Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-pftt2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-11T09:00:40.624Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Usage events and constructional knowledge: A study of two variants of the introductory-it construction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 October 2023

Sakol Suethanapornkul Open the ORCID record for Sakol Suethanapornkul [Opens in a new window]  and
Sarut Supasiraprapa Open the ORCID record for Sarut Supasiraprapa [Opens in a new window]
Sakol Suethanapornkul
Affiliation:
1Independent scholar
Sarut Supasiraprapa*
Affiliation:
2Graduate School of Language and Communication, National Institute of Development Administration, Thailand
*
Corresponding author: Sarut Supasiraprapa; Email: sarut.sup@nida.ac.th
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Usage-based theories hold that mental representation of language is shaped by a lifetime of usage. Both input to which first language (L1) and second language (L2) users are exposed and their own language production affect their construction learning and entrenchment. The present study investigates L2 users’ knowledge of two introductory-it variants, Adj-that (e.g., it is clear that …) and Adj-to (e.g., it is difficult to …). We probed the extent to which adjective–variant associations in an academic section of COCA and L2 users’ engagement with academic writing affected learners’ generation of adjectives distinctively attracted to the two variants. An analysis of cue-outcome contingency was conducted to establish adjective–variant associations, and an elicitation task was carried out, probing L2 users’ ability to generate adjectives when prompted with the variants (e.g., it is [blank] to). The participants were 84 graduate students in the United States, 44 from L1 English and 40 from L1 Thai backgrounds. The results indicated that the adjective–variant associations predicted L2 users’ generation of adjectives. However, academic writing engagement did not affect learners’ performance. The findings suggest that statistical information in the input affects L2 users’ constructional representation.

Type
Research Article
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 46 , Issue 2 , May 2024 , pp. 355 - 377
Check for updates
Open Practices
Open data
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

The online version of this article has been updated since original publication. A notice detailing the change has also been published

