Cover not available
Article published In:
Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism
Vol. 4:4 (2014) ► pp.405–431

Second language verb-argument constructions are sensitive to form, function, frequency, contingency, and prototypicality

 | University of Michigan
 | University of Pennsylvania
 | Georgia State University
We used free association tasks to investigate second language (L2) verb-argument constructions (VACs) and the ways in which their access is sensitive to statistical patterns of usage (verb type-token frequency distribution, VAC-verb contingency, verb-VAC semantic prototypicality). 131 German, 131 Spanish, and 131 Czech advanced L2 learners of English generated the first word that came to mind to fill the V slot in 40 sparse VAC frames such as ‘he __ across the …’, ‘it __ of the …’, etc. For each VAC, we compared these results with corpus analyses of verb selection preferences in 100 million words of usage and with the semantic network structure of the verbs in these VACs. For all language groups, multiple regression analyses predicting the frequencies of verb types generated for each VAC show independent contributions of (i) verb frequency in the VAC, (ii) VAC-verb contingency, and (iii) verb prototypicality in terms of centrality within the VAC semantic network. L2 VAC processing involves rich associations, tuned by verb type and token frequencies and their contingencies of usage, which interface syntax, lexis, and semantics.
Keywords: construction grammar, usage-based acquisition and processing, free association task, semantic networks, contingency, processing, transfer
Article outline
  • 1.Constructing a second language
  • 2.Experiments: L2 sensitivity to VAC usage
    • 2.1Participants
    • 2.2Method
    • 2.3Analyzing effects of Frequency
    • 2.4Analyzing effects of Contingency
    • 2.5Assessing the effects of Semantic Prototypicality
    • 2.6Results
      • 2.6.1Analysis 1
      • 2.6.2Analysis 2
      • 2.6.3Analysis 3
      • 2.6.4Combined analyses
  • 3.Discussion
  • References
Published online: 8 December 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.4.4.01ell
References (80)
References
Allan, L. G. (1980). A note on measurement of contingency between two binary variables in judgment tasks. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 15(3), 147–149. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anderson, J. R. (1983). A spreading activation theory of memory. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 22(3), 261–295. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2000). Cognitive psychology and its implications (5th ed.). New York: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
Battig, 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 Monograph, 80(3), 1–46. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bird, S., Loper, E., & Klein, E. (2009). Natural language processing with Python. Cambridge, MA: O’Reilly Media Inc.Google Scholar
BNC. (2007). BNC XML Edition. [URL] Google Scholar
Boyd, J. K., & Goldberg, A. E. (2009). Input effects within a constructionist framework. The Modern Language Journal, 93(2), 418–429. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, A., & Gullberg, M. (2008). Bidirectional crosslinguistic influence in L1-L2 encoding of manner in speech and gesture. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30(2), 225–251. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2010). Changes in encoding of path of motion after acquisition of a second language. Cognitive Linguistics, 21(2), 263–286. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. (2008). Usage-based grammar and second language acquisition. In P. Robinson & N. C. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition (pp. 216–236). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
. (2010). Language, usage, and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J., & Hopper, P. (Eds.). (2001). Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cadierno, 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. 239–274). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Christiansen, M. H., & Chater, N. (Eds.). (2001). Connectionist psycholinguistics. Westport, CO: Ablex.Google Scholar
Collins, L., & Ellis, N. C. (2009). Input and second language construction learning: frequency, form, and function. The Modern Language Journal, 93(2), Whole issue . DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dąbrowska, E. (2009). Words as constructions. In V. Evans & S. Pourcel (Eds.), New Directions in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 201–223). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Nooy, W., Mrvar, A., & Batagelj, V. (2010). Exploratory social network analysis with Pajek. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (1998). Emergentism, connectionism and language learning. Language Learning, 48(4), 631–664. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2002). Frequency effects in language processing: A review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(2), 143–188. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (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: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2006a). Language acquisition as rational contingency learning. Applied Linguistics, 27(1), 1–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2006b). Selective attention and transfer phenomena in SLA: Contingency, cue competition, salience, interference, overshadowing, blocking, and perceptual learning. Applied Linguistics, 27(2), 1–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2008a). Optimizing the input: Frequency and sampling in Usage-based and Form-focussed Learning. In M. H. Long & C. Doughty (Eds.), Handbook of second and foreign language teaching. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
