Cover not available
Article published In:
International Journal of Learner Corpus Research
Vol. 5:1 (2019) ► pp.63–103

Intensifying constructions in French-speaking L2 learners of English and Dutch

Cross-linguistic influence and exposure effects

 | Université catholique de Louvain
 | F.R.S.-FNRS | Université catholique de Louvain
 | University of Florida
We investigate the cross-linguistic influence and the (longitudinal) impact of Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) on the acquisition of intensifying constructions, using corpora of written French, Dutch, and English productions by L1 speakers, and L2 English and L2 Dutch produced by French-speaking learners in CLIL and traditional foreign language education. We hypothesize that learners will benefit from similarities between the L1 and target language (TL) intensifying constructions, and secondly, that more input and use (through CLIL) will lead to a more target-like use of intensifying constructions. The analyses include quantitative measures of frequency and productivity, and covarying analyses (Gries, 2007). Our findings suggest that, as expected, CLIL students produce intensifying constructions in a more target-like manner. The effect of the duration of TL learning, however, is more apparent in English than in Dutch.
Keywords: intensification, French/English/Dutch, Content and Language Integrated Learning, covarying collexeme analysis
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Constructionist approaches to SLA
    • 2.1Covarying collexeme analysis
    • 2.2The impact of language input on the use of intensifying constructions
  • 3.Intensification
    • 3.1Intensifying constructions
    • 3.2Cross-linguistic similarities and differences between intensification in French, English, and Dutch
  • 4.Research hypotheses
  • 5.Method
    • 5.1Participants
    • 5.2Data collection
    • 5.3Quantitative measures and statistical methods
      • 5.3.1Covarying collexeme analysis
  • 6.Results
    • 6.1Overall results
      • 6.1.1Overview intensifying constructions
      • 6.1.2Most frequent intensifiers
      • 6.1.3Types of non-target-like use of intensifying constructions
    • 6.2Results of the covarying collexeme analysis
      • 6.2.1Cross-linguistic comparison: Intensifying collostructions in French, English and Dutch
        • L1 French produced by the students who are learning English
        • L1 French produced by the students who are learning Dutch
        • L1 English
        • L1 Dutch
      • 6.2.2Collostructions in the learner languages
        • Non-CLIL English in the fifth year of secondary school
        • Non-CLIL English in sixth year of secondary school
        • CLIL English in fifth year of secondary school
        • CLIL English in sixth year of secondary school
        • Non-CLIL Dutch in fifth year of secondary school
        • Non-CLIL Dutch in sixth year of secondary school
        • CLIL Dutch in fifth year of secondary school
        • CLIL Dutch in sixth year of secondary school
  • 7.Discussion
  • 8.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 13 March 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ijlcr.18002.hen
References (96)
References
Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C. & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Bad Is Stronger than Good. Review of General Psychology, 5(4), 323–370. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S. & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Blondin, C. (2003). L’immersion linguistique dans l’enseignement fondamental en Communauté française de Belgique. Journal de l’Immersion, 25(2), 9–31.Google Scholar
Booij, G. (2010). Construction Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Boucher, J. & Charles, E. O. (1969). The Pollyana Hypothesis. Journal of verbal learning and verbal behavior, 81, 1–8. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brems, L. (2003). Measure noun constructions: An instance of semantically-driven grammaticalization. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 8(2), 283–312. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007). The Synchronic Layering of Size Noun and Type Noun Constructions in English. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Leuven, Leuven.Google Scholar
