Cover not available
Article published In:
Reflections on Constructions across Grammars
Edited by Martin Hilpert and Jan-Ola Östman
[Constructions and Frames 6:2] 2014
► pp. 232–265

Clause combining across grammars

A contrastive analysis of L1 and L2 construal of discourse organization

 | University of Haifa
The goal of the present study is to examine whether clause-combining rhetorical preferences that differentiate between Hebrew and English are maintained across grammars, specifically, in the context of text production in a non-native language. It examines the usage of various bi-clausal constructions marking different levels of event integration in texts written by advanced speakers of English, all native monolingual Hebrew speakers. The data analyzed consist of personal experience narratives that were collected from high-school and university-level students. These texts are compared to narratives that were collected from native speakers of both languages following the same design of study. Quantitative and qualitative analyses show differences and similarities between the three populations in terms of clause-combining strategies. They reveal that not only the constraints of the L1 but mainly those of the L2 guide non-native speakers in their choice of bi-clausal constructions, as devices expressing event integration. Results further show that event integration is reflected by constructions at different levels of the grammatical system, and that constraints on bi-clausal constructions at the more local, morpho-syntactic level are echoed by constraints at the level of discourse itself as a construction.
Keywords: Clause combining, narrative, syntax, rhetorical options, second language, Hebrew, event integration
Published online: 30 March 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.6.2.05nir
References (72)
Achard, M. (1998). Representation of cognitive structures: Syntax and semantics of French sentential complements [Cognitive Linguistics Research Series 11]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2008). Teaching construal: Cognitive pedagogical grammar. In P. Robinson & N. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition (pp. 432–456). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Akinci, M.A., & Jisa, H. (2001). Développement de la narration en langue faible et forte: le cas des connecteurs. AILE, 141, 87–110. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Auer, P., & Pfänder, S. (Eds.). (2011). Constructions. Emerging and emergent. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bergs, A., & Diewald, G. (Eds.). (2009). Contexts and constructions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berman, R.A. (1978). Modern Hebrew structure. Tel Aviv: University Pub. Projects.Google Scholar
. (1980). The case of an (S)VO language: Subjectless constructions in modern Hebrew. Language, 561, 759–776. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (1998). Typological perspectives on connectivity. In N. Dittmar & Z. Penner (Eds.), Issues in the theory of language acquisition (pp. 203–224). Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Berman, R.A., & Nir, B. (2009). Clause–packaging in narratives: A crosslinguistic developmental study. In J. Guo, E. Lieven, S. Ervin–Tripp, N. Budwig, S. Özçalişkan & K. Nakamura (Eds.), Crosslinguistic approaches to the psychology of language: Research in the tradition of Dan I. Slobin. Mahwah, N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Berman, R.A., & Slobin, D.I. (1994). Relating events in narrative: A crosslinguistic developmental study. Hillsdale, N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Berman, R.A., & Verhoeven, L. (2002). Cross–linguistic perspectives on the development of text production abilities: Speech and writing. Written Language and Literacy, 5(1), 1–43. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bylund, E. (2011). Language-specific patterns in event conceptualization: Insights from bilingualism. In A. Pavlenko (Ed.), Thinking and speaking in two languages (pp. 108–142). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bylund, E., & Jarvis, S. (2011). L2 effects on L1 event conceptualization. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 141, 47–59. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cadierno, T. (2008). Learning to talk about motion in a foreign language. In P. Robinson & N.C. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition (pp. 239–275). New York / London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Carroll, M., Roßdeutscher, A., von Stutterheim, C., & Lambert, M. (2008). Subordination in narratives and macrostructural planning: A comparative point of view. In C. Fabricius-Hansen & W. Ramm (Eds.), ‘Subordination’ versus ‘Coordination’ in sentence and text (pp. 161–184). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cristofaro, S. (2003) Subordination. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Croft, W. (2001). Radical construction grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, W., Barddal, J., Hollmann, W.B., Sotirova, V., & Taoka, C. (2010). Revising Talmy’s typological classification of complex events. In H.C. Boas (Ed.), Contrastive construction grammar (pp. 201–236). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Knop, S., & Dirven, R. (2008). Motion and location events in German, French and English: A typological, contrastive and pedagogical approach. In S. De Knop & T. De Rycker (Eds.), Cognitive approaches to pedagogical grammar: A volume in honour of René Dirven (pp. 298–327). Berlin / New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Degand, L. (2000). Causal connectives or causal prepositions? Discursive constraints. Journal of Pragmatics, 32(6), 687–707. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Duffield, C.J., Hwang, J.D., & Michaelis, L.A. (2010). Identifying assertions in text and discourse: The presentational relative clause construction. Proceedings of the NAACL HLT Workshop on Extracting and Using Constructions in Computational Linguistics , 17–24.