. (2008b). Usage-based and form-focused language acquisition: The associative learning of constructions, learned-attention, and the limited L2 endstate. In P. Robinson & N. C. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition (pp. 372–405). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C., & Cadierno, T. (2009). Constructing a second language. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 71(Special section) , 111–290. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C., & Ferreira-Junior, F. (2009a). Construction Learning as a function of Frequency, Frequency Distribution, and Function. The Modern Language Journal, 93(3), 370–386. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2009b). Constructions and their acquisition: Islands and the distinctiveness of their occupancy. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 71, 111–139. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (2009). Constructing a second language: Analyses and computational simulations of the emergence of linguistic constructions from usage. Language Learning, 591(Supplement 1) , 93–128. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C., & O’Donnell, M. B. (2011). Robust language acquisition – an emergent consequence of language as a complex adaptive system. In L. Carlson, C. Hölscher & T. Shipley (Eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 3512–3517). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
. (2012). Statistical construction learning: Does a Zipfian problem space ensure robust language learning? In J. Rebuschat & J. Williams (Eds.), Statistical Learning and Language Acquisition. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C., O’Donnell, M. B., & Römer, U. (2014). The processing of verb-argument constructions is sensitive to form, function, frequency, contingency, and prototypicality. Cognitive Linguistics 25(1), 55–98. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C., & Schmidt, R. (1998). Rules or associations in the acquisition of morphology? The frequency by regularity interaction in human and PDP learning of morphosyntax. Language & Cognitive Processes, 13(2&3), 307–336. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evert, S. (2005). The statistics of word cooccurrences: Word pairs and collocations. Stuttgart: University of Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Fox, J. (2002). Robust regression. Appendix to an R And S-Plus Companion To Applied Regression. [URL] Google Scholar
. (2003). Effect displays in R for generalised linear models. Journal of Statistical Software, 8(15), 1–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Francis, G., Hunston, S., & Manning, E. (Eds.). (1996). Grammar Patterns 1: Verbs. The COBUILD Series. London: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
Gass, S., & Selinker, L. (Eds.). (1983). Language transfer in language learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
. (2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E., Casenhiser, D. M., & Sethuraman, N. (2004). Learning argument structure generalizations. Cognitive Linguistics, 15(3), 289–316. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. T. (2007). Coll.analysis 3.2. A program for R for Windows 2.x.Google Scholar
. (2013). 50-something years of work on collocations. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 18(1), 137–165. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. T., & Stefanowitsch, A. (2004). Extending collostructional analysis: a corpus-based perspective on ‘alternations’. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 9(1), 97–129. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. T., & Wulff, S. (2005). Do foreign language learners also have constructions? Evidence from priming, sorting, and corpora. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 3(1), 182–200. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2009). Psycholinguistic and corpus linguistic evidence for L2 constructions. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 71, 164–187. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grömping, U. (2006). Relative Importance for Linear Regression in R: The Package relaimpo. Journal of Statistical Software, 171, 1–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harnad, S. (Ed.). (1987). Categorical perception: The groundwork of cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
James, C. (1980). Contrastive analysis. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Lado, R. (1957). Linguistics across cultures: Applied linguistics for language teachers. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
. (1964). Language teaching: A scientific approach. New York: McGraw-Hill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lieven, E., & Tomasello, M. (2008). Children’s first language acquisition from a usage-based perspective. In P. Robinson & N. C. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition (pp. 168–196). New York and London: Routledge.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (1987). The competition model. In B. MacWhinney (Ed.), Mechanisms of language acquisition (pp. 249–308). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2001). Emergentist approaches to language. In J. Bybee, & P. Hopper (Eds.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure (pp. 449–470). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
MacWhinney, B., Bates, E., & Kliegl, R. (1984). Cue validity and sentence interpretation in English, German, and Italian. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 23(2), 127–150. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Malvern, D., Richards, B. J., Chipere, N., & Duran, P. (2004). Lexical diversity and language development: Quantification and assessment. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McDonough, K., & De Vleeschauwer, J. (2012). Prompt type frequency, auditory pattern discrimination, and EFL learners’ production of wh-questions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34(3), 355–377. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miller, G. A. (2009). WordNet - About us. Retrieved on March 1 2010, from Princeton University [URL] Google Scholar
