Constructional network at work in second language acquisition

Abstract

Second Language Acquisition (SLA) has benefited quite a lot from Construction Grammar. Most of the previous SLA researches adopting a constructionist approach have been primarily engaged in issues pertinent to the relevance of construction in SLA, the process of second language (L2) construction learning, and factors affecting L2 construction learning. This paper distinguishes itself from previous research by embarking on a new direction in the constructionist approach to SLA from the perspective of the constructional network. Specifically, it deals with how constructional network works in SLA and argues that L2 constructional network bears the imprint of and is reconstructed from L2 learners’ L1 constructional network. The constructional network works in SLA in at least two ways which are manifested in the motivating function of vertical links in L2 learners’ acquisition of schematic and complex constructions and the facilitative or inhibitive effect of horizontal links in L2 construction learning. Admittedly, our description of how the constructional network works in SLA is precursory and nonexclusive, and some general and specific issues are raised for future research.

Full text

Constructional network atwork insecond
language acquisition
Canzhong Jiang and Xu Wen*
Introduction
How language is acquired, according to Chomsky (1986), provides access to the nature
of linguistic knowledge. In turn, any theoretical assumption of the nature of linguistic
knowledge makes predictions about how language is acquired. Construction Grammar,
a new linguistic paradigm emerging during the 1980s as a reaction against the main-
stream Generative Linguistics which maintains that linguistic knowledge is partitioned
into a system of grammatical rules and a mental lexicon containing both words and idi-
oms, assumes that linguistic knowledge is captured by a structured inventory of con-
structions which are defined as form-function pairings at varying levels of complexity
and schematicity including simple words and fully filled idioms, partially filled morpho-
logical patterns and idioms, as well as partially filled or unfilled syntactic patterns that
fall under the purview of grammatical rules in the light of the generative tradition (Gold-
berg, 2013). is revolutionary epistemological turn of linguistic knowledge makes quite
different predictions about language acquisition in contrast to the mainstream genera-
tive approach whereby language acquisition is equated with a process of learning how
Abstract
Second Language Acquisition (SLA) has benefited quite a lot from Construction Gram-
mar. Most of the previous SLA researches adopting a constructionist approach have
been primarily engaged in issues pertinent to the relevance of construction in SLA,
the process of second language (L2) construction learning, and factors affecting L2
construction learning. This paper distinguishes itself from previous research by embark-
ing on a new direction in the constructionist approach to SLA from the perspective
of the constructional network. Specifically, it deals with how constructional network
works in SLA and argues that L2 constructional network bears the imprint of and is
reconstructed from L2 learners’ L1 constructional network. The constructional network
works in SLA in at least two ways which are manifested in the motivating function of
vertical links in L2 learners’ acquisition of schematic and complex constructions and the
facilitative or inhibitive effect of horizontal links in L2 construction learning. Admittedly,
our description of how the constructional network works in SLA is precursory and non-
exclusive, and some general and specific issues are raised for future research.
Keywords: Second language acquisition, Construction grammar, Constructional
network, Vertical links, Horizontal links
Open Access
© The Author(s) 2022. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits
use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original
author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third
party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the mate-
rial. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or
exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://
creat iveco mmons. org/ licen ses/ by/4. 0/.
RESEARCH
Jiangand Wen
Asian. J. Second. Foreign. Lang. Educ. (2022) 7:12
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-022-00140-x
Asian-Pacific Journal of Second
and Foreign Language Education
*Correspondence:
xuwen@swu.edu.cn
Southwest University,
Chongqing, China
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Page 2 of 16
Jiangand Wen Asian. J. Second. Foreign. Lang. Educ. (2022) 7:12
words and structures of the ambient language are related to elements of the genetically
endowed Universal Grammar (Diessel, 2013). And these predictions mainly include (cf.
Bybee, 2010; Dąbrowska, 2012, 2020; Ellis, 2003, 2012; Goldberg, 2006; Hilpert, 2014;
Ibbotson, 2020; Kidd etal., 2018; Lieven, 2016; Schmid, 2020; Tomasello, 2003, etc.):
(1) Linguistic knowledge is learned inductively from actual usage events during social
interaction and communication;
(2) What are learned are form-function pairings or constructions, and only construc-
tions;
(3) Constructions are learned in an item-based fashion, proceeding from concrete
item-based chunks to low-level schemas and eventually to fully schematic patterns;
(4) Language acquisition realized as construction learning is based on domain-general
learning mechanisms such as attention, analogy, categorization, entrenchment, and
automatization;
(5) Linguistic knowledge acquired as a network of constructions manifests individual
differences due to different experiences in construction learning.
e above predictions have radically changed our perception of language acquisi-
tion and provided illuminating insights into bothFirst Language Acquisition (FLA) and
Second Language Acquisition (SLA). As Gilquin and De Knop (2016) noted, SLA had
theretofore not been brought into the focus of studies based on Construction Grammar.
Hitherto the situation has unfortunately witnessed no noticeable change. In this case,
this paper is contributed to a constructionist approach to SLA.
Previous studies in SLA adopting a constructionist perspective have been primarily
concerned with the relevance of constructions in second language (L2) learning (e.g.,
Baicchi, 2016; Conklin & Schmitt, 2008; De Knop & Mollica, 2016; Gries & Wulff, 2005,
2009; Jiang & Nekrasova, 2007; Liang, 2002; Valenzuela Manzanares & Rojo López,
2008), the item- or exemplar-based developmental nature of L2 (e.g., Bardovi-Harlig,
2002; Ellis, 2012; Ellis & Ferreira-Junior, 2009a, 2009b; Ellis etal., 2016; Eskildsen, 2008,
2015, 2018; Eskildsen etal., 2015; Li etal., 2014; Mellow, 2006, 2008; Myles, 2004), and
factors affecting how L2 constructions are learned including (Ellis & Cadierno, 2009:
118): input frequency (type-token frequency, Zipfian distribution, recency), form (sali-
ence and perception), function (prototypicality of meaning, importance of form for
message comprehension, redundancy), and interactions between the form and function
(contingency of form-function mapping) (e.g., Dahl, 2015; Ellis & Collins, 2009; Ellis &
Ferreira-Junior, 2009a, 2009b; Gilquin, 2016; Luo, 2021). We attempt to distinguish our-
selves from these previous studies by proposing a new perspective for the construction-
ist approach to SLA with particular attention paid to the constructional network. More
specifically, we elaborate on how the constructional network works in L2 learning.
e remainder of this paper is organized as follows. "Constructional network model"
section establishes a constructional network model by first re-assessing the status of
constructions and then illustrating two dimensions of connections that organize con-
structions into a network, i.e., vertical and horizontal links. "L2 constructional network
characterized" section renders a characterization of the L2 constructional network,
arguing that the L2 constructional network is reconstructed on the basis of L2 learners’
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Page 3 of 16
Jiangand Wen Asian. J. Second. Foreign. Lang. Educ. (2022) 7:12
L1 constructional network since the latter leaves traces on the former. "Constructional
network in SLA" section expounds on how the constructional network works in SLA by
concentrating on the two dimensions of connections, i.e., vertical and horizontal links,
in L2 construction learning. is paper is concluded with some suggestions for future
research on SLA from a constructional network perspective in "Conclusion" section.
