PDF Download
PubReader
Export Citation
Email the Author
Share Facebook
Share Twitter
Cited by 1 Article
Metrics (View:3,191)
QR Code of this Article:
Article
A Usage-based Analysis of L2 Production of English Resultative Constructions
1, 2,*
Received: Jan 08, 2019 ; Revised: Feb 15, 2019 ; Accepted: Feb 15, 2019
Published Online: Apr 30, 2019
ABSTRACT
This study investigates whether the usage patterns of resultative constructions (e.g., The lake froze solid; Tom painted the wall white) in argumentative essays written by Korean-speaking learners of English follow the usage-based principles influencing first language acquisition. Specific research questions addressed in this study are: a) whether resultative constructions with high complexity and low frequency are more difficult to learn for Korean-speaking learners of English than other types of argument structure constructions, and b) whether learners expand their choice of verbs in the resultative constructions as their proficiency increases. Multiple regression analyses showed that the occurrence of resultative constructions explains the variability of learner proficiency better than that of other constructions. In addition, learners employed less frequent and more varied types of verbs in the resultative constructions as their proficiency was higher. Our findings suggest that usage-based theories of language development hold true in the context of foreign language learning.
Keywords: English resultatives; usage-based models; construction grammar; L2 proficiency
References
1.
Akhtar, Nameera. (1999). Acquiring basic word order: Evidence for data-driven learning of syntactic structure. Journal of Child Language 26, 339-356 .
2.
Akhtar, Nameera and Michael Tomasello. (1997). Young children's productivity with word order and verb morphology. Developmental Psychology 33, 952-965 .
4.
Bates, Elizabeth and Brian MacWhinney. (1987). Competition, variation, and language learning. In B. MacWhinney, ed., Mechanisms of Language Acquisition, 157-193. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum .
5.
Bencini, Giulia ML. and Adele E. Goldberg. (2000). The contribution of argument structure constructions to sentence meaning. Journal of Memory and Language 43, 640-651 .
7.
Bowerman, Melissa. (1982). Reorganizational processes in lexical and syntactic development. In L. Geitman and E. Wanner, eds., Language Acquisition: The State of the Art, 319-346. CUP Archive .
8.
Braine, Martin D. (1976). Children's first word combinations. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 41, 1-104 .
9.
Bybee, Joan. (2008). Usage-based grammar and second language acquisition. In P. Robinson and N. C. Ellis, eds., Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition, 216- 236. New York: Routledge .
10.
Cameron‐Faulkner, Thea, Elena Lieven and Michael Tomasello. (2003). A construction based analysis of child directed speech. Cognitive Science 27, 843-873 .
11.
Campbell, Aimee L. and Michael Tomasello. (2001). The acquisition of English dative constructions. Applied Psycholinguistics 22, 253-267 .
12.
Childers, Jane B. and Michael Tomasello. (2001). The role of pronouns in young children's acquisition of the English transitive construction. Developmental Psychology 37, 739-748 .
13.
Croft, William. (2001). Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press .
14.
Ellis, Nick C. (2008). Usage-based and form-focused language acquisition: The associative learning of constructions, learned attention, and the limited L2 end state. In P. Robinson and N. C. Ellis, eds., Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition, 372-405. New York: Routledge .
15.
Ellis, Nick C. (2012). What can we count in language, and what counts in language acquisition, cognition, and use? In S. T. Gries and D. S. Divjak, eds., Frequency Effects in Language Learning and Processing [Vol. 1], 7-34. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton .
16.
Ellis, Nick C. and Fernando Ferreira-Junior. (2009). Constructions and their acquisition: Islands and the distinctiveness of their occupancy. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 7, 188-221 .
17.
Farrar, Michael Jeffrey. (1990). Discourse and the acquisition of grammatical morphemes. Journal of Child Language 17, 607-624 .
18.
Farrar, Michael Jeffrey. (1992). Negative evidence and grammatical morpheme acquisition. Developmental Psychology 28, 90-98 .
19.
Goldberg, Adele E. (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press .
20.
Goldberg, Adele E. (2006). Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. New York: Oxford University Press .
21.
Goldberg, Adele E., Devin M. Casenhiser, and Nitya Sethuraman. (2004). Learning argument structure generalizations. Cognitive Linguistics 15, 289-316 .
22.
Goldberg, Adele E. and Ray Jackendoff. (2004). The English resultative as a family of constructions. Language, 532-568 .
