Abstract
This study examined L1 and L2 English speakers’ sensitivity to constructional meaning by investigating their categorization of Noun1 of Noun2 constructions (e.g., results of studies) and argument structure constructions (e.g., Tom cut the bread). Participants were 40 L1 English speakers and 44 intermediate proficiency Chinese-speaking learners of L2 English, who completed two online sorting experiments. In each experiment, participants were instructed to (i) sort the stimuli according to their overall meaning and (ii) provide explanations for their sorting decisions. Results showed that EFL users preferred construction-based sorting for the argument structure stimuli but not the Noun1 of Noun2 stimuli. However, L1 English speakers showed a preference toward word-based sorting for both construction types. Participants’ self-reported explanations for their sorts nonetheless indicated sensitivity to the constructional meanings of argument structure constructions and Noun1 of Noun2 constructions. Additionally, language users were found more likely to produce construction-based sorts with more time spent on the task.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank the editors and the anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments, which have significantly contributed to the refinement of this work. All remaining errors are our own. We are also grateful to the participants in this study and all colleagues who have helped us in the recruitment of participants.
References
Baayen, Rolf Harald, Douglas J. Davidson & Douglas M. Bates. 2008. Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language 59(4). 390–412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005.Search in Google Scholar
Baicchi, Annalisa. 2015. Construction learning as a complex adaptive system: Psycholinguistic evidence from L2 learners of English. Berlin: Springer.10.1007/978-3-319-18269-8Search in Google Scholar
Barr, Dale J., Roger Levy, Christoph Scheepers & Harry J. Tily. 2013. Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language 68(3). 255–278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001.Search in Google Scholar
Bartoń, Kamil. 2018. MuMIn: Multi-model inference. R package version 1.46.0. Available at: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=MuMIn.Search in Google Scholar
Bates, Douglas, Martin Mächler, Ben Bolker & Steve Walker. 2015. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software 67(1). 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01.Search in Google Scholar
Bencini, Giulia M. L. & Adele E. Goldberg. 2000. The contribution of argument structure constructions to sentence meaning. Journal of Memory and Language 43. 640–651. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2000.2757.Search in Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Susan Conrad & Viviana Cortes. 2004. If you look at …: Lexical bundles in university teaching and textbooks. Applied Linguistics 25(3). 371–405. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/25.3.371.Search in Google Scholar
Boas, Hans Christian. 2003. A constructional approach to resultatives. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Search in Google Scholar
Boas, Hans Christian. 2006. A frame-semantic approach to identifying syntactically relevant elements of meaning. In Petra Steiner, Hans C. Boas & Stefan J. Schierholz (eds.), Contrastive studies and valency: Studies in honor of Hans Ulrich Boas, 119–149. Frankfurt/New York: Peter Lang Publishing.Search in Google Scholar
Cappelle, Bert & Natalia Grabar. 2016. Towards an n-grammar of English. In Sabine De Knop & Gaëtanelle Gilquin (eds.), Applied construction grammar, 271–302. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1515/9783110458268-011Search in Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1976. Aspect: An introduction to the study of verbal aspect and related problems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 2011. Action nominals between verbs and nouns. Rivista di Linguistica 23(1). 7–22.Search in Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2003. Lexical rules vs. constructions: A false dichotomy. In Hubert Cuyckens, Thomas Berg, René Dirven & Klaus-Uwe Panther (eds.), Motivation in language: Studies in honor of Günter Radden, 49–68. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/cilt.243.07croSearch in Google Scholar
Dąbrowska, Ewa & Dagmar Divjak. 2019. Cognitive linguistics: A survey of linguistic subfields. Berlin & Boston: Mouton De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110626452Search in Google Scholar
Ellis, Nick C., Ute Römer & Matthew Brook O’Donnell. 2016. Usage-based approaches to language acquisition and processing: Cognitive and corpus investigations of construction grammar. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar
Field, Andy, Jeremy Miles & Zoë Field. 2012. Discovering statistics using R. London: Sage.Search in Google Scholar
Francis, Gill, Susan Hunston & Elizabeth Manning. 1996. Collins COBUILD grammar patterns 1: Verbs. London: HarperCollins.Search in Google Scholar
Francis, Gill, Susan Hunston & Elizabeth Manning. 1998. Collins COBUILD grammar patterns 2: Nouns and adjectives. London: HarperCollins.Search in Google Scholar
Gilquin, Gaëtanelle. 2010. Corpus, cognition and causative constructions. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/scl.39Search in Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 2006. Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199268511.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 2019. Explain me this: Creativity, competition, and the partial productivity of constructions. Princeton: Princeton University Press.10.2307/j.ctvc772nnSearch in Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. & Stefanie Wulff. 2005. Do foreign language learners also have constructions? Evidence from priming, sorting, and corpora. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 3. 182–200. https://doi.org/10.1075/arcl.3.10gri.Search in Google Scholar
Healy, Alice F. & George A. Miller. 1970. The verb as the main determinant of sentence meaning. Psychonomic Science 20. 372. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03335697.Search in Google Scholar
Hilpert, Martin. 2014. Construction grammar and its application to English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Hunston, Susan. 2022. Corpora in applied linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781108616218Search in Google Scholar
Hunston, Susan & Hang Su. 2020. Patterns, constructions, and local grammar: A case study of ‘evaluation’. Applied Linguistics 38(6). 567–593. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amx046.Search in Google Scholar
Hyland, Ken. 2008. As can be seen: Lexical bundles and disciplinary variation. English for Specific Purposes 27(1). 4–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2007.06.001.Search in Google Scholar
Iwata, Seizi. 2008. Locative alternation: A lexical-constructional approach. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/cal.6Search in Google Scholar
Jin, Yan & Jinsong Fan. 2011. Test for English majors (TEM) in China. Language Testing 28(4). 589–596. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532211414852.Search in Google Scholar
Jurafsky, Daniel. 1992. An on-line computational model of human sentence interpretation: A theory of the representation and use of linguistic knowledge. Berkeley, California, US: University of California, Berkeley PhD dissertation.10.21236/ADA604298Search in Google Scholar
Kay, Paul. 1984. The kind of/sort of construction. Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, USA 10. 157–171. https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v10i0.1962.Search in Google Scholar
Kim, Hyunwoo & Yangon Rah. 2019. Constructional processing in a second language: The role of constructional knowledge in verb-construction integration. Language Learning 69(4). 1022–1056. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12366.Search in Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1993. Reference-point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics 4. 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1993.4.1.1.Search in Google Scholar
Larson-Hall, Jenifer & Luke Plonsky. 2015. Reporting and interpreting quantitative research findings: What gets reported and recommendations for the field. Language Learning 65(S1). 127–159. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12115.Search in Google Scholar
Lassaline, Mary E. & Gregory L. Murphy. 1996. Induction and category coherence. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 3(1). 95–99. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03210747.Search in Google Scholar
Lee, Jin-Hwa & Seung-Su Kim. 2016. Korean college students’ knowledge on English argument structure constructions depending on English proficiency. Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics 16(2). 121–142. https://doi.org/10.15738/kjell.16.2.201606.121.Search in Google Scholar
Liang, Junying. 2002. How do Chinese EFL learners construct sentence meaning. Guangzhou, Guangdong, China: GDUFS MA thesis.Search in Google Scholar
Liu, Yingying & Xiaofei Lu. 2020. N1 of N2 constructions in academic written discourse: A pattern grammar analysis. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 47. 100893. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2020.100893.Search in Google Scholar
Liu, Yingying & Kevin McManus. 2020. Investigating the use of article-adjective-noun constructions in EFL writing. TESL-EJ 24(2). 1–19.10.31219/osf.io/fm78dSearch in Google Scholar