Constructional network model
One of the most basic tenets of Construction Grammar is that constructions are struc-
tured into a network called constructional network or construct-i-con. However, this
thesis of constructional network remains underspecified even though Construction
Grammar has enjoyed rapid development over the past few decades. Such critical issues
as to what is the nature of the constructional network, how it is structured, what kinds
of connections might exist within it, and how these connections are represented, are still
mysteries yet to be unraveled. Only recently have construction grammarians begun to
express their interest in the constructional network, especially in network connections.
is part will outline a two-dimensional constructional network model based on previ-
ous research on construction connections. But before that, we will first reconsider the
previous orientation of constructions in the constructional network.
Constructions reoriented
e constructional network is assumed to contain both constructions serving as nodes
and connections between these nodes. Nodes, or constructions have long been attrib-
uted with a central role in the constructional network in that a tacit consensus has
emerged that linguistic knowledge is stored primarily in constructions characterized by
complex internal structures. However, Hilpert (2018) pointed out that this conception
of nodes with internal complexity is incongruent with neural and psychological as well
as many other approaches to networks whereby the internal complexity of nodes is lim-
ited to a threshold of activation, but the (activation) relations between nodes are given
prominence. In other words, it does not meet the Cognitive Commitment maintained in
Cognitive Linguistics which enjoins cognitive linguists to strive for an account of human
language in accordance with what is known about the mind and the brain from other
disciplines (Lakoff, 1990; Wen & Taylor, 2021).
But is it plausible to design a constructional network model similar to the neural net-
work? Hilpert and Diessel (2017) cast an illuminating light on this question through
their investigation on entrenchment. ey claimed that the entrenchment of syntactic
construction and morphological construction is realized by the entrenchment of con-
nections between constructions such as instance links, subpart links, and symbolic links
between form and meaning of constructions, which deviates from the previous tacitly
acknowledged assumption that entrenchment is a characteristic of constructions in the
constructional network. is finding indicates that linguistic knowledge is stored in both
constructions and connections between constructions. Since constructions can be con-
strued as form-meaning links, connections should have played a more critical role than
constructions in the constructional network. Schmid (2017) even went much further
and contended that there is no need to distinguish constructions serving as nodes in the
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Page 4 of 16
Jiangand Wen Asian. J. Second. Foreign. Lang. Educ. (2022) 7:12
network from connections between nodes and the only format needed for the represen-
tation of linguistic knowledge is connections (or associations in Schmid’s term).
We have some reservations about Schmid’s more radical view since links between
form and meaning and connections between constructions are apparently of different
nature and if they are differentiated, we end up with a similar distinction between con-
nections and constructions. Instead, lining up with Hilpert and Diessel (2017), we advo-
cate simplifying and reducing constructions to form-meaning links without recourse to
their internal complexity, and attaching a prioritized role to connections in the construc-
tional network. With form-meaning links having already been extensively discussed in
previous research, we will only concern ourselves with connections between construc-
tions and introduce two dimensions of connections in the constructional network, i.e.,
vertical and horizontal links.
Vertical links
Vertical links give rise to a taxonomic hierarchy and link constructions at differing levels
of schematicity. ey have always been described as subsidiary products of the sche-
matization of constructions. Two major types of vertical links can be identified: single
inheritance links and multiple inheritance links.
Characterized by varied schematicity, constructions generally fall into macro-
constructions (schemas), e.g., English ditransitive construction [Subj V Obj1
Obj2] ↔ [X CAUSES Y TO RECEIVE Z], meso-constructions (sub-schemas), e.g.,
[VTri-able]Aj ↔ [[CAN BE SEMi-ed]PROPERTY
]j and [X TAKE Y for granted] ↔ [X DOES
NOT VALUE Y], and micro-constructions, e.g., the word acceptable, or the idiom Love
me, love my dog, with the most schematic macro-constructions being instantiated by less
schematic meso-constructions and meso-constructions by concrete micro-construc-
tions which are in turn instantiated by constructs in actual usage events. ey form a
hierarchy and are connected by inheritance links in the way that constructions at the
lower level of schematicity inherit formal and semantic features from those at the higher
level, as illustrated in Fig.1.
Goldberg (1995) proposed four types of inheritance links including instance links, pol-
ysemy links, metaphorical links, and subpart links. In instance links, constructions at the
lower level are special cases of corresponding constructions at the higher level, as exem-
plified by the relation between theREFUSE.verb-class-specific ditransitive construction
Macro-Cxn
Construct
1
Meso-Cxn
1
…
…
Micro-Cxn
1
Inheritance Links
Meso-Cxn
2
Meso-Cxn
n
Micro-Cxn
2
Micro-Cxn
n
Construct
2
Construct
n
…
Fig. 1 Inheritance links (Cxn: construction)
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Page 5 of 16
Jiangand Wen Asian. J. Second. Foreign. Lang. Educ. (2022) 7:12
and theREFUSE.verb-specific ditransitive construction. Polysemy links describe con-
nections between different conceptually related meanings of the same construction,
for example, the relation between [X CAUSES Y to RECEIVE Z], [X ENABLES Y to
RECEIVE Z], and [X INTENDS to CAUSE Y to RECEIVE Z] meanings of theEnglish
ditransitive construction. Similar to polysemy links, metaphorical links are semantic in
nature, but they connect different constructions with conceptually related meanings, for
example, the relation between the EnglishCaused-Motion construction and Resultative
Construction. As for subpart links, they deal with connections between constructions
exhibiting partial similarities in forms or meanings, for example, the relation between
the EnglishCaused-Motion Construction and Intransitive Motion Construction.
Inheritance links presented above are single inheritance links because they represent a
single-source process whereby one lower-level construction inherits features from only
one higher-level construction. In addition to single inheritance links, Goldberg (1995,
2013) mentioned a special kind of inheritance link, multiple inheritance link. Via mul-
tiple inheritance links, one construction is allowed to inherit features from multiple
source constructions of different levels. For instance, the partially schematic construc-
tion [What’s X Doing Y] at least inherits forms and semantics from fully schematic
constructions including VP construction, Subject-Predicate construction, Progressive
construction, Left-dislocation construction, Subject-Auxiliary Inversion construction,
and concrete lexical constructions such as what, do, etc. But it should be noted that how
inherited features from different constructions, which are potentially conflicting to one
another, are resolved remains to be unveiled.
