View Item 

Show simple item record

Second Language Learner Knowledge of Verb–Argument Constructions: Effects of Language Transfer and Typology
dc.contributor.authorRömer, Uteen_US
dc.contributor.authorO'Donnell, Matthew Brooken_US
dc.contributor.authorEllis, Nick C.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2014-12-09T16:53:28Z
dc.date.availableWITHHELD_13_MONTHSen_US
dc.date.available2014-12-09T16:53:28Z
dc.date.issued2014-12en_US
dc.identifier.citationRömer, Ute ; O'Donnell, Matthew Brook; Ellis, Nick C. (2014). "Second Language Learner Knowledge of Verbâ Argument Constructions: Effects of Language Transfer and Typology." The Modern Language Journal 98(4): 952-975.en_US
dc.identifier.issn0026-7902en_US
dc.identifier.issn1540-4781en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/109566
dc.description.abstractThis article examines second language (L2) learner knowledge of English verb–argument constructions (VACs), for example, the ‘V against n’ construction. It investigates to what extent constructions underpin L2 learners' linguistic competence, how VAC mental representations in native speakers and learners differ, and whether there are observable effects of the learners' first language. Native speakers of English and advanced learners of 3 different first language backgrounds (Czech, German, Spanish) were asked to generate the first verb that came to mind to fill the gap in 20 sparse VAC frames like “she ____ against the….” The comparison of learner and native speaker verb responses highlights crosslinguistic transfer effects as well as effects of language typology that impact verb semantics (cf. Talmy, 1985). Our findings suggest that learners whose L1 is, like English, satellite‐framed (here Czech and German) produce more target‐like verbs than learners whose L1 is verb‐framed (here Spanish).en_US
dc.publisherCambridge University Pressen_US
dc.publisherWiley Periodicals, Inc.en_US
dc.subject.otherAdvanced Learnersen_US
dc.subject.otherCrosslinguistic Influenceen_US
dc.subject.otherSatellite‐ vs. Verb‐Framed Languagesen_US
dc.subject.otherConstruction Grammaren_US
dc.subject.otherUsage‐Based Language Acquisitionen_US
dc.titleSecond Language Learner Knowledge of Verb–Argument Constructions: Effects of Language Transfer and Typologyen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.rights.robotsIndexNoFollowen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelLinguisticsen_US
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelHumanitiesen_US
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Revieweden_US
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/109566/1/modl12149.pdf
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/modl.12149en_US
dc.identifier.sourceThe Modern Language Journalen_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRömer, U., O'Donnell, M. B., & Ellis, N. C. ( 2015 ). Using COBUILD grammar patterns for a large‐scale analysis of verb–argument constructions: Exploring corpus data and speaker knowledge. In N. Groom, M. Charles, & S. John (Eds.), Corpora, grammar and discourse: In honour of Susan Hunston. Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceOdlin, T. ( 2013 ). Crosslinguistic influence in second language acquisition. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics. Malden, MA: Wiley–Blackwell. Accessed 12 April 2014 at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0292/fullen_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceR Development Core Team. ( 2012 ). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Accessed 12 April 2014 at http://www.R‐project.org/en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRobinson, P., & Ellis, N. C. (Eds.). ( 2008 ). Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition. London: Routledge.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRömer, U. ( 2005 ). Progressives, patterns, pedagogy. A corpus‐driven approach to English progressive forms, functions, contexts and didactics. Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRömer, U. ( 2007 ). Learner language and the norms in native corpora and EFL teaching materials: A case study of English conditionals. In S. Volk–Birke & J. Lippert (Eds.), Anglistentag 2006 Halle. Proceedings (pp. 355 – 363 ). Trier, Germany: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRömer, U. ( 2009 ). The inseparability of lexis and grammar: Corpus linguistic perspectives. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 7, 140 – 162.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRömer, U., Roberson, A., O'Donnell, M. B., & Ellis, N. C. ( 2014 ). Linking learner corpus and experimental data in studying second language learners' knowledge of verb–argument constructions. ICAME Journal, 38, 115 – 135.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceRosch, E., & Mervis, C. B. ( 1975 ). Cognitive representations of semantic categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 104, 192 – 233.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSinclair, J. M. ( 1991 ). Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSinclair, J. M. ( 2004 ). Trust the text. Language, corpus and discourse. London: Routledge.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSlobin, D. I. ( 2003 ). Language and thought online: Cognitive consequences of linguistic relativity. In D. Gentner & S. Goldin–Meadow (Eds.), Language in mind: Advances in the study of language and thought (pp. 157 – 192 ). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSlobin, D. I. ( 2006 ). What makes manner of motion salient? Explorations in linguistic typology, discourse, and cognition. In M. Hickmann & S. Robert (Eds.), Space in languages: Linguistic systems and cognitive categories (pp. 59 – 81 ). Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceStubbs, M. ( 2001 ). Words and phrases. Corpus studies of lexical semantics. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceTalmy, L. ( 1985 ). Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical form. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language typology and syntactic description: Grammatical categories and the lexicon (pp. 57 – 149 ). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceTalmy, L. ( 1991 ). Path to realization: A typology of event conflation. In L. A. Sutton, C. Johnson, & R. Shields (Eds.), Proceedings of the seventeenth annual meeting of the Berkeley linguistics society (pp. 480 – 520 ). Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceTalmy, L. ( 2000 ). Towards a cognitive semantics, vol. 2: Typology and process in concept structuring. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceTomasello, M. ( 2003 ). Constructing a language: A usage‐based theory of language acquisition. Boston: Harvard University Press.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceTrousdale, G., & Hoffmann, T. (Eds.). ( 2013 ). Oxford handbook of construction grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceTyler, A. ( 2012 ). Cognitive linguistics and second language learning: Theoretical basis and experimental evidence. New York: Routledge.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceTyler, A., Mueller, C., & Ho, V. ( 2011 ). Applying cognitive linguistics to learning the semantics of English prepositions to, for, and at: An experimental investigation. VIGO International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 8, 180 – 205.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceYamashita, J., & Jiang, N. ( 2010 ). L1 influence on the acquisition of L2 collocations: Japanese ESL users and EFL learners acquiring English collocations. TESOL Quarterly, 44, 647 – 668.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceZipf, G. K. ( 1935 ). The psycho‐biology of language: An introduction to dynamic philology. Cambridge, MA: The M.I.T. Press.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBattig, W. R., & Montague, W. E. ( 1969 ). Category norms for verbal items in 56 categories: A replication and extension of the Connecticut category norms. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 80, 1 – 46.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBrown, A., & Gullberg, M. ( 2011 ). Bidirectional cross‐linguistic influence in event conceptualization? Expressions of path among Japanese learners of English. Language and Cognition, 14, 79 – 94.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBybee, J. L. ( 2006 ). From usage to grammar: The mind's response to repetition. Language, 82, 711 – 733.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBybee, J. L. ( 2010 ). Language, usage, and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceByrnes, H. ( 2009 ). Emergent L2 German writing ability in a curricular context: A longitudinal study of grammatical metaphor. Linguistics and Education, 20, 50 – 66.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCadierno, T. ( 2008 ). Learning to talk about motion in a foreign language. In P. Robinson & N. C. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition (pp. 239 – 275 ). London: Routledge.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCadierno, T. ( 2010 ). Motion in Danish as a second language: Does the learner's L1 make a difference? In Z.‐H. Han & T. Cadierno (Eds.), Linguistic relativity in second language acquisition: Thinking for speaking (pp. 1 – 33 ). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCadierno, T. ( 2013 ). Thinking for speaking in second language acquisition. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics. Malden, MA: Wiley–Blackwell. Accessed 12 April 2014 at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal1213/fullen_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCifuentes–Férez, P., & Gentner, D. ( 2006 ). Naming motion events in Spanish and English. Cognitive Linguistics, 17, 443 – 462.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCollins, L., & Ellis, N. C. ( 2009 ). Input and second language construction learning: Frequency, form, and function. Modern Language Journal, 93, 329 – 335.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceCouncil of Europe. ( 2001 ). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Accessed 16 April 2014 at http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/Source/Framework_EN.pdfen_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceEllis, N. C. ( 1998 ). Emergentism, connectionism and language learning. Language Learning, 48, 631 – 664.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceEllis, N. C. ( 2002 ). Frequency effects in language processing: A review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 143 – 188.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceEllis, N. C. ( 2003 ). Constructions, chunking, and connectionism: The emergence of second language structure. In C. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 33 – 68 ). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceEllis, N. C. ( 2006 ). Selective attention and transfer phenomena in SLA: Contingency, cue competition, salience, interference, overshadowing, blocking, and perceptual learning. Applied Linguistics, 27, 164 – 194.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceEllis, N. C., & Cadierno, T. ( 2009 ). Constructing a second language. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 7, Special section, 111 – 290.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceEllis, N. C., & Ferreira–Junior, F. ( 2009 ). Constructions and their acquisition: Islands and the distinctiveness of their occupancy. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 7, 111 – 139.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceEllis, N. C., O'Donnell, M. B., & Römer, U. ( 2013 ). Usage‐based language: Investigating the latent structures that underpin acquisition. Language Learning, 63 (Supplement 1), 25 – 51.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceEllis, N. C., O'Donnell, M. B., & Römer, U. ( 2014a ). The processing of verb–argument constructions is sensitive to form, function, frequency, contingency, and prototypicality. Cognitive Linguistics, 25, 55 – 98.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceEllis, N. C., O'Donnell, M. B., & Römer, U. ( 2014b ). Second language processing of verb–argument constructions is sensitive to form, function, frequency, contingency, and prototypicality. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceEllis, N. C., & Sagarra, N. ( 2011 ). Learned attention in adult language acquisition: A replication and generalization study and meta‐analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33, 589 – 624.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFrancis, G., Hunston, S., & Manning, E. (Eds.). ( 1996 ). Collins COBUILD grammar patterns 1: Verbs. London: Harper Collins.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGehrke, B. ( 2008 ). Ps in motion. On the semantics and syntax of P elements and motion events. Utrecht, the Netherlands: LOT Publications. Accessed 12 April 2014 at http://www.lotpublications.nl/publish/issues/Gehrke/index.htmlen_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGilquin, G., De Cock, S., Granger, S (Eds.). ( 2010 ). LINDSEI: Louvain International Database of Spoken English Interlanguage. Louvain‐la‐Neuve, Belgium: Presses Universitaires de Louvain.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGoldberg, A. E. ( 1995 ). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGoldberg, A. E. ( 2003 ). Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Science, 7, 219 – 224.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGoldberg, A. E. ( 2006 ). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGoldberg, A. E., Casenhiser, D. M., & Sethuraman, N. ( 2004 ). Learning argument structure generalizations. Cognitive Linguistics, 15, 289 – 316.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGranger, S., Dagneaux, E., Meunier, F., & Paquot, M. (Eds.). ( 2009 ). ICLE: International Corpus of Learner English. Louvain‐la‐Neuve, Belgium: Presses Universitaires de Louvain.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGries, S. T., & Adelman, A. S. ( 2014 ). Subject realization in Japanese conversation by native and nonnative speakers: Exemplifying a new paradigm for learner corpus research. In J. Romero–Trillo (Ed.), Yearbook of corpus linguistics and pragmatics. New York/Berlin: Springer.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceGries, S. T., & Deshors, S. ( 2014 ). Using regressions to explore deviations between corpus data and a standard/target: Two suggestions. Corpora, 9, 109 – 136.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceHunston, S., & Francis, G. ( 2000 ). Pattern grammar: A corpus driven approach to the lexical grammar of English. Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceIbbotson, P. ( 2013 ). The role of semantics, pre‐emption and skew in linguistic distributions: The case of the un ‐construction. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 989. Accessed 21 April 2014 at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3872292/en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceJarvis, S. ( 2013 ). Crosslinguistic influence and multilingualism. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics. Malden, MA: Wiley–Blackwell. Accessed 12 April 2014 at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0291/fullen_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceJarvis, S., & Pavlenko, A. ( 2008 ). Crosslinguistic influence in language and cognition. London: Routledge.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceLittlemore, J. ( 2011 ). Applying cognitive linguistics to second language learning and teaching. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMacWhinney, B. ( 2001 ). Emergentist approaches to language. In J. Bybee & P. Hopper (Eds.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure (pp. 449 – 470 ). Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMani, I., & Pustejovski, J. ( 2012 ). Interpreting motion: Grounded representations for spatial language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMeunier, F., & Gouverneur, C. ( 2007 ). The treatment of phraseology in ELT textbooks. In E. Hidalgo, L. Quereda, & J. Santana (Eds.), Corpora in the foreign language classroom (pp. 119 – 140 ). Amsterdam: Rodopi.en_US
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Name:
modl12149.pdf
Size:
518.7KB
Format:
PDF
View/Open

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.