Newell, A. (1990). Unified theories of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ninio, A. (1999). Pathbreaking verbs in syntactic development and the question of prototypical transitivity. Journal of Child Language, 26(3), 619–653. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Odlin, T. (1989). Language transfer. New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2008). Conceptual transfer and meaning extensions. In P. Robinson & N. C. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition (pp. 306–340). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
R Development Core Team. (2012). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Retrieved from [URL] Google Scholar
Rebuschat, P., & Williams, J. N. (Eds.). (2012). Statistical learning and language acquisition. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Rescorla, R. A., & Wagner, A. R. (1972). A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: Variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and nonreinforcement. In A. H. Black & W. F. Prokasy (Eds.), Classical conditioning II: Current theory and research (pp. 64–99). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
Robinson, P., & Ellis, N. C. (2008a). Conclusion: cognitive linguistics, second language acquisition and L2 instruction—issues for research. In P. Robinson & N. C. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition (pp. 489–545). London: Routledge.. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (Eds.). (2008b). A handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Römer, U., O’Donnell, M. B., & Ellis, N. C. (2014). Second language learner knowledge of verb-argument constructions: Effects of language transfer and typology. The Modern Language Journal, 981 (4) , 952–975. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Römer, U., O’Donnell, M., & Ellis, N. C. (in press). Using COBUILD grammar patterns for a large-scale analysis of verb-argument constructions: Exploring corpus data and speaker knowledge. In M. Charles, N. Groom & S. John (Eds.), Corpora, Grammar, Text and Discourse: In Honour of Susan Hunston. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logo
Rosch, E., & Mervis, C. B. (1975). Cognitive representations of semantic categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 1041, 192–233. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rosch, E., Mervis, C. B., Gray, W. D., Johnson, D. M., & Boyes-Braem, P. (1976). Basic objects in natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 8(3), 382–439. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shanks, D. R. (1995). The psychology of associative learning. New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Slobin, D. I. (1996). From “thought and language” to “thinking for speaking.” In J. J. Gumperz & S. C. Levinson (Eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity (pp. 70–96). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A., & Gries, S. T. (2003). Collostructions: Investigating the interaction between words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 8(2), 209–243. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a Cognitive Semantics: Typology and process in concept structuring. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, J. R. (1998). Syntactic constructions as prototype categories. In M. Tomasello (Ed.), The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure (pp. 177–202). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Trousdale, G., & Hoffmann, T. (Eds.). (2013). Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tweedie, F. J., & Baayen, R. H. (1998). How variable may a constant be? measures of lexical richness in perspective. Computers and the Humanities, 321, 323–352. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zipf, G. K. (1935). The psycho-biology of language: An introduction to dynamic philology. Cambridge, MA: The M. I. T. Press.Google Scholar
Cited by (34)

Cited by 34 other publications

Gedik, Tan Arda
2024. Collostructional transfer effects in Turkish learners of English. Pedagogical Linguistics 5:2 ► pp. 103 ff. DOI logo
Lestari, Febriana
2024. Analysis of verb argument constructions (VACs) in L2 learners across proficiency levels: A corpus-based study in L1 Indonesian. Applied Corpus Linguistics 4:3 ► pp. 100097 ff. DOI logo
Wang, Gui, Hui Wang & Li Wang
2024. Exploring the Development of Progressive Construction in Chinese and Japanese EFL Writing: A Usage‐Based Approach. TESOL Quarterly DOI logo
Chauhan, Anubhuti & Ayat Hosseini
2023. The Role of Prototypical Transitivity in the Selection of Accusative Case Particle wo by Persian Learners of L2 Japanese. Acta Linguistica Asiatica 13:1 ► pp. 9 ff. DOI logo
Zhao, Qiuying
2023. Book review. Journal of Pragmatics 212 ► pp. 3 ff. DOI logo
PEKAREK DOEHLER, SIMONA & SØREN W. ESKILDSEN
2022. Emergent L2 Grammars in and for Social Interaction: Introduction to the Special Issue. The Modern Language Journal 106:S1 ► pp. 3 ff. DOI logo
Rastelli, Stefano
2022. Intra-language: the study of L2 morpheme productivity as within-item variance. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 60:4 ► pp. 1143 ff. DOI logo
Rastelli, Stefano
2022. Intra-language: the study of L2 morpheme productivity as within-item variance. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 60:4 ► pp. 1143 ff. DOI logo
Rastelli, Stefano & Akira Murakami
2022. Apparently identical verbs can be represented differently: comparing L1–L2 inflection with contingency-based measure ΔP. Corpora 17:1 ► pp. 97 ff. DOI logo
Wu, Tianqi & Min Wang
2022. Development of the progressive construction in Chinese EFL learners’ written production: From prototypes to marginal members. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 18:2 ► pp. 307 ff. DOI logo
Lewandowski, Wojciech & Şeyda Özçalışkan
2021. THE SPECIFICITY OF EVENT EXPRESSION IN FIRST LANGUAGE INFLUENCES EXPRESSION OF OBJECT PLACEMENT EVENTS IN SECOND LANGUAGE. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 43:4 ► pp. 838 ff. DOI logo
Lu, Yuan
2021. L2 competence in Chinese correlative connectives: A case of discontinuous discursive formulaic sequences. Language Teaching Research DOI logo
Smith, Sara A.