Horizontal links
Vertical links typically connect constructions at different hierarchical levels, but con-
structions at the same level are also connected and these kinds of connections are
horizontal links. Not until recently did horizontal links arouse the interest of construc-
tion grammarians. At present, two sub-types of horizontal links have been recognized,
allostructional links and paradigmatic links, both of which are based on similarity of
constructions.
Allostructional links depict the connections between what were previously called
syntactic alternations. Construction Grammar formulated the surface generalization
hypothesis that syntactic and semantic generalizations associated with a surface argu-
ment structure form are typically broader than those between the same surface form and
a distinct form from which it is hypothesized to be syntactically or semantically derived
(Goldberg, 2006: 25). According to this hypothesis, there is no strict derivative relation
between syntactic alternations and they are better regarded as independent construc-
tions. But this does not mean that they are not related. As Cappelle (2006) had warned,
the emphasis on syntactic alternations as independent constructions should not over-
shadow their potential relatedness. He argued that syntactic alternations are variant
structural realizations of the same underlying abstract underspecified construction. He
coined the terms “allostruction” and “constucteme” to refer to the variant and the under-
lying underspecified construction. Allostructional links are recruited to capture the con-
nections between all allostructions, as is illustrated in Fig.2 by the relation (symbolized
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Page 6 of 16
Jiangand Wen Asian. J. Second. Foreign. Lang. Educ. (2022) 7:12
by the bidirectional arrow) between the English ditransitive construction and dative
construction which are presumably the variants of the constructeme [NPX V {?Y ?Z}].
Allostructional links are essentially based on similarity in constructional meaning
but variation in constructional form. All allostructions encode a common event frame,
and consequently convey ahighly similar propositional meaning (Perek, 2015). But they
manifest distinct ways of conceptualization for the event and profile or obscure different
elements in the event frame in different syntactic positions, which results in their formal
variation and pragmatic division (De Vaere etal., 2020; Perek, 2015).
Compared with allostructional links, paradigmatic links build on the similarity in
constructional form but the contrast in constructional meaning. ey reflect the rela-
tion between different choices or cells under the same syntactic paradigm (Van de
Velde, 2014). Take the English demonstratives as an illustration. In this construction,
a distributional paradigm can be identified and within the paradigm, there are choices
between proximal and distal in terms of deixis and between plural and singular in terms
of number, which produce a set of constructions including proximal demonstratives
vis-à-vis distal demonstratives, singular proximal demonstratives vis-à-vis plural prox-
imal demonstratives, and singular distal demonstratives vis-à-vis plural distal demon-
stratives, as formalized in Fig.3. ese choices share the same surface syntax but with
related meaning differences. ey are connected through paradigmatic links (signified
by bidirectional arrows).
By arguing for a reduced representation of constructions as merely form-meaning pair-
ings without any internal complexity as is proposed in Croft’s (2001) Radical Construc-
tion Grammar, and attaching due importance to connections between constructions
in the constructional network, this section has given a glimpse of a two-dimensional
XCAUSE Y TO HAVE Z
NP
X
V {?
Y
?
Z
}
DITRANSITIVE
NP
X
VNP
Y
NP
Z
TO-DAT IVE
NP
X
V NP
Z
to NP
Y
Fig. 2 Allostructional link between the English ditransitive construction and dative construction (adapted
from Perek, 2015: 156)
DEICTIC ENTITY
[DEM CN]
NPdef
PROXIMAL ENTITY
[DEM
prox
CN]
NPdef
DISTAL ENTITY
[DEM
dist
CN]
NPdef
PROXIMAL sg.ENTITY
[this CN
sg
]
NPdef
PROXIMAL pl.ENTITY
[theseCN
pl
]
NPdef
DISTAL sg.ENTITY
[that CN
sg
]
NPdef
DISTAL pl.ENTITY
[thoseCN
pl
]
NPdef
Fig. 3 Paradigmatic links in the (partial) network of English demonstratives (adapted from Smirnova &
Sommerer, 2020: 27)
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Page 7 of 16
Jiangand Wen Asian. J. Second. Foreign. Lang. Educ. (2022) 7:12
constructional network model. Admittedly, this two-dimensional model simplifies the
complexity of constructional connections and multiple dimensions of links might exist
between constructions (Smirnova & Sommerer, 2020), it is a theoretically viable model
and does shed valuable light upon constructionist perspective on how linguistic knowl-
edge can be organized and represented.
rough vertical and horizontal links, constructions are structured into a two-dimen-
sional constructional network. is modeling of linguistic knowledge, however, has been
primarily rooted in the acquisition and processing of native language. Does it work in L2
too? Converging evidence accumulated from various L2 processing experiments such as
L2 syntactic sorting tasks (e.g., De Knop & Mollica, 2016; Gries & Wulff, 2005; Liang,
2002; Valenzuela Manzanares & Rojo López, 2008), priming experiments (e.g., Baicchi,
2016; Gries & Wulff, 2009), and processing time tests (e.g., Conklin & Schmitt, 2008;
Jiang & Nekrasova, 2007), which cover constructions of different sizes and degrees of
schematicity and involve learners of distinct L2s with diverse L1 backgrounds, has con-
firmed that constructions do underpin L2 learners’ linguistic competence. Since con-
structions are present in L2 learners, a constructional network is predictably to be so.
en what L2 constructional network would be like?
L2 constructional network characterized
SLA differs from FLA in various aspects with special regard to the state of conceptual
development, pre-existing linguistic knowledge, and language input, since L2 learning
typically proceeds with a matured conceptual system, already acquired L1 knowledge,
and distorted inputs (Ellis, 2003: 72). In this case, questions naturally arise as to whether
the L2 constructional network is similar to that of native speakers, and whether L2 learn-
ers build an entirely new constructional network or reconstruct the L1 constructional
network for L2.
In terms of the first question, not inconsiderable evidence has proven that there are
discrepancies between L2 and corresponding L1 constructional networks. In an inves-
tigation on Czech-, German-, and Spanish-speaking advanced English learners’ repre-
sentation of English verb-argument constructions (VACs) (e.g., V prep. N) in contrast
to that of native English speakers, Römer etal. (2014) reported that all the three groups
of learners’ form-meaning mappings for 19 English VACs manifest different degrees of
divergence from that of native speakers, with L1 German vs. English correlations rang-
ing from 0.62 to 0.9, L1 Spanish vs. English correlations from 0.35 to 0.81 and L1 Czech
versus English correlations from 0.3 to 0.89. is finding is further confirmed by Römer
etal.’s (2020) follow-up research on German- and Spanish-speaking advanced English
learners’ knowledge of 34 English VACs including both V prep. N and V reflexive pro-
noun constructions. Garibyan etal. (2019) examined the argument structure construc-
tions (ASCs) elicited by groups of 33 advanced non-native speakers of English and 13
native speakers of English based on different kinds of partially filled constructions, and
found that native speakers and advanced learners differ in their choices of ASCs and the
lexical constructions filling the slots of minimally different verb-specified ASCs as the
stimuli. is finding also indicates that L2 learners’ representation of ASCs is different
from that of native speakers. In addition to VACs and ASCs, placement caused motion
construction produced by L2 learners of Spanish and Danish is also detected to be
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Page 8 of 16
Jiangand Wen Asian. J. Second. Foreign. Lang. Educ. (2022) 7:12
different from that of native Spanish and Danish speakers in Hijazo-Gascón etal. (2016).