23.
Granger, Sylviane, C. Sanders, and Ulla Connor. (2007). LOCNESS: Louvain Corpus of Native English. Belgium: Universitaire de Louvain .
24.
Kay, Paul and Charles J. Fillmore. (1999). Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The What's X doing Y? construction. Language 75, 1-33 .
25.
Kim, Hyunwoo and Yangon Rah. (2016). Effects of verb semantics and proficiency in second language use of constructional knowledge. The Modern Language Journal 100(3), 716-731 .
26.
Kim, Sujeong. (2016). L1 influence on L2 learning of English resultative constructions: The syntactic and semantic structure of Korean students' interlanguage. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation. Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea .
27.
Langacker, Ronald. (2000). A dynamic usage-based model. In M. Barlow and S. Kemmer, eds., Usage-Based Models of Language, 1-60. Stanford, CA: CSLI .
28.
Lee, Jin-Hwa and Hye Min Kim. (2011). The L2 developmental sequence of English constructions and underlying factors. Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics 11, 577-600 .
29.
Luk, Gigi and Ellen Bialystok. (2013). Bilingualism is not a categorical variable: Interaction between language proficiency and usage. Journal of Cognitive Psychology 25, 605-621 .
30.
MacWhinney, Brian. (2008). A unified model. In P. Robinson and N. C. Ellis, eds., Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition. New York: Routledge .
31.
Ninio, Anat. (1999). Pathbreaking verbs in syntactic development and the question of prototypical transitivity. Journal of Child Language 26, 619-653 .
32.
O'Brien, Robert M. (2007). A caution regarding rules of thumb for variance inflation factors. Quality & Quantity 41(5), 673-690 .
33.
Park, Kyae-Sung and Usha Lakshmanan. (2007). The unaccusative-unergative distinction in resultatives: Evidence from Korean L2 learners of English. In Proceedings of the 2nd Conference on Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition North America (GALANA), 328-338 .
34.
Pinker, Steven. (1989). Learnability and Cognition: The Acquisition of Verb-Argument Structure. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press .
35.
Rah, Yang On. (2014). Effects of Construction-grammar-based Instruction on the Sentence Production Ability of Korean College Learners of English. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation. Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea .
36.
Rah, Yangon and Hyunwoo Kim. (2018). Construction-based approach to teaching the English resultative construction to Korean EFL learners. System 72(1), 1-12 .
37.
Redington, Martin, Nick Crater and Steven Finch. (1998). Distributional information: A powerful cue for acquiring syntactic categories. Cognitive Science 22, 425-469 .
38.
Rhee, Seok-Chae, and Chae Kwan Jung. (2012). Yonsei English Learner Corpus (YELC). Proceedings of the First Yonsei English Corpus Symposium, 26-36. Seoul: Yonsei University .
39.
Richter, Michael and Roeland van Hout. (2013). Interpreting resultative sentences in German: Stages in L1 acquisition. Linguistics 51, 117-144 .
40.
Robenalt, Clarice and Adele E Goldberg. (2015). Judgment evidence for statistical preemption: It is relatively better to vanish than to disappear a rabbit, but a lifeguard can equally well backstroke or swim children to shore. Cognitive Linguistics 26(3), 467-503 .
41.
Sethuraman, Nitya. (2002). The Acquisition of Verbs and Argument Structure Construction. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation. San Diego: University of California .
42.
Snyder, William. (2001). On the nature of syntactic variation: Evidence from complex predicates and complex word-formation. Language 77, 324-342 .
44.
Sung, Minchang and Hyun-Kwon Yang. (2016). Effects of construction-centered instruction on Korean students' learning of English transitive resultative constructions. In S. De Knop and G. Gilquin, eds., Applied Construction Grammar, 89-113. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton .
45.
Theakston, Anna L., Elena VM Lieven, Julian M. Pine, and Caroline F. Rowland. (2001). The role of performance limitations in the acquisition of verb argument structure. Journal of Child Language 28, 127-152 .
46.
Tomasello, Michael. (1992). First Verbs: A Case Study of Early Grammatical Development. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press .
47.
Tomasello, Michael. (2003). Constructing a Language: A Usage-based Theory of Language Acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press .
48.
Verhelst, Norman, Piet Van Avermaet, Sauli Takala, Neus Figueras, and Brian North. (2009). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Reaching, Assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .