Cover not available
Article published In:
Pragmatics & Cognition
Vol. 24:2 (2017) ► pp.212–262

From conceptualization to constructions in Finnish as an L2

A case study

| University of Jyväskylä | University of Groningen
| University of Jyväskylä
| University of Groningen
| University of Groningen | University of Pannonia
This study traces the individual learning trajectories of an adult beginner L2 Finnish learner in expressing the extralinguistic concept of evaluation from a dynamic usage-based perspective. Our results provide support for the view of learner language as a dynamic system in which patterns wax and wane and in which a change in one component has the potential to affect the whole system. In the early stages of learning there was a strong preference to use lexical verbs first, and then adjectives. The study also shows that variability plays a role. Finally, the study confirms that the learning of L2 constructions is in some cases item based. However, another highly frequent and superficially similar verbal construction in our data did not develop from a fixed formula. The role of instruction and the learner’s explicit knowledge as well as possibly input frequencies may have played a role in the different developmental trajectories.
Keywords: second language development, usage-based approach, conceptualizations, dynamic systems, constructions
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The language of evaluation in Finnish
  • 3.L2 development from a usage-based perspective
  • 4.L2 development from a dynamic usage-based perspective
  • 5.The study
  • 6.Method
    • 6.1Participant
    • 6.2Data collection
    • 6.3Data selection
    • 6.4Normalizing
    • 6.5Analysis
  • 7.Results
    • 7.1The dynamics of evaluation constructions over time
    • 7.2Diversification
    • 7.3Development of the haluta and tykätä constructions: Item-based construction growth
      • 7.3.1The haluta construction
      • 7.3.2The tykätä construction
  • 8.Discussion
  • 9.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 19 October 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.17016.les
References (60)
References
Abbot-Smith, Kirsten & Heike Behrens. 2006. How known constructions influence the acquisition of other constructions: The German passive and future constructions. Cognitive Science 30(6). 995–1026. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bot, Kees de, Wander Lowie & Marjolijn Verspoor. 2007. A dynamic systems theory approach to second language acquisition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 10(1). 7–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cadierno, Teresa. 2008. Learning to talk about motion in a foreign language. In Peter Robinson & Nick C. Ellis (eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition, 239–275. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Caspi, Tal. 2010. A dynamic perspective on second language development. Groningen: Doctoral dissertation.Google Scholar
Cefling – Linguistic Basis of the Common European Framework for L2 English and L2 Finnish. Research project, University of Jyväskylä, 2007–2009, [URL] (16 May 2017).
CEFR – Common European Framework for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. 2006. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dąbrowska, Ewa & Elena Lieven. 2005. Towards a lexically specific grammar of children’s question constructions. Cognitive Linguistics 16(3). 437–474. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dahl, Östen. 2008. Kuinka eksoottinen kieli suomi on? Virittäjä 4/20081. 545–595.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, Robert. 2007. The future of practice. In Robert DeKeyser (ed.), Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology, 287–304. New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dijk, Marijn van, Marjolijn Verspoor & Wander Lowie. 2011. Variability and DST. In Marjolijn Verspoor, Kees de Bot & Wander Lowie (eds.), A dynamic approach to second language development: Methods and techniques, 55–84. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, Nick C. 2002. Frequency effects in language processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 24(2). 143–188. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, Nick C. & Teresa Cadierno. 2009. Constructing a second language: Introduction to the special section. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 7(1). 111–139. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eskildsen, Søren W. 2008. Constructing another language – Usage-based linguistics in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics 30(3). 335–357. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012. L2 negation constructions at work. Language Learning 62(2). 335–372. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015. What counts as a developmental sequence? Exemplar-based L2 learning of English questions. Language Learning 65(1). 33–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eskildsen, Søren W. & Teresa Cadierno. 2007. Are recurring multi-word expressions really syntactic freezes? Second language acquisition from the perspective of usage-based linguistics. In Marja Nenonen & Sinikka Niemi (eds.), Collocations and idioms 1: Papers from the first nordic conference on syntactic freezes, 86–99. Joensuu, Finland, May 19–29 2006.Google Scholar
Geert, Paul van. 2008. The dynamic systems approach in the study of L1 and L2 acquisition: An introduction. The Modern Language Journal 92(2). 179–199. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geert, Paul van & Marijn van Dijk. 2002. Focus on variability: New tools to study intra-individual variability in developmental data. Infant Behavior and Development 25(4). 340–374. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 2006. Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Grzega, Joachim. 2012. Lexical-semantic variables. In Juan Manuel Hernández-Campoy & Juan Camilo Conde-Silvestre (eds.), The handbook of historical sociolinguistics, 271–292. Chichester: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ivaska, Ilmari. 2015. Edistyneen oppijansuomen konstruktiopiirteitä korpusvetoisesti: avainrakenneanalyysi. Turku: doctoral dissertation.Google Scholar
Kajander, Mikko. 2013. Suomen eksistentiaalilause toisen kielen oppimisen polulla. Jyväskylä: doctoral dissertation.Google Scholar
Karlsson, Fred. 2015. Finnish: An essential grammar, 3rd edn. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kielitoimiston sanakirja [The New Dictionary of Modern Finnish]. 2017. Helsinki: Kotimaisten kielten keskus. URN:NBN:fi:kotus-201433. Verkkojulkaisu HTML. This publication is updated regularly. Last update 23 Feb 2017. [Date of reference 31 May 2017].Google Scholar