Bruton, A. (2011). Is CLIL so beneficial, or just selective? Re-evaluating some of the research. System, 391, 523–532. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bulon, A., Hendrikx, I., Meunier, F. & Van Goethem, K. (2017). Using global complexity measures to assess second language proficiency: Comparing CLIL and non-CLIL learners of English and Dutch in French-speaking Belgium. In Papers of the Linguistic Society of Belgium, 11(1), 1–25. [URL]
Bybee, J. (2010). Language, Usage and Cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chopey-Paquet, M. (2008). CLIL in French-speaking Belgium. Transforming paradox into potential. In C. M. Coonan (Ed.), CLIL e l’apprendimento delle lingue. Les fide del nuovo ambiente di apprendimento (pp. 239–250). Venezia: Libreria Editrice Cafoscarina.Google Scholar
Coyle, D., Hood, Ph. & Marsh, D. (2010). Content and Language Integrated Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, C. (2008). Outcomes and processes in Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL): current research from Europe. In W. Delanoy & V. Lauren (Eds.), Future Perspectives for English Language Teaching (pp. 139–157). Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar
(2011). Content-and-language integrated learning: From practice to principles?. Annual Review of applied linguistics, 311, 182–204. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Angelis, G., Jessner, U., & Kresic, M. (Eds.). (2017). Crosslinguistic Influence and Crosslinguistic Interaction in Multilingual Language Learning (Reprint edition). London: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar
De Clerck, B. & Colleman, T. (2013). From noun to intensifier: massa and massa’s in Flemmisch varieties of Dutch. Language Sciences, 361, 147–160. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deshors, S. C. (2016). Inside phrasal verb constructions: A co-varying collexeme analysis of verb-particle combinations in EFL and their semantic associations. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research, 2(1), 1–30. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diessel, H. (2016). Frequency and lexical specificity in grammar. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Doetjes, J. (1997). Quantifiers and selection (HIL Dissertations 32). The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.Google Scholar
Doetjes, J. & Rooryk, J. (2003). Generalizing over quantitative and qualitative constructions. In M. Coene, & Y. D’hulst (Eds.), From NP to DP, the Syntax and Semantics of Noun Phrases 11 (pp. 277–296). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C. & Sagarra, N. (2011). Learned attention in adult language acquisition. Studies in Second language Acquisition, 33(4), 589–624. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C. & Wulff, S. (2008). Usage-based approaches to second language acquisition. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), (2nd Edition). Theories in Second Language Acquisition: An Introduction (pp. 75–93). New York & London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Forlot, G. & Beaucamp, J. (2008). Heurs et malheurs de la proximité linguistique dans l’enseignement de l’anglais au primaire, Ela. Études de linguistique appliquée, 1 (149), 77–92. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gass, S. M. (1970). Language transfer and universal grammatical relations. Language Learning, 29(2), 327–344. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geerts, G., Haeseryn, W., de Rooij, J., & van den Toorn, M. C. (1984). Algemene Nederlandse Spraakkunst. Leuven: Wolters.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (2006). Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Grandi, N. (2017). Chapter 3. Intensification processes in Italian. In M. Napoli & M. Ravetto (Eds.), Exploring Intensification. Synchronic, diachronic and crosslinguistic perspectives (pp. 55–77). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Granger, S. (1998). Prefabricated Patterns in Advanced EFL Writing: Collocations and Lexical Phrases. In A. Cowie (Ed.), Phraseology: theory, analysis and applications (pp. 145–160). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Gries, S. & Stefanowitsch, A. (2004). Co-varying Collexemes in the Into-causatives. In M. Achard & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Language, Culture and Mind (pp. 225–236). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Gyselinck, E. & Colleman, T. (2016). Je dood vervelen of je te pletter amuseren? Het intensiverende gebruik van de pseudoreflexieve resultatiefconstructie in hedendaags Belgisch en Nederlands Nederlands. Handelingen: Koninglijke zuid-nederlandse maatschappij voor taal- en letterkunde en geschiedenis, 691, 103–136.Google Scholar
