Cover not available
Article published In:
Constructions and Frames
Vol. 16:1 (2024) ► pp.64–99

Dutch compound constructions in additional language acquisition

A diasystematic-constructionist approach

ORCID logo | Université de Liège
ORCID logo | F.R.S.-FNRS | Université catholique de Louvain
Studies have demonstrated that Dutch has a much stronger tendency towards compounding than French (e.g., Du. badkamer vs Fr. salle de bains ‘bathroom’) when adopting a restrictive approach of compounding in which the presence of prepositions and/or internal inflection in multi-word expressions is considered evidence for their syntactic formation. The example above illustrates that Dutch compounding differs from French in another important aspect: while Germanic compounding is by definition right-headed, French has a general tendency towards left-hand headed compounds and phrases. In this study, we investigate the impact of these typological differences on the acquisition of Dutch nominal compounds by French-speaking learners in the context of multilingual Belgium. We provide an in-depth corpus analysis of the acquisition of Dutch compounds at different levels of abstraction (schematic and substantive compound constructions). Moreover, we investigate the impact of additional target-language input through CLIL programs (Content and Language Integrated Learning) on the acquisition of Dutch compounds by French-speaking learners of Dutch. The results are described and interpreted from the perspective of Diasystematic Construction Grammar (DCxG), which conceptualizes the linguistic competence of multilingual speakers as one integrated network of constructions, containing language-specific idioconstructions and shared diaconstructions.
Keywords: compounding, French, Dutch, Diasystematic Construction Grammar (DCxG), Additional Language Acquisition (ALA), Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL), Learner Corpus Research (LCR)
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Additional language acquisition and CLIL: A brief state of the art
    • 2.1Recent insights into additional language acquisition
    • 2.2Acquisition of word formation
    • 2.3Content and Language Integrated Learning
  • 3.Diasystematic Construction Grammar
    • 3.1General principles
    • 3.2Additional language acquisition from a DCxG perspective
    • 3.3Acquisition of Dutch nominal compound constructions from a DCxG perspective
  • 4.Aims of the study and research hypotheses
  • 5.Corpus data and methods
    • 5.1Data collection and corpus sample
    • 5.2Data annotation and analysis
      • 5.2.1Formal properties
      • 5.2.2Semantic properties
      • 5.2.3Accuracy
  • 6.A multilevel constructional corpus analysis
    • 6.1Schematic level
      • 6.1.1Formal properties
      • 6.1.2Semantic properties
    • 6.2Substantive level
      • 6.2.1Frequency and productivity
      • 6.2.2Accuracy
  • 7.Discussion of the results
  • 8.Conclusion and outlook
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 8 April 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.22023.hen
References (71)
References
Baayen, H. (2009). Corpus linguistics in morphology: Morphological productivity. In A. Lüdeling & M. Kytö (Eds.), Corpus linguistics. An international handbook (pp. 900–919). Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Balteiro, I. (2011). Awareness of L1 and L2 word-formation mechanisms for the development of a more autonomous L2 learner. Porta Linguarum, 15 1, 25–34. 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). Presses Universitaires de Louvain.Google Scholar
Bisetto, A. & Scalise, S. (2005). The classification of compounds. Lingue e Linguaggio, 4 (2), 319–332.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
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 University Press.Google Scholar
(Ed.) (2018). The construction of words. Advances in Construction Morphology. Springer.Google Scholar
(2019). Compounds and multi-word expressions in Dutch. In B. Schlücker (Ed.), Complex lexical units: Compounds and multi-word expressions (pp. 95–126). Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bulon, A. (2019). The acquisition of phraseological units by French-speaking learners of English and Dutch in CLIL and NON-CLIL settings: exposure effects on range and accuracy. Université catholique de Louvain PhD dissertation.
Bybee, J. L. (2010). Language, usage and cognition. 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 ambiente di apprendimento (pp. 239–250). Libreria Editrice Cafoscarina.Google Scholar
Cook, E. P. V. (2016). Transfer and the relationship between the languages of multi-competence. In R. A. Alonso (Eds.), Crosslinguistic influence in second language acquisition (pp. 24–37). Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Corpus Hedendaags Nederlands. [URL]
Coyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL: Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cummins, J. (1979). Cognitive/academic language proficiency, linguistic interdependence, the optimum age question and some other matters. Working Papers on Bilingualism, 19 1, 121–129.Google Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2007). Discourse in Content and Language Integrated (CLIL) classrooms. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deacon, H.S., Wade-Woolley, L. & Kirby, J. (2007). Crossover: The Role of Morphological Awareness in French Immersion Children’s Reading. Developmental Psychology, 43(3), 732–746. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Groot, A. (2011). Language and cognition in bilinguals and multilinguals. An introduction. Psychology Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diessel, H. (2016). Frequency and lexical specificity in grammar. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Doughty, C. (1991). Second language instruction does make a difference: Evidence from an empirical study of SL relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13 1, 431–469. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Don, J. (2009). IE, Germanic: Dutch. In R. Lieber & P. Štekauer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of compounding (pp. 370–385). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C., & Cadierno, T. (2009). Constructing a second language. Introduction to the Special Section. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 7 1, 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 ed., pp. 75–93). 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]