Since constructions are part of the constructional network, the difference between L2
learners’ constructions and native speakers’ corresponding constructions necessarily
presupposes the discrepancy between the L2 constructional network and the corre-
sponding L1 constructional network.
As for the second question, it has been found that there are L1 construction traces
in the use of L2 constructions. For example, Martínez Vázquez’s (2008) corpus-based
survey showed that in the production of English caused motion constructions which are
typical of satellite-framed language, L2 learners with L1 backgrounds of satellite-framed
languages (German, Dutch and Swedish) use more caused motion constructions with
more diversity in their essays than those with L1 backgrounds of verb-framed languages
(Spanish, French and Italian). Römer etal. (2014) presented a similar finding that Czech
and German learners of English, whose L1 are satellite-framed just like English, produce
more target-like verbs in responses to generative free association tasks on VACs than
Spanish learners whose L1 is verb-framed. Lemmens and Perrez (2018) made a straight-
forward comparison of how locative events are encoded by native French speakers,
native Dutch speakers, and French-speaking learners of Dutch with three proficiency
levels. e result suggests that Dutch learners’ use of locative constructions and choice
of verbs within these constructions are influenced by their L1s and the more proficient
the learners are, the more target-like their production of constructions is. In a word, the
presence of L2 learners’ L1 construction traces in their L2 constructions reveals that L2
learners reconstruct the L1 constructional network instead of constructing an entirely
new one for L2.
Since constructions represent conceptualizations of events and entities, and are con-
nected to each other through form or meaning or both, L2 learners’ reconstruction of
their constructional network in L2 learning can be described at three levels: conceptual
level, construction level, and connection level.
At the conceptual level, a matured conceptual system has already been developed in
L2 learners. Given that human beings are born with similar physiological structures
and cognitive apparatus and confronted with a similar physical world, the majority of
the conceptual system is universal due to its embodied nature (Jiang & Yang, 2021).
erefore, the preexisting conceptual system provides full access to L2 learning. Recon-
struction at this level is only invoked if a conceptual gap or mismatch occurs. ere is a
conceptual gap when new concepts emerge from L2, or the pre-established conceptual
system contains more concepts than needed in L2. In this case, L2 learners will have
to add new conceptual space to the conceptual system or carve up a specialized space
for L2. For example, the French have a concept of GENDER and distinguish masculine
from feminine in their conception of entities, whereas the Chinese do not. As a conse-
quence, Chinese-speaking learners of French must construct a conceptual space for the
missing concept of GENDER in their native language if they want to acquire the French
noun system successfully, whereas for the French-speaking Chinese learners, a special-
ized space without GENDER must be set up in their noun system for Chinese. Mismatch
arises when concepts evoked by L2 are not identical to those available. In this case,
L2 learners will have to reorganize their conceptual system. For example, the Chinese
make a distinction between paternal and maternal relatives while the English do not,
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Page 9 of 16
Jiangand Wen Asian. J. Second. Foreign. Lang. Educ. (2022) 7:12
which leads to the mismatch of kinship concepts. When learning these concepts, Eng-
lish-speaking learners of Chinese will split their concept of UNCLE, for example, into
paternal and maternal uncles and link them to Chinese concepts of SHUSHU and JIU-
JIU respectively, whereas Chinese-speaking English learners will merge their concepts of
SHUSHU and JIUJIU and link them to the English concept of UNCLE.
Reconstruction at the conceptual level is ultimately realized at the construction level
and connection level. At the construction level, reconstruction operates in several situa-
tions. e first one is to expand the L1 constructional network by introducing totally new
constructions from L2 when these constructions are L2 specific and have no concep-
tual basis in the preexisting conceptual system. For instance, Chinese-speaking learners
of French will recruit an inflectional construction for GENDER in their constructional
network. Similarly, the L1 constructional network can be expanded by construction-
alization1 when L2 constructions can be conceptually linked to concepts available but
nonetheless not constructionalized in L1. Take the English inflectional constructions
for the plurality of nouns as an illustration. ere are no such constructions in Chinese,
but the concept of plurality is readily on hand. So, what Chinese-speaking English learn-
ers do for learning these constructions is only to constructionalize this concept and link
the L2 construction form to the meaning of plurality. In addition to its expansion, the
constructional network may be reorganized. When both L1 and L2 share the same con-
struction, which, however, is simultaneously characterized by language-specific features,
the re-pairing of form and meaning happens in the process of L2 learning thus resulting
in the reorganization of the constructional network. is is perhaps the most common
situation for reconstruction at the construction level. A case in point is the resultative
construction. In Chinese, resultative construction belongs to a type of complex predicate
constructions, i.e., [V-Vcomp] such as da-po ‘hit-break’. But it is realized by an argument
structure construction, i.e., [Subj V Obj Xcomp] in English. Consequently, for Chinese-
speaking learners of English, the resultative meaning will be re-paired with the form
[Subj V Obj Xcomp], while for English-speaking learners of Chinese, it will be re-paired
with the form [V-Vcomp].
At the connection level, any reconstruction at the construction level entails not only
the re-pairing of form-meaning links but also re-connections between constructions.
e above-mentioned resultative construction will suffice. In native Chinese speakers’
constructional network, theresultative construction is vertically linked to and inherits
features from complex predicate constructions and horizontally to the serial verb con-
structions, but in Chinese-speaking English learners’ L2 constructional network it is ver-
tically linked to and inherits features from transitive constructions and horizontally to
caused motion construction. In other words, when Chinese-speaking English learners
acquire the English resultative construction, the pre-established connections for Chi-
nese are adjusted to those of English.
e argument for L2 learning as reconstructing the L1 constructional network is cog-
nitively feasible and tenable because human beings are cognitive misers (Taylor, 1981;
Wen, 2019). Fundamental to cognitive psychology and social cognition, this cognitive
1 “Constructionalization” employed here refers the synchronic process of pairing a linguistic form with particular
meaning(s), which is different from Traugott and Trousdale’s (2013) use of the same term in diachronic sense.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Page 10 of 16
Jiangand Wen Asian. J. Second. Foreign. Lang. Educ. (2022) 7:12
miser model holds that human beings “are limited in their capacity to process informa-
tion. Because of this, either shortcuts to information processing may be taken or people
may be unwilling to expend a lot of mental effort to think about something” (Penning-
ton, 2000: 6). In the case of L2 learning, the L1 constructional network is a shortcut for
L2 learners and it will save them additional cognitive efforts in acquiring theL2 con-
structional network.