Ellis, N.C., & Cadierno, T. (2009). Constructing a second language: Introduction to the special section. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 71, 111–139. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, G. (1998). Mental spaces, language modalities, and conceptual integration. In M. Tomasello (Ed.), The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure, Volume 1 (pp. 251–280). Mahwah, N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C.J. (1977). The case for case reopened. In P. Cole & J.M. Saddock (Eds.), Syntax and semantics, 81, 59–81.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C.J., Kay, P., & O’Connor, M.C. (2003). Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of Let Alone . In M. Tomasello (Ed.), The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure, Volume 2 (pp. 243–270). Mahwah, N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Fischer, K. (2010). Accounting for the role of situation in language use in a cognitive semantic representation of sentence mood. In D. Glynn & K., Fischer (Eds.), Quantitative methods in cognitive semantics: Corpus-driven approaches (pp. 179–200). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fried, M., & Östman, J.–O. (2005). Construction Grammar and spoken language: The case of pragmatic particles. Journal of Pragmatics, 371, 1752–1778. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fujii, S.Y. (1993). On the clause-linking to construction in Japanese. In P.M. Clancy (Ed.), Japanese / Korean linguistics, volume 2 (pp. 3–19). Stanford, California.Google Scholar
Givón, T. (1980). The binding hierarchy and the typology of complements. Studies in Language, 4(3), 333–337. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (1990). Syntax: A functional typological introduction. Volume 21. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2009). The genesis of syntactic complexity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A.E. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hilpert, M. (2010). The force dynamics of English complement clauses: A usage-based account. In K. Fischer & D. Glynn (Eds.), Quantitative methods in cognitive semantics (pp. 155–178). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Johnstone, B. (1987) Parataxis in Arabic: Modification as a model for persuasion. Studies in Language, 111, 85–98. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keenan, E.L. (1985). Relative clauses. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language typology and syntactic description: Complex constructions. Volume 21 (pp. 141–170). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1997). Some further steps in narrative history. Journal of Narrative and Life History, 71, 394–415. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lambrecht, K. (1990). ‘What me worry?’ — Mad Magazine sentences revisited. BLS, 61, 215–228. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2001). A framework for the analysis of cleft constructions. Linguistics, 391, 463–516. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. (2008). Subordination in cognitive grammar. In B. Lewandowska Tomaszczyk (Ed.), Asymmetric events (pp. 137–149). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2010). Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Liamkina, O. (2008). Making dative a case for semantic analysis: Differences in use between native and non-native speakers of German. In A. Tyler, M. Takada & Y. Kim (Eds.), Language in the context of use: Discourse and cognitive approaches to language (pp. 145–166). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES Project: Tools for analyzing talk. Third Edition. Mahwah, N. J.: Lawrence ErlbaumGoogle Scholar
Mann, W.C., & Thompson, S.A. (1986). Relational propositions in discourse. Discourse Processes, 91, 57–90. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matsumoto, Y. (2010). Interactional frame and grammatical descriptions: The case of Japanese noun-modifying constructions. Constructions and Frames, 2(2), 136–157 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Niemeier, S., & Reif, M. (2008). Making progress simpler? Applying cognitive grammar to tense-aspect teaching in the German EFL classroom. In S. De Knop, & T. De Rycker (Eds.), Cognitive approaches to pedagogical grammar: A Volume in Honour of René Dirven (pp. 325–356). Berlin / New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Nir, B. (2008). Clause packages as constructions in developing narrative discourse. PhD Dissertation, Tel Aviv University.