Fradin, B. (2009). IE, Romance: French. In R. Lieber & P. Štekauer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of compounding (pp. 417–435). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. (2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalisation in language. Oxford University Press.Google 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
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
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. Université catholique de Louvain PhD dissertation.
Hiligsmann, Ph. (1997). Linguïstische aspecten en pedagogische implicaties van de tussentaal van Franstalige M.O.-leerders van het Nederlands. Droz.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. (2017). Assessing Content and Language Integrated Learning in the French-speaking community of Belgium: Linguistic, cognitive and educational perspectives. Cahiers du GIRSEF, 109 1, 1–24.Google Scholar
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). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014a). Constructing diasystems: Grammatical organisation in bilingual groups. In T. A. Åfarli & B. Maehlum (Eds.), The sociolinguistics of grammar (pp. 137–152). John 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). John 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). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Höder, S., Prentice, J. & Tingsell, S. (2021). Additional language acquisition as emerging multilingualism: A Construction Grammar approach. In H. C. Boas & S. Höder (Eds.), Constructions in contact 2: Language change, multilingual practices, and additional acquisition (pp. 309–337). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, T., & Trousdale, G. (Eds.). (2013). The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford University Press. 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
(2021). Something I was dealing with. Preposition placement in multilingual constructions. In H. C. Boas & S. Höder (Eds.) Constructions in contact 2: Language change, multilingual practices, and additional acquisition (pp. 339–374). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jarvis, S. (2002). Topic continuity in L2 English article use. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24 1, 387–418. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jarvis, S., & Pavlenko, A. (2008). Crosslinguistic influence in language and cognition. Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jeon, E. H. (2011). Contribution of morphological awareness to second-language reading comprehension. The Modern Language Journal, 95 (2), 217–235. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lado, R. (1957). Linguistics across cultures. Applied linguistics for language teachers. University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Lamiroy, B. (2011). Degrés de grammaticalisation à travers les langues de même famille. Mémoires de la Société de linguistique de Paris, 19 1, 167–192.Google Scholar
Lefer, M.-A. (2011). Contrastive word-formation today: Retrospect and prospect. Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, 47 (4), 645–682. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leontjev, D., Huhta, A. & K. Mäntylä. (2016). Word derivational knowledge and writing proficiency: How do they link? System, 591, 73–89. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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). Newbury House.Google Scholar
Mettewie, L., & Van Mensel, L. (2009). Multilingualism at all costs. Language use and language needs in business in Brussels. Sociolinguistica, 23 1, 131–149. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2020). Understanding foreign language education and bilingual education in Belgium: a (surreal) piece of cake. International Journal of Bilingualism and Bilingual Education, 23 1. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meunier, F., Hendrikx, I., Bulon, A., Van Goethem, K. & Naets, H. (2020). MulTINCo: Multilingual Traditional Immersion and Native Corpus. Better-documented multi-literacy practices for more refined SLA studies. In L. Van Mensel & Ph. Hiligsmann (Eds.), Assessing CLIL: A multidisciplinary approach. Special issue. Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 1–19.Google Scholar
Ortega, L. (2013). Understanding second language acquisition. Routledge.Google Scholar
Pasquarella, A., X. Chen, K. Lam, Y. C. Luo & G. Ramirez. (2011). Cross-language transfer of morphological awareness in Chinese-English bilinguals. Journal of Research in Reading, 34 (1), 23–42. DOI logoGoogle 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. Peter Lang. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rumlich, D. (2016). Evaluating bilingual education in Germany CLIL students’ general English proficiency, EFL self-concept and interest. Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Schlücker, Barbara. (Ed.). (2019). Complex lexical units: Compounds and multi-word expressions. Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmid, H. (2015). A blueprint of the entrenchment-and-conventionalization model. In P. Uhrig & Th. Herbst (Eds.), Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association 3 1 (pp. 3–27). Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 10(3), 209–231. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language. Harvard University Press.Google 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 (pp. 145–184). Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Goethem, K. & Amiot, D. (2019). Compounds and multi-word expressions in French. In B. Schlücker (Ed.), Complex lexical units: Compounds and multi-word expressions (pp. 127–152). Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Van Goethem, K. & Hendrikx, I. (2021). Intensifying constructions in second language acquisition: A diasystematic-constructionist approach. In H. C. Boas & S. Höder (Eds.), Constructions in contact 2: Language change, multilingual practices, and additional acquisition (pp. 375–428). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Goethem, K. (2009). Choosing between A+N compounds and lexicalised A+N phrases: The position of French in comparison to Germanic languages. Word Structure, 2 1, 241–253. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Haeringen, C. B. (1956). Nederlands tussen Duits en Engels. Servire.Google Scholar
Van Mensel, L. & Hiligsmann, Ph. (Eds.) (2021). Assessing CLIL: A multidisciplinary approach. Thematic issue. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 26 (5). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Villoing, F. (2012). French compounds. Probus, 24 1, 29–60. DOI logoGoogle Scholar