References

Ambridge, B. (2020). Against stored abstractions: A radical exemplar model of language acquisition. First Language, 40, 509–559. https://doi.org/10.1177/0142723719869731CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ambridge, B., Kidd, E., Rowland, C. F., & Theakston, A. L. (2015). The ubiquity of frequency effects in first language acquisition. Journal of Child Language, 42, 239–273. https://doi.org/10.1017/S030500091400049XCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Azazil, L. (2020). Frequency effects in the L2 acquisition of the catenative verb construction: Evidence from experimental and corpus data. Cognitive Linguistics, 31, 417–451. https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2018-0139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Brysbaert, M., & Diependaele, K. (2013). Dealing with zero word frequencies: A review of the existing rules of thumb and a suggestion for an evidence-based choice. Behavior Research Methods, 45, 422–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chainarongdejagul, S. (2018). A study on strategies used in translating it-cleft sentences in Pirunrat’s translation of Agatha Christie’s The Murder of [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Chulalongkorn University.Google Scholar
Colleman, T., & Bernolet, S. (2012). Alternation biases in corpora vs. picture description experiments: DO-biased and PD-biased verbs in the Dutch dative alternation. In Divjak, D. & Gries, S. Th (Eds.), Frequency effects in language representation (pp. 87–125). Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conklin, K., & Thul, R. (2023). Word and multiword processing. In Godfroid, A. & Hopp, H. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and psycholinguistics (pp. 203–215). Routledge.Google Scholar
Coxhead, A. (2000). A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly, 34, 213–238. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587951CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crossley, S., Kyle, K., & Salsbury, T. (2016). A usage-based investigation of L2 lexical acquisition: The role of input and output. Modern Language Journal, 100, 702–751. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dąbrowska, E. (2009). Words as constructions. In Evans, V. & Pourcel, S. (Eds.), New directions in cognitive linguistics (pp. 201–233). John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dąbrowska, E. (2015). Individual differences in grammatical knowledge. In Dąbrowska, E. & Divjak, D. (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 650–668). Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, M. (2019). The Corpus of Contemporary American English: One billion words, 1990–present. https://www.english-corpora.org/coca/Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2019). Essentials of a theory of language cognition. Modern Language Journal, 103, 39–60. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2022). Fuzzy representations. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 25, 210–211. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728921000638CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C., & Ferreira-Junior, F. (2009). Constructions and their acquisition: Islands and the distinctiveness of their occupancy. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 7, 187–220. https://doi.org/10.1075/arcl.7.08ellCrossRefGoogle 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, 55–98. https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2013-0031CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eskildsen, S. W. (2012). L2 negation constructions at work. Language Learning, 62, 335–372. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00698.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Francis, G., Hunston, S., & Manning, E. (1998). Grammar patterns 2: Nouns and adjectives. Harper Collins.Google Scholar
Gries, S. Th. (2013). 50-something years of work on collocations: What is or should be next …. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 18, 137–165. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.18.1.09griCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. Th. (2021). (Generalized linear) mixed-effects modeling: A learner corpus example. Language Learning, 71, 757–798. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. Th. (2022). What do (some of) our association measures measure (most)? Associations? Journal of Second Language Studies, 5, 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1075/jsls.21028.griCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. Th., & Ellis, N.C. (2015). Statistical measures for usage-based linguistics. Language Learning, 65, 228–255. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. Th., Hampe, B., & Schönefeld, D. (2005). Converging evidence: Bringing together experimental and corpus data on the association of verbs and constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 16, 635–676. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2005.16.4.635CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. Th., & Wulff, S. (2009). Psycholinguistic and corpus-linguistic evidence for L2 constructions. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 7, 164–187. https://doi.org/10.1075/arcl.7.07griCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Groom, N. (2005). Pattern and meaning across genres and disciplines: An exploratory study. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 4, 257–277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2005.03.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hardie, A. (2012). CQPweb–combining power, flexibility and usability in a corpus analysis tool. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 17, 380–409. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.17.3.04harCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herriman, J. (2000). Extraposition in English: A study of the interaction between the matrix predicate and the type of extraposed clause. English Studies, 81, 582–599. https://doi.org/10.1076/enst.81.6.582.9180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hewings, M., & Hewings, A. (2002). “It is interesting to note that …”: A comparative study of anticipatory ‘it’ in student and published writing. English for Specific Purposes, 21, 367–383. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(01)00016-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hox, J. J., Moerbeek, M., & van de Schoot, R. (2017). Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications (3rd ed.). Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyland, K., & Jiang, F. (2017). Is academic writing becoming more informal? English for Specific Purposes, 45, 40–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2016.09.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyland, K., & Jiang, F. (2018). ‘We believe that…’: Changes in an academic stance marker. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 38, 139–161. https://doi.org/10.1080/07268602.2018.1400498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaltenböck, G. (2005). It-extraposition in English: A functional view. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 10, 119–159. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.10.2.02kalCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kemmer, S., & Barlow, M. (2000). Introduction: A usage-based conception of language. In Barlow, M. & Kemmer, S. (Eds.), Usage based models of language (pp. vii–xxviii). CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Kyle, K., Crossley, S., & Verspoor, M. (2021). Measuring longitudinal writing development using indices of syntactic complexity and sophistication. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 43, 781–812. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263120000546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larsson, T. (2016). The introductory it pattern: Variability explored in learner and expert writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 22, 64–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2016.01.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larsson, T. (2017). A functional classification of the introductory it pattern: Investigating academic writing by non-native-speaker and native-speaker students. English for Specific Purposes, 48, 57–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2017.06.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larsson, T. (2019). Grammatical stance marking across registers: Revisiting the formal-informal dichotomy. Register Studies, 1, 243–268. https://doi.org/10.1075/rs.18009.larGoogle Scholar
Larsson, T., & Kaatari, H. (2019). Extraposition in learner and expert writing: Exploring (in)formality and the impact of register. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research, 5, 33–62. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijlcr.17014.larGoogle Scholar
Peacock, M. (2011). A comparative study of introductory it in research articles across eight disciplines. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 16, 72–100. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.16.1.04peaCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perek, F. (2014). Rethinking constructional polysemy. In Glynn, D. & Robinson, J. A. (Eds.), Corpus methods for semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy (pp. 61–85). John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. Longman.Google Scholar
Römer, U. (2009). The inseparability of lexis and grammar: Corpus linguistic perspectives. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 7, 140–162. https://doi.org/10.1075/arcl.7.06romCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Römer, U., & Berger, C. M. (2019). Observing the emergence of constructional knowledge: Verb patterns in German and Spanish learners of English at different proficiency levels. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 41, 1089–1110. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263119000202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Römer, U., Skalicky, S. C., & Ellis, N. C. (2020). Verb-argument constructions in advanced L2 English learner production: Insights from corpora and verbal fluency tasks. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 16, 303–331. https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2016-0055Google Scholar
Schmid, H.-J. (2015). A blueprint of the entrenchment-and-conventionalization model. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association, 3, 3–25. https://doi.org/10.1515/gcla-2015-0002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sonbul, S. (2015). Fatal mistake, awful mistake, or extreme mistake? Frequency effects on off-line/on-line collocational processing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 18, 419–437. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728914000674CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suethanapornkul, S., & McKay, T. H. (2018). The academic writing experience questionnaire (AWE-Q): A development and (some) validation study. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Sung, M.-C., & Kim, H. (2022). Effects of verb-construction association on second language constructional generalizations in production and comprehension. Second Language Research, 38, 233–257. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658320932625CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supasiraprapa, S. (2019). Frequency effects on first and second language compositional phrase comprehension and production. Applied Psycholinguistics, 40, 987–1017. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716419000109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Suethanapornkul and Supasiraprapa supplementary material

Suethanapornkul and Supasiraprapa supplementary material

Download Suethanapornkul and Supasiraprapa supplementary material(File)
File 26.6 KB