Cover not available
Article published In:
Corpus Approaches to Language, Thought and Communication
Edited by Wei-lun Lu, Naděžda Kudrnáčová and Laura A. Janda
[Review of Cognitive Linguistics 17:1] 2019
► pp. 219–242
Regular articles

Constructions at work in foreign language learners’ mind

A comparison between two sentence-sorting experiments with English and Italian learners

 | University of Genoa
 | University of Turin
This article reports empirical evidence of constructional priming effects in L2 learners of English and Italian. The well-known pioneering experiment carried out by Bencini and Goldberg (2000) with L1 speakers of English paved the way for our investigation. We employed the same protocol to ascertain whether constructions have an ontological status also in the mind of L2 learners. We conducted experiments with four groups of learners whose language proficiency levels correspond to the B1 and B2 levels of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR). The results we obtained in our cross-linguistic experiments demonstrate that learners are reliant on constructional templates when they are required to produce linguistic generalizations.
Keywords: constructional priming, L2 learners, sentence-sorting experiments, construction-based L2 pedagogy, language typology
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Priming
  • 3.Priming experiment with native speakers of American English
  • 4.Experiment with Italian university learners of English
    • 4.1L2 pioneering studies
    • 4.2Constructional priming in Italian learners of English
      • 4.2.1Materials
      • 4.2.2Procedure
      • 4.2.3Scoring
      • 4.2.4Results
    • 4.3An interim observation on language typology
  • 5.Constructional priming in Romance-language-speaking learners of Italian
    • 5.1Stimuli
    • 5.2Procedure
    • 5.3Scoring
    • 5.4Results
  • 6.Discussion of the results
  • 7.Pedagogical implications
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 20 August 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00032.bai
References (58)
References
Achard, M. (2008). Teaching construal: Cognitive pedagogical grammar. In P. Robinson & N. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition (pp. 432–455). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Baicchi, A. (2015). Construction learning as a complex adaptive system: Psycholinguistic evidence from L2 learners of English. Berlin: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016). The role of syntax and semantics in constructional priming: Experimental evidence from Italian university learners of English through a sentence-elicitation task. In S. de Knop & G. Gilquin (Eds.), Applied construction grammar (pp. 211–236). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bencini, G., & Goldberg, A. (2000). The contribution of argument structure constructions to sentence meaning. Journal of Memory and Language, 431, 640–651. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bock, K. (1986). Syntactic persistence in language production. Cognitive Psychology, 181, 355–387. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boers, F. (2013). Cognitive Linguistic approaches to second language vocabulary: Assessment and integration. Language Teaching, 461, 208–224. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Knop, S., Boers, F., & de Rycker, A. (Eds.). (2010). Fostering language teaching efficiency through cognitive linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Rycker, A., & De Knop, S. (2008) (Eds.). Cognitive approaches to pedagogical grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2009). Integrating Cognitive Linguistics and foreign language teaching: Historical background and new developments. Journal of Modern Languages, 19(1), 29–46.Google Scholar
Della Putta, P. (2015). Discouraging constructional negative transfer: Theoretical aspects and classroom activities for Spanish-speaking students of L2 Italian. In K. Masuda, C. Arnett, & A. Labarca (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics and sociocultural theory (pp. 25–49). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Desmet, T., & Declercq, M. (2006). Cross-linguistic priming of syntactic hierarchical configuration information. Journal of Memory and Language, 541, 610–632. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eddington, D., & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J. (2010). Argument structure constructions and language processing. In S. de Knop, F. Boers, & A. de Rycher (Eds.), Fostering language teaching efficiency through cognitive linguistics (pp. 213–238). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C., & Sagarra, N. (2010). The bounds of adult language acquisition: Blocking and learned attention. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(4), 553–580. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011). Learned attention in adult language acquisition: a replication and generalization study and meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 331, 589–624. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evans Davies, C. (2018). On the relationship between interaction and language learning: A usage-based perspective grounded in interactional sociolinguistics. In A. Tyler, L. Ortega, M. Uno, & H. I. Park (Eds.), Usage-inspired L2 instruction (pp. 75–94). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Feldman, S., & Weld, H. P. (1939). Perception. In E. G. Boring, S. H. Langfeld, H. P. Weld, et al. (Eds.), Introduction to psychology (pp. 411–438). New York: John Wiley. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ferreira, V. (2003). The persistence of optional complementizer production. Journal of Memory and Language, 481, 379–398. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gries, S., & Wulff, S. (2005). Do foreign language learners also have constructions?: Evidence from priming, sorting, and corpora. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 31, 182–200. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hartsuiker, R., Kolk, H., & Hiuskamp, P. (1999). Priming word order in sentence production. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 52A1, 129–147. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hartsuiker, R., Pickering, M., & Veltkamp, E. (2004). Is syntax separate or shared between languages? Psychological Science, 151, 409–414. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Healy, A., & Miller, G. (1970). The verb as the main determinant of sentence meaning. Psychonomic Science, 201, 372. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holme, R. (2010). Construction grammars: Towards a pedagogical model. AILA Review, 231, 115–133. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012). Cognitive linguistics and the second language class. TESOL Quarterly, 461, 6–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jacobsen, N. (2015). Using cognitive linguistics and sociocultural theory for second language teaching. In K. Masuda, C. Arnett, & A. Labarca (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics and sociocultural theory (pp. 103–126). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kersten, A., & Billman, D. (1997). Event category learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 231, 638–658.Google Scholar
