Cover not available
Article published In:
Review of Cognitive Linguistics
Vol. 17:2 (2019) ► pp.382–410

Making do

Constructing L2 phraseological chunks as complex form-meaning mappings

| Department of Language and Literature | Norwegian University of Science and Technology
This paper argues that the cognitive usage-based model enhanced by a complexity theory perspective can provide useful insights into L2 learners’ non-target-like use of L2 phraseological chunks. Firstly, L2 chunks are conceptualized here as L2 complex form-meaning mappings subject to developmental schematization and entrenchment, as well as productive cut-and-paste mechanisms. Traces of these mechanisms at community level are interpreted as emergent patterns, a complexity theory concept in line with the cognitive usage-based model. Next, learner expressions for two task-elicited notions (depositing money and donating money) in a community of L2 English learners (N = 167; L1 Dutch) are analyzed for emergent patterns at different levels of schematicity. The findings indicate that L2 phraseological chunks are not constructed from a target-like initial exemplar that becomes entrenched or schematized. The paper concludes that within the cognitive usage-based model this is a major impeding factor in L2 learners’ target-like use of L2 phraseological chunks.
Keywords: cognitive usage-based model, L2 acquisition, phraseological chunks, complexity theory, emergent patterns
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Theoretical framework
    • 2.1L2 phraseological chunks from a cognitive usage-based perspective
    • 2.2The acquisition of L2 phraseological chunks from a cognitive usage-based perspective
    • 2.3L2 phraseological chunks and linguistic productivity from a cognitive usage-based perspective
    • 2.4L2 phraseological chunks and emergent patterns of use
  • 3.The study
    • 3.1Research question
    • 3.2Participants and data collection
    • 3.3Data analysis
      • 3.3.1Extracting learner expressions
      • 3.3.2Establishing L2 English reference expressions
      • 3.3.3Establishing L1 Dutch reference expressions
      • 3.3.4Analysing learner expressions for emergent patterns
  • 4.Findings
    • 4.1Verbs
    • 4.2V PREP chunks
    • 4.3Object
    • 4.4Slot-frames
    • 4.5Abstract schematic constructions
  • 5.Discussion
    • 5.1Low occurrence of prototypical exemplars
    • 5.2Partial form-meaning mappings
      • 5.2.1 depositing money
      • 5.2.2 donating money
    • 5.3L2-specific productive mechanisms
  • 6.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 10 January 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00040.gus
References

