Epistemic constructions in L2 Norwegian: a usage-based longitudinal study of formulaic and productive patterns

Abstract

This paper addresses the development of epistemic verb–argument constructions in L2 Norwegian in four learners from a usage-based perspective. Usage-based theories hold that language learning is a gradual process of schematization. Recent research has pointed out that adult L2 learning may start out from both lexically specific and productive patterns, but also that formulaic language and semi-fixed patterns can persist for a long time in an L2. The aim of the present study is to trace how the schematization process unfolds in dense longitudinal data collected from learners in their second semester of intense Norwegian language studies, and to explore the interaction between formulaic and productive patterns in this period of language learning. The analyses show that the learners in general employ a limited repertoire of epistemic verbs, mainly tro ‘think’ and vite ‘know’. The level of productivity of tro and vite constructions varies across the learners: while one learner shows increasingly productive use of constructions with both verbs, other learners rely on semi-fixed construction patterns. A general conclusion is thus that formulaic and semi-fixed patterns are not restricted to initial phases of L2 learning and should be an object of attention at all levels of L2 competence.

Accumulating Semiotic Resources for Social Actions: A Case Study of L2 Icelandic in the Wild

“…An example is the learning of English “do” negation, from “I don't know” through “ X don't know” and “I don't VERB ” to “ X AUX NEG VERB.” Originating from work in cognitive linguistics and child language research, the UBL model and its theory of language emergence have been gaining attention in SLA, where research in this framework is continuously accumulating empirical evidence for the proposed learning trajectory (e.g., Ellis & Ferreira–Junior, 2009; Eskildsen, 2015, inter alia; Roehr–Brackin, 2014; Römer & Berger, 2019; Tode & Sakai, 2016). Recently, research is showing that L2 construction learning moves from ‘a few to more’ rather than ‘one to many,’ so the developmental trajectory is best thought of as going from recurring exemplars toward a repertoire of interrelated constructions from which more schematic cognitive routines emerge (Eskildsen, 2015; Horbowicz & Nordanger, 2021; Lesonen et al., 2018). In some cases, L2 learners seem to shortcut the developmental route and operate on productive principles early on, perhaps as a result of available cognitive routines in the first language (Eskildsen, 2015, 2021; Lesonen et al., 2020; Roehr–Brackin, 2014; on transfer, see, e.g., Ellis & Cadierno, 2009; MacWhinney, 2005).…”

Emergent L2 Grammars in and for Social Interaction: Introduction to the Special Issue

“…Experimental work in psycholinguistics has confirmed the ontological reality of constructions as form–meaning pairings (e.g., Ellis, 2002; Ellis et al., 2014; Gries & Wulff, 2005, 2009). A growing body of nonexperimental research, including case studies and corpus‐based investigations, is documenting and discussing L2 learning over time in terms of an exemplar‐based and frequency‐biased process in which L2 users are developing a repertoire of interrelated constructions on the basis of recurring exemplars (e.g., Ellis & Ferreira–Junior, 2009; Eskildsen, 2012, 2015, 2020, inter alia; Horbowicz & Nordanger, 2021; Lesonen et al., 2020; Roehr–Brackin, 2014; Römer & Berger, 2019; Tode & Sakai, 2016).…”

Embodiment, Semantics and Social Action: The Case of Object-Transfer in L2 Classroom Interaction

“…Relatedly, a more linguistically-semiotically oriented research branch has traced changes in the interactional use of particular linguistic items over time (Ishida, 2009;Kim, 2009;Eskildsen, 2011;Masuda, 2011;Hauser, 2013;Pekarek Doehler and Balaman, 2021). Neighbouring this CA-based L2 research, L2 research drawing on usage-based models of language has investigated L2 constructional development as an exemplarbased and usage-driven process in both qualitative case studies and quantitative corpus-based studies (Eskildsen and Cadierno, 2007;Ellis and Ferreira-Junior, 2009;Eskildsen inter alia 2009Eskildsen inter alia , 2012Eskildsen inter alia , 2015Eskildsen inter alia , 2020aRoehr-Brackin, 2014;Tode and Sakai, 2016;Römer and Berger, 2019;Horbowicz and Nordanger, 2022). Common to the linguistically-semiotically interested CA-based research and the usage-based research is the finding that linguistic patterns grow out of recurring exemplars in experience as resources-for-social-action Eskildsen, 2018;Eskildsen and Kasper, 2019).…”

“…Usage-based SLA has documented the bottom-up, exemplar-based nature of learning in the form of e.g., verb-argument constructions (Ellis and Ferreira-Junior, 2009;Römer and Berger, 2019), object transfer constructions (Year and Gordon, 2009), can-constructions (Eskildsen, 2009), auxiliary do-constructions (Eskildsen, 2011); negation constructions (Eskildsen and Cadierno, 2007;Eskildsen 2012), motion constructions (Li et al, 2014;, relative clauses (Mellow, 2006), question formation (Eskildsen, 2015), French c'est and Swedish det är constructions (Bartning and Hammarberg, 2007), German gehen and fahren (Roehr-Brackin, 2014), L2 Finnish evaluative constructions (Lesonen et al, 2020a), and epistemic verb constructions in L2 Norwegian (Horbowicz and Nordanger, 2022). In the longitudinal work, the research focuses on the extent to which L2 construction learning is exemplar-based, i.e., moving along a trajectory from specific instances to increased productivity and schematicity within single constructions.…”

“…One finding that is consistently emerging from the growing body of usage-based research is that the exemplar-based trajectory is not necessarily a path from "one to many" but can also be from "a few to more" in a process where constructions that are partially specific and partially schematic (for example, "Are you + ADJECTIVE?" in L2 English question formation) play an essential role across phases in development (Eskildsen, 2015, Eskildsen 2017, Eskildsen 2020aLesonen et al, 2018, Lesonen et al, 2020a, Lesonen et al, 2020bHorbowicz and Nordanger, 2022). However, recent research is showing that a usage-based trajectory may also be a matter of routinisation (Eskildsen, 2020a;Pekarek Doehler and Balaman, 2021).…”