. (2014). Complementizers in Hebrew. In G. Khan (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Hebrew language and linguistics. Leiden: Brill Academic Publishers. <[URL]>Google Scholar
Nir, B., & Berman, R.A. (2010a). Complex syntax as a window on contrastive rhetoric. Journal of Pragmatics, 421, 744–765. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2010b). Parts of speech as constructions: The case of Hebrew “adverbs”. Constructions and Frames, 2(2), 242–274. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Noonan, M. (1985). Complementation. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language typology and syntactic description: Complex constructions. Volume 21 (pp. 42–140). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Östman, J.–O. (2005). Construction discourse: A prolegomenon. In J.–O. Östman & M. Fried (Eds.), Construction grammars: Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions (pp. 121–144). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reinhart, T. (1984). Principles of gestalt perception in the temporal organization of narrative texts. Linguistics, 221, 779–809.Google Scholar
Robinson, P., & Ellis, N. (2008). Conclusion: Cognitive linguistics, second language acquisition and L2 instruction — Issues for research. In P. Robinson & N. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition (pp. 489–546). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruppenhofer, J., & Michaelis, L.A. (2010). A constructional account of genre-based argument omissions. Constructions and Frames, 2(2), 158–184. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmiedtová, B., & Flecken, M. (2008). Aspectual concepts across languages: Some considerations for second language learning. In S. De Knop & T. De Rycker (Eds.), Cognitive approaches to pedagogical grammar: A volume in honour of René Dirven (pp. 357–384). Berlin / New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Schmiedtová, B., v. Stutterheim, C., & Carroll, M. (2011). Implications of language-specific patterns in event construal of advanced L2 speakers. In A. Pavlenko (Ed.), Thinking and speaking in two languages (pp. 66–107.). Clevendon: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Slobin, D.I. (1993). Adult language acquisition: A view from child language study. In C. Perdue (Ed.), Adult language acquisition: Cross-linguistic perspectives (pp. 239–252). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
. (1996). From “thought and language” to “thinking for speaking”. In J.J. Gumperz & S.C. Levinson (Eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity (pp. 70–96). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sorace, A. (2005). Selective optionality in language development. In L. Cornips & K.P. Corrigan (Eds.), Syntax and variation. Reconciling the biological and the social (pp. 55–80). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
von Stutterheim, C. (1998). Global principles of information organisation in texts of L2 speakers. Studi italiani di linguistica teoretica a applicata, XXVII, 1. S, 89–111.Google Scholar
von Stutterheim, C., & Lambert, M. (2005). Crosslinguistic analysis of temporal perspective in text production. In H. Hendricks (Ed.), The structure of learner varieties (pp. 203–230). Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
von Stutterheim, C., & Nüse, R. (2003). Processes of conceptualisation in language production. Linguistics, 41(5), 851–881.Google Scholar
Talmy, L. (1978). Figure and ground in complex sentences. In J.H. Greenberg, C. Ferguson & J. Moravcsik (Eds.), Universals of human language. Volume 4: Syntax (pp. 625–649). Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
. (2000). Toward a cognitive semantics, vol. 2: Typology and process in concept structuring. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT PressGoogle Scholar
Thompson, S.A. (1987). ‘Subordination’ and narrative event structure. In R. Tomlin (Ed.), Coherence and grounding in discourse (pp. 435–454). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2002). Object complements and conversation: Towards a realistic account. Studies in Language, 26(1), 125–164. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, S.A., & Longacre, R.E. (1985). Adverbial clauses. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language typology and syntactic description: Complex constructions. Volume 21 (pp. 171–234). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tyler, A. (2008). Cognitive Linguistics and second language instruction. In N. Ellis & P. Robinson (Eds.), The handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition (pp. 456–488). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Van Valin, R.D., & LaPolla, R. (1997). Syntax: Structure, meaning and function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verhagen, A. (2001). Subordination and discourse segmentation revisited, or: Why matrix clauses may be more dependent than complements. In T. Sanders, J. Schilperoord & W. Spooren (Eds.), Text representation. Linguistic and psychological aspects (pp. 337–357). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Waara, R. (2004). Construal, convention, and constructions in L2 Speech. In M. Achard & S. Niemeier (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics, second language acquisition and foreign language pedagogy (pp. 51–75). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Webelhuth, G. (2012). The Distribution of that-Clauses in English: An SBCG Account. In H.C. Boas & I.A. Sag (Eds.), Sign-based Construction Grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Nir, Bracha
2015. Frames for clause combining. Constructions and Frames 7:2 ► pp. 348 ff. DOI logo
Nir, Bracha
2017. Resonance as a resource for stance-taking in narratives. Functions of Language 24:1 ► pp. 94 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 1 august 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.