Intensifying constructions in French-speaking L2 learners of English and Dutch.
What is it about?
We investigate the cross-linguistic influence and the (longitudinal) impact of Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) on the acquisition of intensifying constructions, using corpora of written French, Dutch and English by L1 speakers, and L2 English and L2 Dutch produced by French-speaking learners in CLIL and traditional foreign language education. We hypothesize that learners will benefit from similarities between their L1 and target language (TL) intensifying constructions, and secondly, that more input and use (through CLIL) will lead to a more target-like use of intensifying constructions. The analyses include quantitative measures of frequency and productivity, and a covarying collexeme analysis (Gries, 2007). Our findings suggest that, as expected, CLIL students produce intensifying constructions in a more target-like manner. The effect of the duration of TL learning, however, is more apparent in English than in Dutch.
Why is it important?
Previous studies on the acquisition of intensification typically examined this phenomenon at word-level mainly, focusing almost exclusively on intensifying adverbs without considering the adjectives that are being modified (Granger 1998; Lorenz 1999; Pérez-Paredes & Díez-Bedmar 2012). The present research broadens the scope of analysis by including the entire range of constructions used to intensify adjectives, such as prefixed adjectives and compounds, and by assessing the co-occurrence of intensifiers and adjectives. The language-specific preferences for particular types of intensification and the differences in productivity of particular intensifying constructions in the first language (L1) and the target language (TL) may complicate or interfere with the acquisition process. Indeed, cross-linguistic similarities between English and French appear to result in fewer (grammatical) mistakes in the English learners’ use of intensifiers, and hence more target-like production. Secondly, more input through CLIL correlates positively with a more target-like use of intensifiers.