Hendrikx, I., Van Goethem, K., Meunier, F., & Hiligsmann, Ph. (2017). Language-specific tendencies towards morphological or syntactic constructions: A corpus study on adjective intensification in L1 Dutch, L1 French and L2 Dutch. Nederlandse Taalkunde, 31, 389–420. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Herbst, Th. (2016). Foreign language learning is construction learning – what Else? Moving towards Pedagogical Construction Grammar. In S. De Knop & G. Gilquin (Eds.), Applied Construction Grammar (pp. 21–52). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hiligsmann, Ph., Van Mensel, L., Galand, B., Mettewie, L., Meunier, F., Szmalec, A., Van Goethem, K., Bulon, A., De Smet, A., Hendrikx, I. & Simonis, M. (2017). Assessing Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) in French-speaking Belgium Linguistic, cognitive and educational perspectives. Les Cahiers de Recherche du Girsef, 17(109). 1–25. [URL]
Hoeksema, J. (2012). Elative compounds in Dutch: Properties and developments. In G. Oebel (Ed.), Intensivierungskonzepte bei Adjektiven und Adverben im Sprachenvergleich / Crosslinguistic comparison of intensified adjectives and adverbs (pp. 97–142). Hamburg: Kovač Verlag.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, T. & Trousdale, G. (2013). The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hüning, M., Vogl, U., Van der Wouden, T. & Verhagen, A. (2006). Nederlands tussen Duits en Engels. Handelingen van de workshop aan de Freie Universität Berlin. Leiden: Stichting Neerlandistiek Leiden.Google Scholar
Jach, D. (2017). A Usage-Based Approach to Preposition Placement in English as a Second Language: Preposition Placement in L2 English. Language Learning, 68(1), 271–304. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jarvis, S. & Pavlenko, A. (2008). Crosslinguistic influence in language and cognition. New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jexenflicker, S. & Dalton-Puffer, C. (2010). The CLIL differential: Comparing the writing of CLIL and non-CLIL students in higher colleges of technology. In C. Dalton-Puffer, T. Nikula, & U. Smit (Eds.), Language use and language learning in CLIL classrooms (pp. 169–190). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jing-Schmidt, Z. (2007). Negativity bias in language: A cognitive-affective model of emotive intensifiers. Cognitive Linguistics, 18(3), 417–443. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Joosten, F. (2003). Collectiva en Aggregaatsnamen in het Nederlands: Begripsbepaling en Typologie. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Leuven, Leuven.Google Scholar
Josse, A. (2015). Vergelijkend onderzoek naar het gebruik van positiewerkwoorden door immersie- en niet- immersieleerlingen (Unpublished Master thesis). Université catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve.Google Scholar
Lamiroy, B. (2011). Degrés de grammaticalisation à travers les langues de même famille. Mémoires de la Société de linguistique de Paris. Nouvelle Série, 191, 167–192.Google Scholar
Liebrecht, C. (2015). Intens krachtig: stilistische intensiveerders in evaluatieve teksten. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Radboud Universiteit, Nijmegen.Google Scholar
Liebrecht, C., Lettica, H. & van Mulken, M. (2013). Waarom het glas toch echt half leeg is. Onderzoek naar de kracht van positieve en negatieve evaluaties. In: R. Boogaart & H. Jansen (Eds.), Studies in Taalbeheersing 41 (pp. 269–278). Assen: Van Gorcum.Google Scholar