Lu, Xiaofei, Elliott J. Casal & Yingying Liu. 2020. The rhetorical functions of syntactically complex sentences in social science research article introductions. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 44. 100832. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2019.100832.Search in Google Scholar
Manzanares, Javier Valenzuela & Ana María Rojo López. 2008. What can language learners tell us about constructions? In Sabine De Knop & Teun De Rycker (eds.), Cognitive approaches to pedagogical grammar: A volume in honour of René Dirven, 197–230. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110205381.2.197Search in Google Scholar
Michaelis, Laura A. 2003. Word meaning, sentence meaning, and syntactic meaning. In Hubert Cuyckens, René Dirven & John R. Taylor (eds.), Cognitive approaches to lexical semantics, 163–210. Berlin & New York: Mouton De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110219074.163Search in Google Scholar
Perek, Florent. 2014. Rethinking constructional polysemy: The case of the English conative construction. In Dylan Glynn & Justyna A. Robinson (eds.), Corpus methods for semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy, 61–85. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/hcp.43.03perSearch in Google Scholar
Perek, Florent & Amanda L. Patten. 2019. Towards an English constructicon using patterns and frames. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 24(3). 354–384. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.00016.per.Search in Google Scholar
Plonsky, Luke & Hessameddin Ghanbar. 2018. Multiple regression in L2 research: A methodological synthesis and guide to interpreting R2 values. The Modern Language Journal 102. 713–731. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12509.Search in Google Scholar
Roehr, Karen. 2008. Linguistic and metalinguistic categories in second language learning. Cognitive Linguistics 19(1). 67–106. https://doi.org/10.1515/cog.2008.005.Search in Google Scholar
Romain, Laurence. 2022. Putting the argument back into argument structure constructions. Cognitive Linguistics 33(1). 35–64. https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2021-0021.Search in Google Scholar
Römer, Ute. 2019. A corpus perspective on the development of verb constructions in second language learners. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 24(3). 268–290. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.00013.roe.Search in Google Scholar
Römer, Ute & Cynthia M. Berger. 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/s0272263119000202.Search in Google Scholar
Schmid, Hans-Jörg. 2018. Shell nouns in English: A personal roundup. Caplletra: Revista Internacional de Filologia 64. 109–128. https://doi.org/10.7203/caplletra.64.11368.Search in Google Scholar
Shin, Gyu-Ho. 2010. On the contribution of argument structure constructions to sentence meaning for Korean learners of English. English Teaching 65(4). 263–282.10.15858/engtea.65.4.201012.209Search in Google Scholar
Shin, Gyu-Ho & Hyunwoo Kim. 2021. Roles of verb and construction cues in English and Korean sentence comprehension: Evidence from sentence-sorting paradigm. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 19(2). 332–362. https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00087.shi.Search in Google Scholar
Sinclair, John. 1991. Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, Anatol. 2003. Constructional semantics as a limit to grammatical variation. In Günter Rohdenburg & Britta Mondorf (eds.), Determinants of grammatical variation in English, 413–444. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110900019.413Search in Google Scholar
ten Wolde, Elnora. 2023. The English binominal noun phrase: A cognitive-functional approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781108921893Search in Google Scholar
Tomasello, Michael. 2006. Acquiring linguistic constructions. In Kuhn Deanna, Robert Siegler, William Damon & Richard M. Lerner (eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Cognition, perception, and language, 255–298. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons Inc.10.1002/9780470147658.chpsy0206Search in Google Scholar
Traugot, Elizabeth Closs. 2008. The grammaticalization of NP of NP patterns. In Alexander Bergs & Gabriele Diewald (eds.), Constructions and language change, 23–45. Berlin & New York: Mouton De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110211757.23Search in Google Scholar
Wang, Yingna & Mateusz Marecki. 2021. Positive psychology 2.0 in a foreign language classroom: Students’ emotional experience in English classroom interaction in China. Frontiers in Psychology 12. 789579. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.789579.Search in Google Scholar
Supplementary Material
This article contains supplementary material (https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2023-0029).
© 2023 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