In summary, the L2 constructional network is different from that of native speakers.
is difference is most likely ascribable to its being reconstructed from, and thus “con-
taminated” by, L2 learners’ L1 constructional network.
Constructional network inSLA
is section probes into the constructional network and scrutinizes how it relates to L2
learning. Since previous research on SLA from the constructionist perspective has pri-
oritized constructions in the constructional network, we will take another direction by
focusing on connections between constructions and see how they work in L2 learning.
Vertical links inL2 construction learning
e constructional network is constituted by constructions of different degrees of sche-
maticity and complexity, with less schematic constructions vertically linked to more
schematic ones through simple inheritance links and more complex constructions verti-
cally linked to less complex ones through multiple inheritance links. But how are sche-
matic and complex constructions, which fall under the purview of grammar according to
traditional grammarians and generative linguists, learned provided that simple concrete
constructions, i.e., lexical constructions can be learned by rote? is question has long
baffled linguists. e mainstream generative linguists even claim that they cannot be
learned in the face of the poverty of stimulus, but are genetically endowed instead. is
view has dominated the studies of language acquisition for decades.
Recently, however, mounting converging evidence has posed severe challenges to
such a prevalent view. One of the heuristic discoveries coming from the construction-
ist approach to SLA is that L2 learners are capable of learning schematic and complex
constructions through usage events. For example, focusing on the schematic dimen-
sion of syntactic constructions with DEPENDENT VERB-HEADED CONSTITUENTS
(DVCs), Mellow (2008) analyzed the longitudinal data which documents stories writ-
ten by a 12-year-old Spanish learner of English for the depiction of 15 different word-
less picture books over a time span of 201days, and found that schematic constructions
with DVCs emerge from few DVCs selected by specific verbs such as auxiliary be, begin,
decide, go, help, need, try, and want, and gradually becomes grammaticalized and gen-
eralized through extension to a very large range of constructions. Similarly, Ellis and
Ferreira-Junior (2009a, 2009b) were concerned with schematic VACs, including verb
locative construction (VL), verb object locative construction (VOL), and ditransitive
construction (VOO). According to them, the learning of VACs begins with some most
frequent verb-specific instantiations, for example, go for VL, put for VOL, and give for
VOO. Not only fully schematic constructions but partially schematic constructions are
also learned through usage. Bardovi-Harlig (2002), for example, examined the acquisi-
tion of the future constructions will and going to by 16 adult L2 English learners from
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Page 11 of 16
Jiangand Wen Asian. J. Second. Foreign. Lang. Educ. (2022) 7:12
four L1 backgrounds (Arabic, Japanese, Korean, and Spanish) and concluded that L2
English learners develop creative uses from early formulaic uses, especially in terms
of going to whereby its latter uses with different verbs and varied person and number
emerge from the formulaic use of I am going to write. A similar process is also observed
in L2 learners’ learning of other partially schematic constructions such as DO-negation
construction (Eskildsen & Cadierno, 2007), modal construction can (Eskildsen, 2008),
and yes/no interrogatives and WH interrogatives (Eskildsen, 2015), and so forth. With
particular regard to the complexity dimension of constructions, Mellow (2006) traced a
Spanish-speaking English learner’s longitudinal development of relative clause construc-
tion, and declared that relative clause construction is learned by the L2 learner only after
its constituting constructions such as subordinate conjunctions, NP constituent con-
structions, modification constructions, and so on, have been acquired, and that complex
relative clause constructions are learned only when simple ones are acquired.
In general, L2 learners’ acquisition of schematic and complex constructions follows a
common sequence that starts from a few unanalyzed chunks or collocations, to low-level
generalizations with limited scope and lexically specified slots, and ultimately to fully
schematic constructions, and from simple patterns to complex constructions. But why
this developmental sequence is observed by L2 learners is still waiting to be uncovered.
We propose that the usage-based learning sequence of schematic and complex con-
structions is motivated by vertical links in the constructional network, though vari-
ous other motivations may have collaborated. More precisely, single inheritance links
motivate the increasing schematicity, whereas multiple inheritance links motivate the
increasing complexity of L2 constructions.
L2 learners first identify and store a few unanalyzed chunks or collocations based on
inputs and the situated contexts of usage. With more repeating inputs available and by
recourse to general cognitive ability such as categorization and analogy, they generalize
over these previously learned chunks or collocations, which gives rise to partially filled
constructions. At the same time, single inheritance links between early chunks or collo-
cations and the partially filled constructions are established and stored, which encourage
more similar chunks or collocations and are in turn further strengthened. Once these
partially filled constructions are entrenched and diversified, further generalizations are
made and fully schematic constructions arise. Simultaneously, single inheritance links
between them are built and stored. In the same vein, they provoke more diverse use of
the partially filled constructions and are strengthened in turn. is motivating function
of single inheritance links is endorsed by De Knop and Mollica (2016) and Sung and
Yang (2016), in which the learning of ditransitive phraseologisms and transitive resulta-
tive construction are respectively found to be motivated by literal ditransitive construc-
tions and caused motion construction.
It should be emphasized that both lower-level chunks or collocation, partially filled
constructions, and fully schematic constructions are stored in the constructional net-
work due to single inheritance links which are also stored just like constructions. e
motivation process of single inheritance links is cyclic and can be diagrammatized in
Fig.4.
As for the increasing complexity in their L2 constructions, L2 learners avail them-
selves of multiple inheritance links. ough we are not in favor of assigning complex
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Page 12 of 16
Jiangand Wen Asian. J. Second. Foreign. Lang. Educ. (2022) 7:12
internal structures to construction, constructions, complex constructions in particular,
are at least analyzable in terms of part-whole relations except for links between form and
meaning. Complex constructions contain parts or slots that need to be filled by other
smaller constructions. In this case, in learning a complex construction, L2 learners must
first acquire the smaller constructions that instantiate it. When these smaller constitut-
ing constructions are acquired, they have access to the complex construction. is com-
plex construction is entrenched if multiple inheritance links are fostered between it and
the smaller constructions through conceptual blending. e establishment of multiple
inheritance links will instigate L2 learners’ extended use of types of those constituting
constructions, which further strengthens the links. e multiple inheritance links are
stored together with the complex constructions and their constituting constructions in
the constructional network.
Horizontal links inL2 construction learning
Vertical links motivate L2 learners’ increasing schematicity and complexity in their L2
constructions, or rather, the productivity and creativity of the L2 constructions. In com-
parison, horizontal links affect how constructions are learned by L2 learners. ey may
exert either facilitative or inhibitive effects on L2 construction learning.
