In:Constructional Approaches to Nordic Languages
Edited by Evie Coussé, Steffen Höder, Benjamin Lyngfelt and Julia Prentice
[Constructional Approaches to Language 37] 2023
► pp. 179–211
Chapter 7The entrenchment of semi-schematic time constructions by German foreign
language learners of Swedish
Published online: 7 November 2023
https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.37.07olo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.37.07olo
Abstract
This chapter investigates the entrenchment of semi-schematic time
constructions by a group of foreign language learners of Swedish. Results
from a phrasal decision experiment with 30 German speaking learners of
Swedish show that the learners of Swedish process these constructions
significantly slower, compared to an L1 control group, and also recognize
them as time expressions to a lesser extent. Additionally, we conduct an
explorative corpus study to shed some light on the role of previously
acquired languages for the entrenchment of the investigated constructions.
The results from the comparison of the Swedish and German corpora show no
clear indication of cross-linguistic differences in usage that might explain
the L2 participants’ behavior, but rather some interesting similarities,
which we discuss in relation to the experimental findings.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Usage-based and diasystematic construction grammar
- 2.1Diasystematic construction grammar and emerging multilingualism
- 2.2Entrenchment
- 3.Lexical and phrasal decision
- 4.Experimental study of entrenchment
- 4.1Material and items
- 4.2Participants
- 4.2.1Control group (L1)
- 4.2.2Study group (L2)
- 4.3Design and procedure
- 4.4Results
- 4.4.1Control group (L1) results
- 4.4.2Experiment group (L2) results
- 5.Comparison with corpus data
- 6.Final discussion
Acknowledgements Notes References Appendix
References (59)
Arnon, I. & Snider, N. (2010). More
than words: Frequency effects for multi-word
phrases. Journal of Memory and
Language 62, 67–82.
Blumenthal-Dramé, A. (2017). Entrenchment
from a psycholinguistic and neurolinguistic
perspective. In H-J. Schmid, (Ed.), Entrenchment
and the Psychology of Language Learning: How We Reorganize and Adapt
Linguistic
Knowledge (pp. 101–117). Washington, DC: De Gruyter Mouton.
(2013). Usage-based Theory and Exemplar Representations of Constructions. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 49-69). Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.
Cowart, W. (1997). Experimental
syntax: Applying Objective Methods to Sentence
Judgments. London & Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Diessel, H. (2019). The
grammar network: how linguistic structure is shaped by language
use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, N. C. (2006). Selective
attention and transfer phenomena in L2 acquisition: Contingency, cue
competition, salience, interference, overshadowing, blocking, and
perceptual learning. Applied
Linguistics 27, 164–194.
(2013). Construction
Grammar and Second Language
Acquisition. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The
Oxford Handbook of Construction
Grammar (pp. 348–378). Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, N. C. & Wulff, S. (2020). Usage-based
approaches to
SLA. In B. VanPatten, G. D. Keating & S. Wulff (Eds.), Theories
in second language acquisition. An
introduction (pp. 75–93). New York: Routledge.
Fillmore, C., Kay, P. & O‘Connor, M. C. (1988). Regularity
and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions. The case of
Let
alone. Language 64(3), 501–538.
Goldberg, A. (1995). Constructions.
A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument
Structure. Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press.
(2006). Constructions
at Work. The Nature of Generalization in
Language. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.
(2013). Constructionist
approaches. In Thomas Hoffmann & Graeme Trousdale (Eds.), The
Oxford Handbook of Construction
Grammar (pp. 15–31). Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.
Goldberg, A. E. (2019). Explain
me this. Creativity, competition, and the partial productivity of
constructions. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Höder, S. (2018). Grammar
is community-specific: Background and basic concepts of
Diasystematic Construction
Grammar. In H. Boas & S. Höder (Eds.), Constructions
in contact. Constructional perspectives on contact phenomena in
Germanic
languages (pp. 37–70). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Höder, S., Prentice, J. & Tingsell, S. (2021). Additional
language acquisition as emerging multilingualism. A Construction
Grammar
approach. In S. Höder & H. Boas (Eds.), Constructions
in Contact 2. Language change, multilingual practices, and
additional language
acquisition (pp. 310–337). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Jarvis, S. & Pavlenko, A. (2008). Crosslinguistic
Influence in Language and
Cognition. New York: Routledge.
Jescheniak, J. D. & Levelt, W. J. M. (1994). Word
frequency effects in speech production: Retrieval of syntactic
information and phonological
form. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition
20, 824–843.
Jiang, N. & Nekrasova, T. (2007). The
processing of formulaic sequences by second language
speakers. The Modern Language
Journal 91, 433–445.
Juhasz, B. J. (2005) Age-of-acquisition
effects in word and picture
identification. Psychological
Bulletin 131 (5), 684–712.
Just, M. A. & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). A
theory of reading: from eye fixation to
comprehension. Psychological
Review 87, 329–354.
Langacker, R. (2009). A
dynamic view of usage and language
acquisition. Cognitive
linguistics 20 (3), 627–640.
Laufer, B. (2003). The
influence of L2 on L1 collocational knowledge and on L1 lexical
diversity in free written
expression. In V. J. Cook (Ed.), Effects
of the second language on the
first (pp. 19–31). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Lesonen, S., Steinkrauss, R., Suni, M. & Verspoor, M. (2020). Lexically
specific vs. productive constructions in L2
Finnish. Language and
Cognition 12(3), 1–38.
