with 30 German speaking learners of Swedish show that the learners of Swedish process these constructions significantly slower, compared to an L1 control group, and also recognize them as time expressions to a lesser extent. Additionally, we conduct an explorative corpus study to shed some light on the role of previously acquired languages for the entrenchment of the investigated constructions. The results from the comparison of the Swedish and German corpora show no clear indication of cross-linguistic differences in usage that might explain the L2 participants’ behavior, but rather some interesting similarities, which we discuss in relation to the experimental findings.
Keywords: entrenchment, semi-schematic constructions, foreign language learning, time expressions, phrasal decision task
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Usage-based and diasystematic construction grammar
    • 2.1Diasystematic construction grammar and emerging multilingualism
    • 2.2Entrenchment
  • 3.Lexical and phrasal decision
  • 4.Experimental study of entrenchment
    • 4.1Material and items
    • 4.2Participants
      • 4.2.1Control group (L1)
      • 4.2.2Study group (L2)
    • 4.3Design and procedure
    • 4.4Results
      • 4.4.1Control group (L1) results
      • 4.4.2Experiment group (L2) results
  • 5.Comparison with corpus data
  • 6.Final discussion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
  • Appendix
Published online: 7 November 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.37.07olo
References (59)
References
Arnon, I. & Snider, N. (2010). More than words: Frequency effects for multi-word phrases. Journal of Memory and Language 62, 67–82. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blumenthal-Dramé, A. (2017). Entrenchment from a psycholinguistic and neurolinguistic perspective. In H-J. Schmid, (Ed.), Entrenchment and the Psychology of Language Learning: How We Reorganize and Adapt Linguistic Knowledge (pp. 101–117). Washington, DC: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. (2010). Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013). Usage-based Theory and Exemplar Representations of Constructions. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 49-69). Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cowart, W. (1997). Experimental syntax: Applying Objective Methods to Sentence Judgments. London & Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Diessel, H. (2019). The grammar network: how linguistic structure is shaped by language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013). Construction Grammar and Second Language Acquisition. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 348–378). Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C. & Wulff, S. (2020). Usage-based approaches to SLA. In B. VanPatten, G. D. Keating & S. Wulff (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition. An introduction (pp. 75–93). New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C., Kay, P. & O‘Connor, M. C. (1988). Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions. The case of Let alone. Language 64(3), 501–538. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. (1995). Constructions. A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(2006). Constructions at Work. The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013). Constructionist approaches. In Thomas Hoffmann & Graeme Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 15–31). Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (2019). Explain me this. Creativity, competition, and the partial productivity of constructions. Princeton: Princeton University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harley, T. (2014). The psychology of language: From data to theory. London: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Höder, S. (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: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Höder, S., Prentice, J. & Tingsell, S. (2021). Additional language acquisition as emerging multilingualism. A Construction Grammar approach. In S. Höder & H. Boas (Eds.), Constructions in Contact 2. Language change, multilingual practices, and additional language acquisition (pp. 310–337). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jarvis, S. & Pavlenko, A. (2008). Crosslinguistic Influence in Language and Cognition. New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jescheniak, J. D. & Levelt, W. J. M. (1994). Word frequency effects in speech production: Retrieval of syntactic information and phonological form. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 20, 824–843.Google Scholar
Jiang, N. & Nekrasova, T. (2007). The processing of formulaic sequences by second language speakers. The Modern Language Journal 91, 433–445. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Juhasz, B. J. (2005) Age-of-acquisition effects in word and picture identification. Psychological Bulletin 131 (5), 684–712. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Just, M. A. & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). A theory of reading: from eye fixation to comprehension. Psychological Review 87, 329–354. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kilgarriff, A. (2007). Googleology is bad science. Computational Linguistics 33(1), 147–151. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. (2009). A dynamic view of usage and language acquisition. Cognitive linguistics 20 (3), 627–640. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laufer, B. (2003). The influence of L2 on L1 collocational knowledge and on L1 lexical diversity in free written expression. In V. J. Cook (Ed.), Effects of the second language on the first (pp. 19–31). