Observing the Emergence of Constructional Knowledge

Abstract

Based on writing produced by second language learners at different proficiency levels (CEFR A1 to C1), we adopted a usage-based approach (Ellis, Römer, & O’Donnell, 2016; Tyler & Ortega, 2018) to investigate how German and Spanish learner knowledge of 19 English verb-argument constructions (VACs; e.g., “V with n,” illustrated by he always agrees with her) develops. We extracted VACs from subsets of the Education First-Cambridge Open Language Database, altogether comprising more than 68,000 texts and 6 million words. For each VAC, L1 learner group, and proficiency level, we determined type and token frequencies, as well as the most dominant verb-VAC associations. To study effects of proficiency and L1 on VAC production, we carried out correlation analyses to compare verb-VAC associations of learners at different levels and different L1 backgrounds. We also correlated each learner dataset with comparable data from a large reference corpus of native English usage. Results indicate that with increasing proficiency, learners expand their VAC repertoire and productivity, and verb-VAC associations move closer to native usage.

The Emergence of Second Language Categorisation of the English Article Construction

“…Many of the previous studies on verb-based constructions reported that input frequency was the most important predictor of L2 learning trajectory (Azazil 2020;Ellis and Ferreira-Junior 2009;Römer and Berger 2019). Input frequency and prototypicality often overlap, as "the greater the token frequency of an exemplar, the more it contributes to defining the category, and the greater the likelihood that it will be considered the prototype" (Ellis and Collins 2009, p. 331).…”

“…Drawing analogy based on input exemplars allows learners to formulate the formal schematic representation of the construction and come to understand the associated polysemous meanings. The majority of the empirical studies on usage-based acquisition of a second language (L2) have focused on verb-argument constructions (VACs) (Azazil 2020;Ellis 2008Ellis , 2016Ellis and Ferreira-Junior 2009;Römer and Berger 2019;Sung and Kim 2020). The studies have adopted online processing methods such as recognition and naming tasks and acceptability judgment tasks, as well as free or structured production tasks.…”

“…Empirical research on the development of constructional knowledge has focused on first language acquisition (e.g., Ambridge and Lieven 2015;Goldberg 1999;Lieven et al 1997). There are only a very limited number of L2 studies that have examined how L2 learners acquire the constructional knowledge of verb-argument constructions (Azazil 2020;Roehr-Brackin 2014;Römer and Berger 2019), motion constructions (Li et al 2014), negations and interrogatives (Eskildsen 2012(Eskildsen , 2015, and lexical constructions (Crossley and Salsbury 2011;Eskildsen 2008). The overall findings of these studies aligned with the usage-based prediction of constructional emergence from lexical items to more abstract patterns.…”

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.…”