Lo, Y.-Y. & Murphy, V. A. (2010). Vocabulary knowledge and growth in immersion and regular language-learning programmes in Hong Kong. Language and Education, 241, 215–238. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lorenz, G. R. (1999). Adjective intensification. Learners versus native speakers: A corpus study of argumentative writing. Rodopi BV: Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Meunier, F. (2012). Formulaic Language and Language Teaching. In: Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32(1). 111–129. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Norde, M. & Van Goethem, K. (2014). Bleaching, productivity and debonding of prefixoids: A corpus-based analysis of “giant” in German and Swedish. Lingvisticae Investigationes, 37(2), 256–274. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015). Emancipatie van affixen en affixoïden: degrammaticalisatie of lexicalisatie? Nederlandse Taalkunde, 20(1), 109–148. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Odlin, T. (1989). Language Transfer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Odlin, T. & Yu, L. (2016). Introduction. In L. Yu & T. Odlin (Eds.), New Perspectives on Transfer in Second Language Learning (pp. 1–16). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Paradis, C. (1997). Degree modifiers of adjectives in spoken British English. Lund: Lund University Press.Google Scholar
Pérez-Paredes, P. & Díez-Bedmar, M. B. (2012). Intensifying adverbs in learner writing. In Y. Tono, Y. Kawaguchi & M. Minegishi (Eds.), Developmental and Crossslinguistic Perspectives in Learner Corpus Research (pp. 105–123). Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quirk, R., S. Greenbaum, G. Leech & Svartvik, J. (1997). A comprehensive grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Rainer, F. (2015). 77. Intensification. In P. O. Müller (Ed.), Word-Formation: An International Handbook of the Languages of Europe (pp. 1340–1351). Berlin/ Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Rankin, T. (2017). The distribution of reflexive intensifiers in learner English. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research, 3(1), 36–60. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rey, A., Duval, F. & Siouffi, G. (2007). Mille ans de langue française, histoire d’une passion. Paris: Perrin.Google Scholar
Rey-Debove, J. & Robert, P. (2014). Le Petit Robert : dictionnaire alphabétique et analogique de la langue française. Paris: Le Robert.Google Scholar
Riegel, M., Pellat, J.-C. & Rioul, R. (1994). Grammaire méthodique du français. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Ringbom, H. (2016). Comprehension, learning and production of foreign languages: the role of transfer. In R. Alonso Alonso (Ed.), Crosslinguistic Influence in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 38–52). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Zarobe, Y. C. M. L. (2010). First language and age in CLIL and non-CLIL contexts. International CLIL Research Journal, 1(3), 60–66.Google Scholar
(2011). Which language competencies benefit from CLIL? An insight into applied linguistics research. In Y. Ruiz de Zarobe, J. M. Sierra & F. G. del Puerto (Eds.), Content and Foreign Language Integrated Learning. Contributions to Multilingualism in European Contexts (pp. 129–153). Bern: Peter Lang. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rumlich, D. (2016). Evaluating bilingual education in Germany: CLIL students’ general English proficiency, EFL self-concept and interest. Frankfurt am Main: Lang. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seikkula-Leino, J. (2007). CLIL learning: achievement levels and affective factors. Language and Education, 21(4), 328–341. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A. (2013). Collostructional Analysis. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 215–229). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A. & Gries, S. T. (2005). Covarying collexemes. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 1(1), 1–43. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Štekauer, P., Valera, S. & Kőrtvélyessy, L. (2012). Word-Formation in the World’s Languages: A Typological Survey. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language. Boston: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Van der Wouden, T. & Foolen, A. (2017). A most serious and extraordinary problem. Intensification of adjectives in Dutch, German, and English. Leuvense Bijdragen, 1011, 82–100.Google Scholar
Van Haeringen, C. B. (1956). Nederlands tussen Duits en Engels. The Hague: Servire.Google Scholar
Van Mensel, L., Bulon, A., Hendrikx, I., Meunier, F. & Van Goethem, K. ( in preparation ). Effects of input on L2 writing skills in English and Dutch CLIL and non-CLIL learners in French-speaking Belgium.