It has been expounded in the last section that L2 constructions are learned in a usage-
based fashion. is usage-based process is item- or exemplar-based. Specifically, L2
learners’ productive language abilities emerge from most frequently recurring concrete,
item-based chunks or collocations which act as exemplars. In other words, partially
filled constructions (and eventually fully schematic constructions) are learned and con-
sequently single inheritance links are established based on exemplars. We further argue
that the establishment of single inheritance links is facilitated by horizontal links, or
more accurately, paradigmatic links. Due to paradigmatic links, L2 learners are able to
expand their use of more semantically similar items in the chunks or collocations with
reference to earlier acquired exemplars. For example, in the longitudinal data collected
by Li etal. (2014) on L2 learner’s learning of go- and come-specific motion construc-
tions, the L2 learner’s expression of Path relies only on a limited number of prepositions
(e.g., to, in) and satellites (e.g., down, home) which function as the exemplars in their
first recording periods, but increasingly varied linguistic resources are witnessed in later
recording periods. It is also because of paradigmatic links that more inputs are chunked
the way earlier acquired exemplars are chunked. As is pointed out by Ellis and Ferreira-
Junior (2009b), exemplars serve as cues for categorizing different inputs as examples of
Fully schematic constructions
Partially filled constructions
Unanalyzed chunks or collocations
Fig. 4 Motivation process of single inheritance links
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Page 13 of 16
Jiangand Wen Asian. J. Second. Foreign. Lang. Educ. (2022) 7:12
the target construction. With more varied items alternating with the exemplar chunks or
collocations and more exemplar-like chunks, single inheritance links are fostered more
easily. In this way, paradigmatic links facilitate the establishment of single inheritance
links and hence the learning of more schematic constructions.
Vertical links may also inhibit the learning of some L2 constructions. is is especially
true of allostructional links which generally connect constructions with similar mean-
ings. Constructions with similar meanings are often challenging to differentiate. ey
usually compete with each other in the process of L2 learning, and pose serious prob-
lems for L2 learners. According to Xu and Zhang (2020), who studied Chinese-speaking
English learners’ acquisition of four English constructions, i.e., theactive construction,
theverbal passive construction, theadjectival passive construction, and themiddle con-
struction, theadjectival passive construction is more difficult to learn than its allostruc-
tion, the verbal passive construction, because the latter impedes an accurate construe
of the meaning of the former, whereas themiddle construction is more difficult to learn
than its allostruction, the intransitive construction, for the same reason.
In this section, a precursory elucidation of how theconstructional network works in
SLA is offered with particular attention paid to the two dimensions of connections in the
constructional network. It is argued that vertical links underlie L2 learners’ acquisition
of schematic and complex constructions while horizontal links may either facilitate or
inhibit L2 construction learning.
Conclusion
e ultimate goal of SLA is to acquire a native-like L2, which is apparently realized by
the complete mastery of the L2 knowledge. In line with the tenet of Construction Gram-
mar, linguistic knowledge is structured into a constructional network. In this sense, SLA
is in essence the learning of the L2 constructional network. However, owing to differ-
ences in the state of conceptual development, the pre-existence of L1 knowledge, and
the distortion of language inputs, the L2 constructional network is different from that of
native speakers. Or rather, it bears the imprint of L2 learners’ L1 constructional network,
to the extent that the former is the reconstruction of the latter.
Zooming in on the constructional network, how it works in SLA can at least be illus-
trated by the motivating function of vertical links in L2 learners’ acquisition of sche-
matic and complex constructions and the facilitative or inhibitive effect of horizontal
links in L2 construction learning. It is nevertheless noteworthy that such a description
is precursory and nonexclusive. Future in-depth examinations are urgently expected as
to such general issues as how the L2 constructional network emerges, what roles social
cognition plays in the emergence of the L2 constructional network, and to such specific
issues as how vertical and horizontal links interact in L2 construction learning, how
theinhibitive effect of horizontal links can be resolved, and how, most probably, multiple
dimensions of links function in L2 construction learning.
Acknowledgements
Not applicable.
Authors informations
Canzhong Jiang is currently a postdoctoral researcher at Chinese Language and Literature Postdoctoral Research
Station, Southwest University, Chongqing, China. His main research interest is in cognitive linguistics, especially applied
cognitive linguistics and construction grammar.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Page 14 of 16
Jiangand Wen Asian. J. Second. Foreign. Lang. Educ. (2022) 7:12
Xu Wen is Professor of Linguistics at Southwest University, Chongqing, China. His research interests include cognitive
linguistics, language teaching, and pragmatics, with a special focus on applied cognitive linguistics, construction gram-
mar, and cognitive and intercultural pragmatics. He is the co-editor of Cognitive Linguistic Studies (John Benjamins) with
Professor Zoltán Kövecses. He is the president of the China Cognitive Translation Association.
Authors contributions
CJ drafted this article under the guidance of XW, and XW substantively revised it especially in terms of its third part. Both
authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Funding
This paper is not funded by any funding bodies.
Availability of data and materials
Not applicable.
Declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate
Not applicable.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Received: 22 March 2022 Accepted: 28 March 2022
References
Baicchi, A. (2016). The role of syntax and semantics in constructional priming: Experimental evidence from Italian uni-
versity learners of English through a sentence-elicitation task. In S. De Knop & G. Gilquin (Eds.), Applied construction
grammar (pp. 211–236). De Gruyter Mouton.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2002). A new starting point? Investigating formulaic use and input in future expression. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition, 24(2), 189–198. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1017/ S0272 26310 20020 36
Bybee, J. (2010). Language, usage, and cognition. Cambridge University Press.
Cappelle, B. (2006). Particle placement and the case for ‘allostructions.’ Constructions, 1, 1–28.
Chomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of language: Its nature, origin and use. Praeger.
Conklin, K., & Schmitt, N. (2008). Formulaic sequences: Are they processed more quickly than nonformulaic language by
native and nonnative speakers? Applied Linguistics, 29(1), 72–89. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1093/ applin/ amm022
Croft, W. (2001). Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford University Press.
Dąbrowska, E. (2012). Different speakers, different grammars: Individual differences in native language attainment.
Linguistic Approaches Bilingualism, 2(3), 219–253. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1075/ lab.2. 3. 01dab
Dąbrowska, E. (2020). Language as a phenomenon of the third kind. Cognitive Linguistics, 31(2), 213–229. https:// doi. org/
10. 1515/ cog- 2019- 0029
Dahl, A. (2015). Input and language competence in early-start foreign language classrooms. In T. Cadierno & S. W. Eskild-
sen (Eds.), Usage-based perspectives on second language learning (pp. 125–151). De Gruyter Mouton.
De Knop, S., & Mollica, F. (2016). A construction-based analysis of German ditransitive phraseologisms for language peda-
gogy. In S. De Knop & G. Gilquin (Eds.), Applied construction grammar (pp. 53–88). De Gruyter Mouton.