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lesonen, S., Steinkrauss, R., Suni, M. & Verspoor, M. (2020). Lexically specific vs. productive constructions in L2 Finnish. Language and Cognition 12(3), 1–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Loenheim, L., Lyngfelt, B., Olofsson, J., Prentice, J. & Tingsell, S. (2016) Constructicography meets (second) language education. On constructions in teaching aids and the usefulness of a Swedish constructicon. In S. De Knop & G. Gilquin (Eds.), Applied Construction Grammar (pp. 327–355). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Michaelis, L. (2004). Type Shifting in Construction Grammar: An Integrated Approach to Aspectual Coercion. Cognitive Linguistics 15, 1–67. [URL]. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Olofsson, J. (2018). Förflyttning på svenska. Om produktivitet från ett konstruktionsperspektiv. (Göteborgsstudier i nordisk språkvetenskap 32.) PhD dissertation, Göteborgs universitet. [URL]Google Scholar
Olofsson, J. & Prentice, J. (2020). För tre enorma öl sedan. Befästning av semi-schematiska konstruktioner i L2-svenska. Språk & Stil 30, 91–116. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Peirce, J. (2007). PsychoPy  – Psychophysics software in Python. Journal of Neuroscience Methods 162 (1–2), 8–13. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Peirce, J. & MacAskill, M. (2018). Building experiments in PsychoPy. London: Sage Publications Ltd. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Prentice, J. (2010). På rak sak. Om ordförbindelser och konventionaliserade uttryck bland unga språkbrukare i flerspråkiga miljöer. (Göteborgsstudier i nordisk språkvetenskap 13.) PhD dissertation, Göteborgs universitet. [URL]Google Scholar
Prentice, J., Loenheim, L., Lyngfelt, B., Olofsson, J. & Tingsell, S. (2016). Bortom ordklasser och satsdelar: konstruktionsgrammatik i klassrummet. In Anna W. Gustafsson, Lisa Holm, Katarina. Lundin, Henrik Rahm & Mechthild Tronnier (Eds.), Svenskans beskrivning 34 (pp. 85–397). Lund: Lunds universitet.Google Scholar
Ratcliff, R., Gomez, P. & McKoon, G. (2004). A Diffusion Model Account of the Lexical Decision Task. Psychological Review 111(1), 159–182. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmid, H-J. (2015). A blueprint of the Entrenchment-and-Conventionalization Model. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association 3, 3–25. DOI logoGoogle 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. Washington, DC: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2020). The dynamics of the Linguistic system: usage, conventionalization and entrenchment. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmid, H-J. & Küchenhoff, H. (2013). Collostructional analysis and other ways of measuring lexicogrammatical attraction: Theoretical premises, practical problems and cognitive underpinnings. Cognitive Linguistics 24(3), 531–577. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics 10, 209–232. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sjögreen, C. (2015). Kasta bort bollen och äta bort sin huvudvärk. En studie av argumentstrukturen i kausativa bort-konstruktioner. PhD dissertation, Uppsala universitet. [URL]Google 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. 367–83). Washington, DC: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Suttle, L. & Goldberg, A. (2011). The partial productivity of constructions as induction. Linguistics 49, 1237–1269. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Teleman, U., Hellberg, S. & Andersson, E. (1999). Svenska Akademiens grammatik. Stockholm: Norstedts ordbok.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: a usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Wiktorsson, M. (2018). How hybrid is blog data? A comparison between speech, writing and blog data in Swedish. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 41(3), 367–377. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wolter, B. & Gyllstad, H. (2013). Frequency of input and L2 collocational processing. A Comparison of Congruent and Incongruent Collocations. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 35, 451–482. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wolter, B. & Yamashita, J. (2015). Processing collocations in a second language: A case of first language activation? Applied Psycholinguistics 36(5), 1193–1221. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wray, A. (2008). Formulaic language: Pushing the boundaries. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wulff, S. & Ellis, N. C. (2018) Usage-based approaches to second language acquisition. In D. T. Miller, F. Bayram, J. Rothman & L. Serratrice (Eds.), Bilingual cognition and language: the state of the science across its subfields (pp. 37–56). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yamashita, J. (2014). Effects of Instruction on Yes – No Responses to L2 Collocations. Vocabulary Learning and Instruction 3(2), 31–37.
CrossRef DOI logo with hyperlink to permanent DOI
Google Scholar
Yamashita, J. & Jiang, N. (2010). L1 influence on the acquisition of L2 collocations: Japanese ESL users and EFL learners acquiring English collocations. TESOL Quarterly 44, 647–668. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zeldes, A. (2012). Productivity and Argument Selection. From Morphology to Syntax. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sources
DWDSBlogs, <[URL]> (accessed 210921).
Korp, Bloggmix 2015, < [URL] > (accessed 181017).Google Scholar
2003, 2007, 2013, 2015, < [URL] > (accessed 210921).Google Scholar
Google, <[URL] > (accessed 181017).
, <[URL]> (accessed 210921).
Sketch Engine <[URL]> (accessed 210921).