Verhagen, A. (2005). Constructiegrammatica en “usage based” taalkunde. Nederlandse Taalkunde, 10(3/4), 197–221.Google Scholar
Verspoor, M., de Bot, K. & Xu, X. (2015). The effects of English bilingual education in the Netherlands. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 31, 4–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vooys, C. G. N. de. (1947). Nederlandse Spraakkunst. Revised 7th edition. Groningen: J.B. Wolters.Google Scholar
Vos, R. (1999). A Grammar of Partitative Constructiuons (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Tilburg University, Tilburg.Google Scholar
Wagner, S. (2017). Totally new and pretty awesome: Amplifier-adjective bigrams in GloWbE. Lingua 2001, 63–83. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wode, H. (1994). Bilinguale Unterrichtserprobung in Schleswig-Holstein. Band II Analytische Auswertungen. Kiel: L&F Verlag.Google Scholar
Zydatiß, W. (2007). Deutsch-Englische Züge in Berlin (DEZIBEL). Eine Evaluation des bilingualen Sachfachunterrichts in Gymnasien: Kontext, Kompetenzen, Konsequenzen. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Corpora, software and other tools
Corpus Hedendaags Nederlands (CHN): The corpus is a combination of the 5, 27 and 38 Million Words Corpora and the PAROLE Corpus, supplemented with newspaper texts from NRC and De Standaard (until 2013). Available online at [URL]
Davies, M. (2008). The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA): 560 million words, 1990-present. Available online at [URL]
Dürlich, L. & François, T. (2018). EFLLex: A Graded Lexical Resource for Learners of English as a Foreign Language In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2018). Miyazaki, Japan, 7–12 May. EFLLex available at [URL]. All recources available at CERFLex [URL]
Gries, S. Th. (2007). Coll.analysis 3.2a. A program for R for Windows 2.x.Google Scholar
Leipzig Corpora Collection (2002). English corpus based on a mixture of sources (like news material, Web text, etc.) from 2002. Leipzig Corpora Collection. Dataset. Retrieved from [URL]
(2012). French corpus based on a mixture of sources (like news material, Web text, etc.) from 2012. Leipzig Corpora Collection. Dataset. Retrieved from [URL]
(2012). Dutch corpus based on a mixture of sources (like news material, Web text, etc.) from 2012. Leipzig Corpora Collection. Dataset. Retrieved from [URL]
Qualtrics. [Computer software]. Provo, UT, USA: Qualtrics. Retrieved from [URL]
Schmid, H. (1994). Probabilistic Part-of-Speech Tagging Using Decision Trees. Proceedings of International Conference on New Methods in Language Processing, Manchester, UK.Google Scholar
Schmitz, C., Gac, L., Härstedt, O., Flür, M., Kondziella, S., Chirițoiu D. Lime Survey 200. [Computer software]. Retrieved March 15, 2018, from [URL]
Websites
Broekhuis, H. Introduction. Taalportaal. Retrieved March 15, 2018, from [URL]
Coppen, P. A., Haeseryn, W., & de Vriend, F. Website Algemene Nederlandse Spraakkunst (E-ANS). Retrieved March 15, 2018, from [URL]
Larousse.fr : encyclopédie et dictionnaires gratuits en ligne. Retrieved June 12, 2018, from [URL]
Oxford Learner Dictionary. Retrieved June 12, 2018, from [URL]
Van Dale. Retrieved June 12, 2018, from [URL]
Van der Wouden, T. (2017, October 12). aller-. Taalportaal. Retrieved October 26, 2017, from [URL]
Cited by (7)

Cited by seven other publications

Feleke, Tekabe Legesse
2024. Dialect separation and cross-dialectal influence: a study on the grammatical gender of Oromo. Linguistics 62:6 ► pp. 1543 ff. DOI logo
Bulon, Amélie & Fanny Meunier
2023. Comparing CLIL and non-CLIL learners’ phrasicon in L2 Dutch: the (expected) winner does not take it all. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 26:5 ► pp. 590 ff. DOI logo
Meunier, Fanny, Isa Hendrikx, Amélie Bulon, Kristel Van Goethem & Hubert Naets
2023. MulTINCo: multilingual traditional immersion and native corpus. Better-documented multiliteracy practices for more refined SLA studies. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 26:5 ► pp. 572 ff. DOI logo
Van Goethem, Kristel & Isa Hendrikx
2021. Intensifying constructions in second language acquisition. In Constructions in Contact 2 [Constructional Approaches to Language, 30], ► pp. 376 ff. DOI logo
Schweinberger, Martin
2020. How Learner Corpus Research can inform language learning and teaching. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics 43:2 ► pp. 196 ff. DOI logo
Schweinberger, Martin
2020. A corpus-based analysis of differences in the use ofveryfor adjective amplification among native speakers and learners of English. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research 6:2 ► pp. 163 ff. DOI logo
Van Mensel, Luk, Amélie Bulon, Isa Hendrikx, Fanny Meunier & Kristel Van Goethem
2020. Effects of input on L2 writing in English and Dutch. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education 8:2 ► pp. 173 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 november 2024. 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.