De Vaere, H., Kolkmann, J., & Belligh, T. (2020). Allostructions revisited. Journal of Pragmatics, 170, 96–111. https:// doi. org/
10. 1016/j. pragma. 2020. 08. 016
Diessel, H. (2013). Construction grammar and first language acquisition. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford
handbook of construction grammar (pp. 347–364). Oxford University Press.
Ellis, N. C. (2003). Constructions, chunking, and connectionism: The emergence of second language structure. In C. J.
Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 63–103). Blackwell Publishing.
Ellis, N. C. (2012). Formulaic language and second language acquisition: Zipf and the phrasal teddy bear. Annual Review of
Applied Linguistics, 32, 17–44. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1017/ S0267 19051 20000 25
Ellis, N. C., & Cadierno, T. (2009). Constructing a second language: Introduction to the special section. Annual Review of
Cognitive Linguistics, 7(1), 111–139. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1075/ arcl.7. 05ell
Ellis, N. C., & Collins, L. (2009). Input and second language acquisition: The roles of frequency, form, and function. The
Modern Language Journal, 93(3), 329–336. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 1540- 4781. 2009. 00893.x
Ellis, N. C., & Ferreira-Junior, F. (2009a). Construction learning as a function of frequency, frequency distribution, and func-
tion. The Modern Language Journal, 93(3), 370–385. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 1540- 4781. 2009. 00896.x
Ellis, N. C., & Ferreira-Junior, F. (2009b). Constructions and their acquisition: Islands and the distinctiveness of their occu-
pancy. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 7(1), 188–221. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1075/ arcl.7. 08ell
Ellis, N. C., Römer, U., & O’Donnell, M. B. (2016). Usage-based approaches to language acquisition and processing: Cognitive
and corpus investigations of construction grammar. Wiley-Blackwell.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Page 15 of 16
Jiangand Wen Asian. J. Second. Foreign. Lang. Educ. (2022) 7:12
Eskildsen, S. W. (2008). Constructing another language—Usage-based linguistics in second language acquisition.
Applied Linguistics, 30(3), 335–357. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1093/ applin/ amn037
Eskildsen, S. W. (2015). What counts as a developmental sequence? Exemplar-based L2 learning of English questions.
Language Learning, 65, 33–62. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ lang. 12090
Eskildsen, S. W. (2018). L2 constructions and interactional competence: Subordination and coordination in English
L2 learning. In A. Tyler, L. Huang, & H. Jan (Eds.), What is applied cognitive linguistics? (pp. 63–97). De Gruyter
Mouton.
Eskildsen, S. W., & Cadierno, T. (2007). Are recurring multi-word expressions really syntactic freezes? Second language
acquisition from the perspective of usage-based linguistics. In M. Nenonen & S. Niemi (Eds.), Collocations and
idioms 1: Papers from the first Nordic conference on syntactic freezes (pp. 86–99). Joensuu University Press.
Eskildsen, S. W., Cadierno, T., & Li, P. (2015). On the development of motion constructions in four learners of L2 Eng-
lish. In T. Cadierno & S. W. Eskildsen (Eds.), Usage-based perspectives on second language learning (pp. 207–232).
De Gruyter Mouton.
Garibyan, A., Balog, E., & Herbst, T. (2019). L2-constructions that go together—More on valency constructions and
learner language. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association, 7(1), 9–30. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1515/
gcla- 2019- 0002
Gilquin, G. (2016). Input-dependent L2 acquisition: Causative constructions in English as a foreign and second lan-
guage. In S. De Knop & G. Gilquin (Eds.), Applied construction grammar (pp. 115–148). De Gruyter Mouton.
Gilquin, G., & De Knop, S. (2016). Exploring L2 constructionist approaches. In S. De Knop & G. Gilquin (Eds.), Applied
construction grammar (pp. 3–17). De Gruyter Mouton.
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. The University of
Chicago Press.
Goldberg, A. E. (2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford University Press.
Goldberg, A. E. (2013). Constructionist approaches. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of
construction grammar (pp. 15–31). Oxford University Press.
Gries, S. T., & Wulff, S. (2005). Do foreign language learners also have constructions? Annual Review of Cognitive Lin-
guistics, 3(1), 182–200. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1075/ arcl.3. 10gri
Gries, S. T., & Wulff, S. (2009). Psycholinguistic and corpus-linguistic evidence for L2 constructions. Annual Review of
Cognitive Linguistics, 7(1), 163–186. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1075/ arcl.7. 07gri
Hijazo-Gascón, A., Cadierno, T., & Ibarretxe-Antuñano, I. (2016). Learning the placement caused motion construction
in L2 Spanish. In S. De Knop & G. Gilquin (Eds.), Applied construction grammar (pp. 185–210). De Gruyter Mouton.
Hilpert, M. (2014). Construction grammar and its application to English. Edinburgh University Press.
Hilpert, M. (2018). Three open questions in Diachronic construction grammar. In E. Coussé, P. Andersson, & J. Olofsson
(Eds.), Grammaticalization meets construction grammar (pp. 21–39). John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Hilpert, M., & Diessel, H. (2017). Entrenchment in construction grammar. In H.-J. Schmid (Ed.), Entrenchment and
the psychology of language learning: How we reorganize and adapt linguistic knowledge (pp. 57–74). De Gruyter
Mouton.
Ibbotson, P. (2020). What it takes to talk : Exploring developmental cognitive linguistics. De Gruyter Mouton.
Jiang, C., & Yang, K. (2021). Concepts and conceptualization. In X. Wen & J. R. Taylor (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of
cognitive linguistics (pp. 255–267). Routledge.
Jiang, N., & Nekrasova, T. M. (2007). The processing of formulaic sequences by second language speakers. The Modern
Language Journal, 91(3), 433–445. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 1540- 4781. 2007. 00589.x
Kidd, E., Donnelly, S., & Christiansen, M. H. (2018). Individual differences in language acquisition and processing.
Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 22(2), 154–169. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. tics. 2017. 11. 006
Lakoff, G. (1990). The invariance hypothesis: Is abstract reason based on image schemas? Cognitive Linguistics, 1(1),
39–74. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1515/ cogl. 1990.1. 1. 39
Lemmens, M., & Perrez, J. (2018). French onions and Dutch trains: Typological perspectives on learners’ descriptions
of spatial scenes. In A. Tyler, L. Huang, & H. Jan (Eds.), What is applied cognitive linguistics? (pp. 121–150). Mouton
de Gruyter.
Li, P., Eskildsen, S. W., & Cadierno, T. (2014). Tracing an L2 learner’s motion constructions over time: A usage-based
classroom investigation. The Modern Language Journal, 98(2), 612–628. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ modl. 12091
Liang, J. (2002) Sentence comprehension by Chinese learners of English: Verb centered or construction based. M.A. dis-
sertation, Guangdong University of Foreign Studies.