Landauer, T. K., & Dumais, S. T. (1997). A solution to Plato’s problem: The latent semantic analysis theory of acquisition, induction, and representation of knowledge. Psychological Review, 104(2), 211–240. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Landauer, T., Foltz, P., & Laham, D. (1998). An introduction to latent semantic analysis. Discourse Processes, 251, 259–284. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lashley, K. (1951). The problem of serial order in behaviour. In L. Jeffress (Ed.), Cerebral mechanisms in behaviour (pp. 112–136). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Lassaline, M., & Murphy, G. (1996). Induction and category coherence. Psychonomic Bullettin and Review, 3(1), 95–99. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levin, B. (2008). Dative verbs: A crosslinguistics perspective. Lingvisticæ Investigationes, 311, 285–312. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Liang, J. (2002). How do Chinese EFL learners construct sentence meaning. M.A. thesis, Guangdong University of Foreign Studies.Google Scholar
Libben, G., & Jarema, G. (2002). Mental lexicon research in the new millennium. Brain and Language, 81(1–3), 2–11. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Littlemore, J. (2009). Applying cognitive linguistics to second language learning and teaching. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Loebell, H., & Bock, K. (2003). Structural priming across languages. Linguistics, 411, 791–794. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mateu, J., & Rigau, G. (2010). Verb-particle constructions in Romance: A lexical-syntactic account. Probus, 221, 241–269. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martínez Vázquez, M. (2004). Learning argument structure generalizations in a foreign language. VIAL, 11, 151–165.Google Scholar
Medin, D. L., Wattemaker, W., & Hampson, S. (1987). Family resemblance, conceptual cohesiveness, and category construction. Cognitive Psychology, 121, 242–279. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meyer, D., & Schvaneveldt, R. (1971). Facilitation in recognising pairs of words. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 901, 227–234. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Murphy, G. L. (2002). The big book of concepts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Noora, S. (2009). Iranian undergraduate non-English majors’ interpretation of English structures. GEMA, 9(2), 89–100.Google Scholar
Pedersen, J. (2009a). The construction of macro-events: A typological perspective. In C. Butler & J. M. Arista (Eds.), Deconstructing constructions (pp. 25–62). Amsterdam/New York: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009b). Lexical and constructional organization of argument structure: A contrastive analysis. In J. Zlatev, M. Andrén, M. Johansson Falck, & C. Lundmark (Eds.), Studies in language and cognition (pp. 230–245). Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Regehr, G., & Brooks, L. R. (1995). Category organization in free classification. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 211, 347–363.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Mairal Usón, R. (2008). Levels of description and constraining factors in meaning construction: An introduction to the lexical constructional model. Folia Linguistica, 42(2), 355–400.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., & Agustín Llach, M. (2016). Cognitive Pedagogical Grammar and meaning construction in L2. In S. de Knop & G. Gilquin (Eds.), Applied construction grammar (pp. 151–184). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Segal, S. J., & Cofer, C. N. (1960). The effect of recency and recall on word association. American Psychologist, 151, 451.Google Scholar
Sepassi, F., & Kamyab, P. (2005). Iranian university students’ preference for verb centered vs. construction cues to sentence structure. The Asian EFL Journal, 7(5). Retrieved May 13, 2018, from [URL]
Sinha, C. & Kuteva, T. (1995). Distributed Spatial Semantics. Nordic Journal of Linguistics, 181, 167–199. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Storms, L. H. (1958). Apparent backward association: a situational effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55(4), 390–395. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a cognitive semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Torre, E. (2012). Symmetry and asymmetry in Italian caused-motion constructions: An Embodied Construction Grammar approach. Constructions, 11. Retrieved from: [URL]
Tulving, E., Schacter, D. L., & Stark, H. A. (1982). Priming effects in word-fragment completion are independent of recognition memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 8(4), 336–342.Google Scholar
Tyler, A., & Ortega, L. (2018). Usage-inspired L2 instruction: An emergent, researched pedagogy. In A. Tyler, L. Ortega, M. Uno, & H. I. Park (Eds.), Usage-inspired L2 instruction (pp. 3–28). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Valenzuela, J., & Rojo, A. (2007). On the existence of constructions in foreign language learners. In R. Monroy & A. Sánchez (Eds.), 25 años de Lingüística en España (pp. 907–912). Murcia: Editum.Google Scholar
Washio, R. (1997). Resultatives, compositionality and language variation. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 61, 1–49. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wolter, B., & Yamashita, J. (2018). Word frequency, collocational frequency, L1 congruency, and proficiency in L2 collocational processing: What accounts for L2 performance? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 40(2), 395–416. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Park, Ji-Hyun & Min-Chang Sung
2024. Expansion of verb-argument construction repertoires in L2 English writing. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 62:2 ► pp. 903 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 15 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.