From conceptualization to constructions in Finnish as an L2

Applied Linguistics, 2020

This study investigates the formal verbalizations of evaluation used by four beginning L2 learners of Finnish from a dynamic usage-based perspective. Longitudinal data collected weekly were used to investigate what kind of constructions learners use to express evaluation and how these interact and develop over time. The results show that when a new construction is acquired in the L2, another related construction might regress. The results also point to increased variability in the construction during a phase of rapid development and reduced variability in the phases of regression or slower progress. These findings add to our understanding of a developing L2 as a system in which changes in one aspect have the potential to bring about changes in interconnected aspects. The variability patterns found in the learners’ developmental trajectories add to the growing body of research that proposes variability as meaningful in the learning process.

Language and Cognition, 2020

ABSTRACTIt is assumed from a usage-based perspective that learner language constructions emerge from natural language use in social interaction through exemplar learning. In L1, young learners have been shown to develop their constructions from lexically specific, formulaic expressions into more productive, abstract schemas. A similar developmental path has been shown for L2 development, with some exceptions. The aim of the current study is to explore to what extent the default assumption holds for L2 learning. The development of two constructions was traced in four adults learning L2 Finnish. Free-response data, collected weekly over a period of 9 months, were used to investigate the productivity of the constructions. The results show that, contrary to the traditional assumption, L2 learners do not start off with only lexically specific expressions, but that both lexically specific and more productive constructions are used from the beginning. Our results therefore suggest that, fo...

2016

O processamento da forma e do significado e analisada durante a producao da formula ( So+aux+I e Neither+aux+I) em respostas curtas na fala em L2 durante a retencao e a aquisicao da formula em L2. Os resultados sao discutidos em termos da complexidade linguistica da estrutura da lingua de destino com base em variacoes linguisticas na L1 e L2 e na relacao psicolinguistica entre a producao da estrutura sintactica em relacao a capacidade da memoria de trabalho, o processamento da forma verso o processamento do significado, e a aquisicao da formula em L2 pelo sistema baseado em regras. O estudo apresenta dados quantitativos e qualitativos para o primeiro plano da discussao, bem como algumas implicacoes pedagogicas para o ensino-aprendizagem de ingles como lingua estrangeira.

Language 87: 830-844, 2011

Lahivordlusi Lahivertailuja, 2012

2019

This paper presents a study of L1 speakers' evaluations of speech by L2 speakers of Swedish. The evaluations concern degree of foreign accent and comprehensibility, as well as interpretations of emotions and attitudes of the L2 speakers. Furthermore, the evaluations are correlated with measurements of F0-variation and F0-level. Apart from L1 speakers being able to recognize a non-native accent in L2 speech, they often notice other factors such as comprehensibility and expression of emotions and attitudes when judging non-native speakers. The present study concerns whether there is a correlation between these factors and with the acoustic variables F0 level and F0 range. The results show that speakers who are evaluated as having a high degree of foreign accent and a low degree of comprehensibility are not necessarily negatively judged in terms of expression of attitudes or emotions. Furthermore, speech which is judged as expressing positive emotions and attitudes tend to have more varying F0 compared with speech which is judged to express negative emotions. The results are of interest for second language teaching with a special focus on pronunciation and prosody.

2009

The important role that pragmatics plays in the acquisition of morphology has been hardly studied. In this contribution we focus on the pragmatic strategies of adult caretakers in their reactions to children's early morphological productions in three different languages (French, German, Lithuanian). The most relevant distinction proposed is that between metadiscursive and conversational reactions, i.e. between reactions on linguistic form and on content. In contrast to the latter, the former represent interruptions of the flow of interaction. The distribution of these two types of reactions provides the child with abundant direct and indirect positive and negative evidence about whether his/her preceding morphological production has been well formed or ill formed. Among these reactions, which may consist in reformulations, expansions, and others, we emphasize particularly repetitions and their pragmatic functions and show that they are partially specific to child-directed speech...

Lingua, 1969

Sine tile publication of Syntactic structures in 1957, the field of linguistics, particularly in America, has experienced a revolution. I) Certain!y no one can argue that the chan~;es brought about by this reorientation have been unproductive. Olcl assumptions which had ot-e. ~atte,y accepted were quesuonea, and new assumptions which had not been seriously contemplated were proposed. As a result, significant changes have been made and important controversies have enst~ed. One of the central focal points of the debate which has developed is *:he topic of the communicative function of language which ~vith some superficial exceptions the new school of transformational generativ~ grammar has avoided. There are a number of important ramifications of this avoidance which have received increasing attention in rece:xt linguistics literature. . Rommetveit (1968) has suggested that 'as psycholinguists ext~and the scope of their inquiries ]rom the utterance in vacuo to the utterance in a comext of message transmission, it may become increasingly important to consider as yet unexplored relationships between the t) x,V e wish to thank a number of people for their invaluable help with this paper. Especially we express our gratitude to our teacher, collaborator, and friend Ronald Harrington for providing us with a stimulating problem solving seminar in which we argued at considerable length many of the ideas which are developed here. We also would like to thank Michael Davidson (Depart-.

Lingua, 1995

Gierut extends the generative phonological theory and single subject methodology she developed to explain phonological difficulties in Ll acquisition disorders to the study of adult L2 learners. Hardy presents a report of a single subject study of L2 phonological training along the lines detailed by Gierut. Unfortunately, although a training effect was demonstrated, no retention was found one month later. These two papers parallel those in section two by Dinnsen and Chin, and Connell. Taken together these chapters do successfully effect the hoped for 'Confluence', but perhaps the success of integrating theory, methodology and domain of study across these three disciplines/populations owes as much to the fact that these five researchers are all members of the same university. I fear it is only when departments of Applied Linguistics begin to include theoretical linguists and clinical linguists along with Ll and L2 language acquisition specialists that research into the processes of language behaviour will progress. Particular studies in this collection do have merit and the theoretical 'state of the art' discussions are illuminating. One wonders how far things advanced since the original symposium in 1989. Would the interaction between theoretical and applied linguistics appear to be more sophisticated in 1995? This book reflects a long-standing problem with publishing talks given at research fora such as this one. Some of the invitees are noted leaders in their fields; several more junior post-dots are included. The research reported from the former is typically minor while theory is debated on a high plane, while the research reported from the latter is typically elaborate in detail but often inconclusive. The utility of such a collection is to provide a socio-historical snapshot of the research fields which may lead one to pursue more rewarding reading as a result.