References

Beckner, C., Blythe, R., Bybee, J., Christiansen, M. H., Croft, W., Ellis, N. C., Holland, J., Ke, J., Larsen-Freeman, D., & Schoenemann, T.
(2009) Language is a complex adaptive system. Position paper, Language Learning, 59 1, Supplement 1 1, 1–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J.
(2008) Usage-based Grammar and Second Language Acquisition. In P. Robinson & N. C. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition (pp. 216–236). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
(2010) Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, W.
(2015) Functional approaches to grammar. In J. D. Wright (Ed.), International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed., Vol. 9 1 (pp. 470–475). Oxford: Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dabrowska, E.
(2012, March). Reduce, reuse, recycle: The ecology of language use. Keynote Address, 5th Conference of the Formulaic Language Research Network, Tilburg, The Netherlands.
(2014) Recycling utterances: A speaker’s guide to sentence processing. Cognitive Linguistics, 25 (4), 167–653. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015) Language in the mind and in the community. In J. Daems, E. Zenner, K. Heylen, D. Speelmand, & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), Change of Paradigms – New Paradoxes: Recontextualizing Language and Linguistics (pp. 221–235). Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Dabrowska, E., & Lieven, E.
(2005) Towards a lexically specific grammar of children’s question constructions. Cognitive Linguistics 16 (3), 437–474. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Bot, K., & Larsen-Freeman, D.
(2011) Researching second language development from a dynamic systems theory perspective. In M. H. Verspoor, K. de Bot & W. Lowie (Eds.), A dynamic approach to second language development: Methods and techniques (pp. 5–23). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Bot, K., Lowie, W., & Verspoor, M.
(2007) A Dynamic Systems Theory approach to second language acquisition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 10 (1), 7–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C.
(2014) Construction learning as category learning: A cognitive analysis. In T. Herbst, S. Schueller & H.-J. Schmid (Eds.), Constructions – Collocations – Patterns (pp. 63–89). Berlin: de Gruyter.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., & Ferreira-Junior, F.
(2009a) Construction Learning as a function of Frequency, Frequency Distribution, and Function. Modern Language Journal, 93 (3), 370–385. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009b) Constructions and their acquisition: islands and the distinctiveness of their occupancy. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 7 1, 187–220. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eskildsen, S. W.
(2009) Constructing another language – Usage-based linguistics in Second Language Acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 30 (3), 335–357. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012) L2 negation constructions at work. Language Learning, 62 (2), 335–372. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014) What’s new? A usage-based classroom study of linguistic routines and creativity in L2 learning. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 52 1, 1–30. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015) What Counts as a Developmental Sequence? Exemplar-Based L2 Learning of English Questions. Language Learning, 65 (1), 33–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A.
(2006) Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Granger, S., & Paquot, M.
(2012) Formulaic Language in Learner Corpora. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32 1, 130–149. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gustafsson, H., & Verspoor, M. H.
(2017) The Development of Chunks in Dutch L2 Learners of English. In J. Evers-Vermeul & E. Tribushinina (Eds.), Usage-Based Approaches to Language Acquisition and Language Teaching (pp. 235–262). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoey, M.
(2005) Lexical priming. A new theory of words and language. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hopper, P. J.
(1998) Emergent Grammar. In M. Tomasello (Ed.), The New Psychology of Language (pp. 155–175). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Jolsvai, H., McCauley, S. M., & Christiansen, M. H.
(2013) Meaning overrides frequency in idiomatic and compositional multiword chunks. In M. Knauff, M. Pauen, N. Sebanz & I. Wachsmuth (Eds.), Proceedings of the 35th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 692–697). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W.
(1987) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
(2000) A dynamic usage-based model. In M. Barlow & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Usage-Based Models of Language (pp. 1–63). Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
(2008a) Cognitive grammar as a basis for language instruction. In P. Robinson & N. C. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition (pp. 66–88). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
(2008b) Cognitive Grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford University Press: New York. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D.
(2006) The emergence of complexity, fluency, and accuracy in the oral and written production of five Chinese learners of English. Applied linguistics, 27 (4), 590–619.Google Scholar
(2012) Complexity Theory / Dynamic Systems Theory. In P. Robinson (Ed.), The Routledge Encyclopedia Of Second Language Acquisition (pp. 103–105). Routledge: London and New York.Google Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D., & Cameron, L.
(2008) Complex Systems and Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Levin, B.
(2008) Dative Verbs: A Crosslinguistic Perspective. Lingvisticæ Investigationes, 31 1, 285–312. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Li, P., Eskildsen, S. W., & Cadierno, T.
(2014) Tracing an L2 learner’s motion constructions over time – A usage-based classroom investigation. Modern Language Journal, 98 1, 612–628. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lowie, W. M., & Verspoor, M. H.
(2004) Input versus transfer? The role of frequency and similarity in the acquisition of L2 propositions. In S. Niemeier & M. Achard (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics, Second Language Acquisition, and Foreign Language Acquisition (pp. 77–94). Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nesselhauf, N.
(2005) Collocations in a learner corpus. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Odlin, T.
(2008) Conceptual transfer and meaning extensions. In P. Robinson & N. C. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition (pp. 306–340). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Paquot, M., & Granger, S.
(2012) Formulaic Language in Learner Corpora. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics. 32 1, 130–149. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pawley, A., & Syder, F. H.
(1983) Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Native-like selection and native-like fluency. In J. C. Richards & R. W. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and Communication (pp. 163–199). New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Renouf, A., Kehoe, A., & Banerjee, J.
(2007) WebCorp: an integrated system for web text search. In C. Nesselhauf, M. Hundt & C. Biewer (Eds.), Corpus Linguistics and the Web (pp. 47–68). Amsterdam: Rodopi. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Slobin, D.
(1996) From “thought and language” to “thinking for speaking”. In J. Gumperz & S. Levinson (Eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity (pp. 97–114). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Smiskova, H., Verspoor, M. H., & Lowie, W. M.
(2012) Conventionalized ways of saying things (CWOSTs) and L2 development. Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1 (1), 125–142. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smiskova-Gustafsson, H.
(2013) Chunks in L2 development: A usage-based perspective. Doctoral dissertation. Grodil: University of Groningen.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M.
(2000) Do young children have adult syntactic competence? Cognition, 74 1, 209–253. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tyler, A.
(2012) Cognitive Linguistics and SLA. In P. Robinson (Ed.), The Routledge Encyclopedia Of Second Language Acquisition (pp. 88–90). Routledge: London and New York.Google Scholar
Verspoor, M. H., Schuitemaker-King, J., van Rein, E., de Bot, C. J., & Edelenbos, P.
(2010) Tweetalig onderwijs: vormgeving en prestaties. Onderzoeksrapportage. Available online at [URL]
Verspoor, M., Schmid, M. S., & Xu, X.
(2012) A dynamic usage based perspective on L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21 (3), 239–263. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wray, A.
(2002) Formulaic Language and the Lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012) What Do We (Think We) Know About Formulaic Language? An Evaluation of the Current State of Play. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32 1, 231–254. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yuldashev, A., Fernandez, J., & Thorne, S. L.
(2013) Second language learners’ contiguous and discontiguous MWU use over time. Modern Language Journal, 97 1, 31–45. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

LESONEN, SIRKKU, RASMUS STEINKRAUSS, MINNA SUNI & MARJOLIJN VERSPOOR
2020. Lexically specific vs. productive constructions in L2 Finnish. Language and Cognition 12:3 ► pp. 526 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 17 april 2022. 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.