Lieven, E. (2016). Usage-based approaches to language development: Where do we go from here? Language and
Cognition, 8(3), 346–368. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1017/ langc og. 2016. 16
Luo, H. (2021). Cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition. In X. Wen & J. R. Taylor (Eds.), The Routledge
handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 556–567). Routledge.
MartínezVázquez, M. (2008). Constructions in learner language. CÍRCULO De Lingüística Aplicada a La Comunicación
(CLAC), 36, 40–62.
Mellow, J. D. (2006). The emergence of second language syntax: A case study of the acquisition of relative clauses.
Applied Linguistics, 27(4), 645–670. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1093/ applin/ aml031
Mellow, J. D. (2008). The emergence of complex syntax: A longitudinal case study of the ESL development of
dependency resolution. Lingua, 118(4), 499–521. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. lingua. 2007. 01. 007
Myles, F. (2004). From data to theory: The over representation of linguistic knowledge in SLA. Transactions of the
Philological Society, 102, 139–168. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 0079- 1636. 2004. 00133.x
Pennington, D. C. (2000). Social cognition. Routledge.
Perek, F. (2015). Argument structure in usage-based construction grammar: Experimental and corpus-based perspectives.
John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Römer, U., O’Donnell, M. B., & Ellis, N. C. (2014). Second language learner knowledge of verb-argument constructions:
Effects of language transfer and typology. The Modern Language Journal, 98(4), 952–975. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/
modl. 12149
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Page 16 of 16
Jiangand Wen Asian. J. Second. Foreign. Lang. Educ. (2022) 7:12
Römer, U., Skalicky, S., & 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(2), 303–331. https:// doi.
org/ 10. 1515/ cllt- 2016- 0055
Schmid, H.-J. (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 knowl-
edge (pp. 9–35). De Gruyter Mouton.
Schmid, H.-J. (2020). The dynamics of the linguistic system: Usage, conventionalization, and entrenchment. Oxford University
Press.
Smirnova, E., & Sommerer, L. (2020). Introduction: The nature of the node and the network—Open questions in Dia-
chronic Construction Grammar. In L. Sommerer & E. Smirnova (Eds.), Nodes and networks in Diachronic Construction
Grammar (pp. 1–42). John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Sung, M., & Yang, H. K. (2016). Effects of construction-centered instruction on Korean students’ learning of English
transitive resultative constructions. In S. De Knop & G. Gilquin (Eds.), Applied construction grammar (pp. 89–113). De
Gruyter Mouton.
Taylor, S. E. (1981). The interface of cognitive and social psychology. In J. Harvey (Ed.), Cognition, social behavior, and the
environment (pp. 189–211). Erlbaum.
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Harvard University Press.
Traugott, E. C., & Trousdale, G. (2013). Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford University Press.
Valenzuela Manzanares, J., & Rojo López, A. M. (2008). What can language learners tell us about constructions? In S. De
Knop & T. De Rycker (Eds.), Cognitive approaches to pedagogical grammar (pp. 197–230). De Gruyter Mouton.
Van de Velde, F. (2014). Degeneracy: The maintenance of constructional networks. In R. Boogaart, T. Colleman, & G. Rutten
(Eds.), Extending the scope of construction grammar (pp. 141–179). De Gruyter Mouton.
Wen, X. (2019). Sociocognitive Linguistics based on social cognition. Modern Foreign Languages, 3, 293–305.
Wen, X., & Taylor, J. R. (2021). Introduction: Cognitive linguistics: Retrospect and prospect. In X. Wen & J. R. Taylor (Eds.), The
Routledge handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 1–15). Routledge.
Xu, C., & Zhang, W. (2020). Effects of form-meaning mapping features on English verb argument construction acquisition.
Foreign Languages and Their Teaching, 2, 27–35. https:// doi. org/ 10. 13458/j. cnki. flatt. 004664
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Terms and Conditions
Springer Nature journal content, brought to you courtesy of Springer Nature Customer Service Center GmbH (“Springer Nature”).
Springer Nature supports a reasonable amount of sharing of research papers by authors, subscribers and authorised users (“Users”), for small-
scale personal, non-commercial use provided that all copyright, trade and service marks and other proprietary notices are maintained. By
accessing, sharing, receiving or otherwise using the Springer Nature journal content you agree to these terms of use (“Terms”). For these
purposes, Springer Nature considers academic use (by researchers and students) to be non-commercial.
These Terms are supplementary and will apply in addition to any applicable website terms and conditions, a relevant site licence or a personal
subscription. These Terms will prevail over any conflict or ambiguity with regards to the relevant terms, a site licence or a personal subscription
(to the extent of the conflict or ambiguity only). For Creative Commons-licensed articles, the terms of the Creative Commons license used will
apply.
We collect and use personal data to provide access to the Springer Nature journal content. We may also use these personal data internally within
ResearchGate and Springer Nature and as agreed share it, in an anonymised way, for purposes of tracking, analysis and reporting. We will not
otherwise disclose your personal data outside the ResearchGate or the Springer Nature group of companies unless we have your permission as
detailed in the Privacy Policy.
While Users may use the Springer Nature journal content for small scale, personal non-commercial use, it is important to note that Users may
not:
use such content for the purpose of providing other users with access on a regular or large scale basis or as a means to circumvent access
control;
use such content where to do so would be considered a criminal or statutory offence in any jurisdiction, or gives rise to civil liability, or is
otherwise unlawful;
falsely or misleadingly imply or suggest endorsement, approval , sponsorship, or association unless explicitly agreed to by Springer Nature in
writing;
use bots or other automated methods to access the content or redirect messages
override any security feature or exclusionary protocol; or
share the content in order to create substitute for Springer Nature products or services or a systematic database of Springer Nature journal
content.
In line with the restriction against commercial use, Springer Nature does not permit the creation of a product or service that creates revenue,
royalties, rent or income from our content or its inclusion as part of a paid for service or for other commercial gain. Springer Nature journal
content cannot be used for inter-library loans and librarians may not upload Springer Nature journal content on a large scale into their, or any
other, institutional repository.
These terms of use are reviewed regularly and may be amended at any time. Springer Nature is not obligated to publish any information or
content on this website and may remove it or features or functionality at our sole discretion, at any time with or without notice. Springer Nature
may revoke this licence to you at any time and remove access to any copies of the Springer Nature journal content which have been saved.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Springer Nature makes no warranties, representations or guarantees to Users, either express or implied
with respect to the Springer nature journal content and all parties disclaim and waive any implied warranties or warranties imposed by law,
including merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose.
Please note that these rights do not automatically extend to content, data or other material published by Springer Nature that may be licensed
from third parties.
If you would like to use or distribute our Springer Nature journal content to a wider audience or on a regular basis or in any other manner not
expressly permitted by these Terms, please contact Springer Nature at
onlineservice@springernature.com