Loenheim, L., Lyngfelt, B., Olofsson, J., Prentice, J. & Tingsell, S. (2016) Constructicography
meets (second) language education. On constructions in teaching aids
and the usefulness of a Swedish
constructicon. In S. De Knop & G. Gilquin (Eds.), Applied
Construction
Grammar (pp. 327–355). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Michaelis, L. (2004). Type
Shifting in Construction Grammar: An Integrated Approach to
Aspectual Coercion. Cognitive
Linguistics 15, 1–67. [URL].
Olofsson, J. (2018). Förflyttning
på svenska. Om produktivitet från ett
konstruktionsperspektiv. (Göteborgsstudier
i nordisk språkvetenskap 32.) PhD
dissertation, Göteborgs universitet. [URL]
Olofsson, J. & Prentice, J. (2020). För
tre enorma öl sedan. Befästning av semi-schematiska konstruktioner i
L2-svenska. Språk &
Stil 30, 91–116.
Peirce, J. (2007). PsychoPy
– Psychophysics software in
Python. Journal of Neuroscience
Methods 162 (1–2), 8–13.
Prentice, J. (2010). På
rak sak. Om ordförbindelser och konventionaliserade uttryck bland
unga språkbrukare i flerspråkiga
miljöer. (Göteborgsstudier i nordisk
språkvetenskap 13.) PhD
dissertation, Göteborgs universitet. [URL]
Prentice, J., Loenheim, L., Lyngfelt, B., Olofsson, J. & Tingsell, S. (2016). Bortom
ordklasser och satsdelar: konstruktionsgrammatik i
klassrummet. In Anna W. Gustafsson, Lisa Holm, Katarina. Lundin, Henrik Rahm & Mechthild Tronnier (Eds.), Svenskans
beskrivning
34 (pp. 85–397). Lund: Lunds universitet.
Ratcliff, R., Gomez, P. & McKoon, G. (2004). A
Diffusion Model Account of the Lexical Decision
Task. Psychological
Review 111(1), 159–182.
Schmid, H-J. (2015). A
blueprint of the Entrenchment-and-Conventionalization
Model. Yearbook of the German
Cognitive Linguistics
Association 3, 3–25.
(2017). A
Framework for Understanding Linguistic Entrenchment and Its
Psychological
Foundations. In H-J. Schmid (Ed.), Entrenchment
and the Psychology of Language Learning: How We Reorganize and Adapt
Linguistic Knowledge. Washington, DC: De Gruyter Mouton.
(2020). The dynamics of the Linguistic system: usage, conventionalization and entrenchment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Schmid, H-J. & Küchenhoff, H. (2013). Collostructional
analysis and other ways of measuring lexicogrammatical attraction:
Theoretical premises, practical problems and cognitive
underpinnings. Cognitive
Linguistics 24(3), 531–577.
Sjögreen, C. (2015). Kasta
bort bollen och äta bort sin huvudvärk. En studie av
argumentstrukturen i kausativa
bort-konstruktioner. PhD
dissertation, Uppsala universitet. [URL]
Steinkrauss, R. & Schmid, M. S. (2017). Entrenchment
and Language
Attrition. In H-J. Schmid (Ed.), Entrenchment
and the Psychology of Language Learning: How We Reorganize and Adapt
Linguistic
Knowledge (pp. 367–83). Washington, DC: De Gruyter Mouton.
Suttle, L. & Goldberg, A. (2011). The
partial productivity of constructions as
induction. Linguistics 49, 1237–1269.
Teleman, U., Hellberg, S. & Andersson, E. (1999). Svenska
Akademiens
grammatik. Stockholm: Norstedts ordbok.
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing
a language: a usage-based theory of language
acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wiktorsson, M. (2018). How
hybrid is blog data? A comparison between speech, writing and blog
data in Swedish. Nordic Journal of
Linguistics 41(3), 367–377.
Wolter, B. & Gyllstad, H. (2013). Frequency
of input and L2 collocational processing. A Comparison of Congruent
and Incongruent Collocations. Studies
in Second Language
Acquisition 35, 451–482.
Wolter, B. & Yamashita, J. (2015). Processing
collocations in a second language: A case of first language
activation? Applied
Psycholinguistics 36(5), 1193–1221.
Wulff, S. & Ellis, N. C. (2018) Usage-based
approaches to second language
acquisition. In D. T. Miller, F. Bayram, J. Rothman & L. Serratrice (Eds.), Bilingual
cognition and language: the state of the science across its
subfields (pp. 37–56). John Benjamins.
Yamashita, J. (2014). Effects
of Instruction on Yes – No Responses to L2
Collocations. Vocabulary Learning and
Instruction 3(2), 31–37.
Yamashita, J. & Jiang, N. (2010). L1
influence on the acquisition of L2 collocations: Japanese ESL users
and EFL learners acquiring English
collocations. TESOL
Quarterly 44, 647–668.
Cited by (1)
Cited by one other publication
Boas, Hans C. & Steffen Höder
2025. What makes Construction Grammar relevant for contact linguistics — and vice versa?. In Constructions in Contact 3 [Constructional Approaches to Language, 40], ► pp. 1 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 december 2025. 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.