Kielitoimiston ohjepankki (Guideline Database of the Finnish Language Office): Rektioita: rakastaa uuden kokeilemista vai rakastaa kokeilla uutta? Lahde (reference): [URL] [Viittauspaiva (date of reference) 31 May 2017]
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
1999. Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009. A dynamic view of usage and language acquisition. Cognitive Linguistics 20(3). 627–640. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, Diane. 2006. The emergence of complexity, fluency, and accuracy in the oral and written production of five Chinese learners of English. Applied Linguistics 27(4). 590–619. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, Diane & Lynne Cameron. 2013. Complex systems and applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lieven, Elena, Dorothé Salomo & Michael Tomasello. 2009. Two-year-old children’s production of multiword utterances: A usage-based analysis. Cognitive Linguistics 20(3). 481–507. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
MacWhinney, Brian. 2000. The CHILDES project: Tools for analyzing talk, 3rd edn.. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
. 2004. A unified model of language acquisition. In Judith F. Kroll & Annette M. B. de Groot (eds.), Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches, 49–67. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Martin, James R. & Peter P. R. R. White. 2005. The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martin, Maisa, Sanna Mustonen, Nina Reiman & Marja Seilonen. 2010. On becoming an independent user. In Inge Bartning, Maisa Martin & Ineke Vedder (eds.), Communicative proficiency and linguistic development, intersections between SLA and language testing research, 57–80. EUROSLA Monograph Series 1.Google Scholar
Mellow, J. Dean. 2006. The emergence of second language syntax: A case study of the acquisition of relative clauses. Applied Linguistics 27(4). 645–670. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mustonen, Sanna. 2015. Käytössä kehittyvä kieli. Paikat ja tilat suomi toisena kielenä -oppijoiden teksteissä. Jyväskylä: Doctoral dissertation.Google Scholar
Peltier, John. 2009. PTS LOESS Smoothing Utility [Computer Software]. Retrieved from [URL] 26 April 2018
Penris, Wouter & Marjolijn Verspoor. 2017. Academic writing development: A complex, dynamic process. In Simone Pfenniger & Judit Navracsics (eds.), Future research directions for applied linguistics, 215–242. Bristol: Multilingual Matters Ltd. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Peters, Ann M. 1983. The units of language acquisition. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Reiman, Nina. 2011a. Transitiivikonstruktio ikkunana syntaksin kehitykseen: infiniittiset rakenteet ja passiivi taidon indikaattoreina S2-oppijoiden teksteissä [The transitive construction as a window into syntax development: Infinite structures and passive as indicators of proficiency in F2 students’ texts]. In Esa Lehtinen, Sirkku Aaltonen, Merja Koskela, Elina Nevasaari & Mariann Skog-Södersved (eds.), AFinLa-E soveltavan kielitieteen tutkimuksia, 142–157.Google Scholar
. 2011b. Two faces of complexity: Structural measures and diversity of constructions. Nordand. Nordisk tidsskrift for andrespråkforskning 21. 9–33.Google Scholar
Robinson, Peter. 2005. Cognitive complexity and task sequencing: Studies in a componential framework for second language task design. IRAL – International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 43(1). 1–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roehr-Brackin, Karen. 2014. Explicit knowledge and processes from a usage-based perspective: The developmental trajectory of an instructed L2 learner. Language Learning 64(4). 771–808. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Saukkonen, Pauli, Marjatta Haipus, Antero Niemikorpi & Helena Sulkala. 1979. Suomen kielen taajuussanasto. [A Frequency Dictionary of Finnish]. Helsinki: WSOY.Google Scholar
Seilonen, Marja. 2013. Epäsuora henkilöön viittaaminen oppijansuomessa. Jyväskylä: Doctoral dissertation.Google Scholar
Siiroinen, Mari. 2001. Kuka pelkää, ketä pelottaa: Nykysuomen tunneverbien kielioppia ja semantiikkaa. Helsinki: Doctoral dissertation.Google Scholar
Skehan, Peter. 2003. Task-based instruction. Language Teaching 36(1). 1–14. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smiskova-Gustafsson, Hana. 2013. Chunks in L2 development: A usage-based perspective. Groningen: Doctoral dissertation.Google Scholar
Spoelman, Marianne & Marjolijn Verspoor. 2010. Dynamic patterns in development of accuracy and complexity: A longitudinal case study in the acquisition of Finnish. Applied Linguistics 31(4). 532–553. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Steinkrauss, Rasmus. 2017. L1 acquisition beyond input frequency. In Jacqueline Evers-Vermeul & Elena Tribushinina (eds.), Usage-based approaches to language acquisition and language teaching, 117–142. Boston/Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tilma, Corinne. 2014. The dynamics of foreign versus second language development in Finnish writing. Jyväskylä: Doctoral dissertation.Google Scholar
Tomasello, Michael. 2003. Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Topling – Paths in Second Language Acquisition. Research Project, University of Jyväskylä, 2007–2009. [URL] (16.5.2017).
Verspoor, Marjolijn & Heike Behrens. 2011. Dynamic systems theory and a usage-based approach to second language development. In Marjolijn Verspoor, Kees de Bot & Wander Lowie (eds.), A dynamic approach to second language development: Methods and techniques, 25–38. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verspoor, Marjolijn & Marijn van Dijk. 2011. Visualizing interactions between variables. In Marjolijn Verspoor, Kees de Bot & Wander Lowie (eds.), A dynamic approach to second language development: Methods and techniques, 85–98. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verspoor, Marjolijn & Kim Sauter. 2000. English sentence analysis: An introductory course. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verspoor, Marjolijn, Monika S. Schmid & Xiaoyan Xu. 2012. A dynamic usage based perspective on L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 21(3). 239–263. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
VISK = Hakulinen, Auli, Maria Vilkuna, Riitta Korhonen, Vesa Koivisto, Tarja Riitta Heinonen & Irja Alho. 2004. Iso suomen kielioppi. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura. Electronic Database [29 Dec. 2017]. Retrieved from: [URL]. URN:978-952-5446-35-7
Wray, Alison. 2007. ‘Needs only’ analysis in linguistic ontogeny and phylogeny. In Caroline Lyon, Chrystopher L. Nehaniv & Angelo Cangelosi (eds.), Emergence of communication and language, 53–70. London: Springer London. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (8)