2021. Exploring knowledge of transparent and non-transparent multi-word phrases among L2 English learners living in an Anglophone setting. System 101 ► pp. 102590 ff. DOI logo
Azazil, Lina
2020. Frequency effects in the L2 acquisition of the catenative verb construction – evidence from experimental and corpus data . Cognitive Linguistics 31:3 ► pp. 417 ff. DOI logo
Monteiro, Kátia R, Crossley, Scott A & Kyle, Kristopher
2020. In Search of New Benchmarks: Using L2 Lexical Frequency and Contextual Diversity Indices to Assess Second Language Writing. Applied Linguistics 41:2 ► pp. 280 ff. DOI logo
Trahey, Martha & Nina Spada
2020. Focusing on Language and Content with Adolescent English Language Learners in the Mainstream Classroom. The Canadian Modern Language Review 76:3 ► pp. 218 ff. DOI logo
Crossley, Scott A., Stephen Skalicky, Kristopher Kyle & Katia Monteiro
2019. ABSOLUTE FREQUENCY EFFECTS IN SECOND LANGUAGE LEXICAL ACQUISITION. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 41:04 ► pp. 721 ff. DOI logo
Römer, Ute & Jamie Garner
2019. The development of verb constructions in spoken learner English. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research 5:2 ► pp. 207 ff. DOI logo
Gardner, Sheena
2018. Teaching Grammar: Form–Meaning Mapping. In The TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching, ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Römer, Ute, Stephen C. Skalicky & Nick C. Ellis
2018. Verb-argument constructions in advanced L2 English learner production: Insights from corpora and verbal fluency tasks. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 0:0 DOI logo
Torres-Martínez, Sergio
2018. Exploring attachment patterns between multi-word verbs and argument structure constructions. Lingua 209 ► pp. 21 ff. DOI logo
Yi, Wei
2018. STATISTICAL SENSITIVITY, COGNITIVE APTITUDES, AND PROCESSING OF COLLOCATIONS. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 40:4 ► pp. 831 ff. DOI logo
Zeldes, Amir
2018. Chapter 11. Compounds and productivity in advanced L2 German writing. In Usage-inspired L2 Instruction [Language Learning & Language Teaching, 49], ► pp. 237 ff. DOI logo
ZHANG, XIAOPENG & CHUNPING MAI
2018. Effects of entrenchment and preemption in second language learners’ acceptance of English denominal verbs. Applied Psycholinguistics 39:2 ► pp. 413 ff. DOI logo
Hall, Christopher J., Jack Joyce & Chris Robson
2017. Investigating the lexico-grammatical resources of a non-native user of English: The case of can and could in email requests . Applied Linguistics Review 8:1 ► pp. 35 ff. DOI logo
Paquot, Magali
2017. L1 frequency in foreign language acquisition: Recurrent word combinations in French and Spanish EFL learner writing. Second Language Research 33:1 ► pp. 13 ff. DOI logo
Paquot, Magali
2018. Corpus Research Methods for Language Teaching and Learning. In The Palgrave Handbook of Applied Linguistics Research Methodology, ► pp. 359 ff. DOI logo
Matusevych, Yevgen, Afra Alishahi & Ad Backus
2016. Modelling verb selection within argument structure constructions. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 31:10 ► pp. 1215 ff. DOI logo
MATUSEVYCH, YEVGEN, AFRA ALISHAHI & AD BACKUS
2017. The impact of first and second language exposure on learning second language constructions. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 20:1 ► pp. 128 ff. DOI logo
Römer, Ute
2016. Teaming up and mixing methods: collaborative and cross-disciplinary work in corpus research on phraseology. Corpora 11:1 ► pp. 113 ff. DOI logo
Römer, Ute
2022. Applied corpus linguistics for language acquisition, pedagogy, and beyond. Language Teaching 55:2 ► pp. 233 ff. DOI logo
Ellis, Nick C., Matthew Brook O'Donnell & Ute Römer
2015. Usage‐Based Language Learning. In The Handbook of Language Emergence, ► pp. 163 ff. DOI logo
Siyanova-Chanturia, Anna
2015. Collocation in beginner learner writing: A longitudinal study. System 53 ► pp. 148 ff. DOI logo
Römer, Ute, Matthew Brook O'Donnell & Nick C. Ellis
2014. Second Language Learner Knowledge of Verb–Argument Constructions: Effects of Language Transfer and Typology. The Modern Language Journal 98:4 ► pp. 952 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 21 october 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.