Cited by eight other publications

van Dijk, Marijn, Wander Lowie, Nienke Smit, Marjolijn Verspoor & Paul van Geert
2024. Complex dynamic systems theory as a foundation for process-oriented research on second language development. Second Language Research 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
THEODÓRSDÓTTIR, GUÐRÚN & SØREN W. ESKILDSEN
2022. Accumulating Semiotic Resources for Social Actions: A Case Study of L2 Icelandic in the Wild. The Modern Language Journal 106:S1 ► pp. 46 ff. DOI logo
Eskildsen, S. W.
2021. Embodiment, Semantics and Social Action: The Case of Object-Transfer in L2 Classroom Interaction. Frontiers in Communication 6 DOI logo
HORBOWICZ, PAULINA & MARTE NORDANGER
2021. Epistemic constructions in L2 Norwegian: a usage-based longitudinal study of formulaic and productive patterns. Language and Cognition 13:3 ► pp. 438 ff. DOI logo
LESONEN, SIRKKU, RASMUS STEINKRAUSS, MINNA SUNI & MARJOLIJN VERSPOOR
2020. Lexically specific vs. productive constructions in L2 Finnish. Language and Cognition 12:3 ► pp. 526 ff. DOI logo
Lesonen, Sirkku, Rasmus Steinkrauss, Minna Suni & Marjolijn Verspoor
2021. Dynamic Usage-based Principles in the Development of L2 Finnish Evaluative Constructions. Applied Linguistics 42:3 ► pp. 442 ff. DOI logo
Lesonen, Sirkku, Rasmus Steinkrauss, Minna Suni & Marjolijn Verspoor
2022. Variation and variability in L2 learning trajectories: Learning the Finnish existential construction. Journal of the European Second Language Association 6:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo

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