• No results found

University of Groningen Valuing variability Lesonen, Sirkku

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "University of Groningen Valuing variability Lesonen, Sirkku"

Copied!
2
0
0

Bezig met laden.... (Bekijk nu de volledige tekst)

Hele tekst

(1)

University of Groningen

Valuing variability Lesonen, Sirkku

DOI:

10.33612/diss.124923644

IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite from it. Please check the document version below.

Document Version

Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record

Publication date: 2020

Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research database

Citation for published version (APA):

Lesonen, S. (2020). Valuing variability: Dynamic usage-based principles in the L2 development of four Finnish language learners. University of Groningen. https://doi.org/10.33612/diss.124923644

Copyright

Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).

Take-down policy

If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.

Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons the number of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum.

(2)

Propositions

1. But is it truly possible to separate the learner from learning, or is it the case that each

individual achieves the success that he or she does in a unique way?Larsen-Freeman &

Cameron

2. Using an onomasiological approach -- which starts the investigation of learner language development from meaning rather than form -- sheds new light on how L2 learners express their own ideas on their own terms.

3. Predicting the exact direction of changes in an L2 system is not possible because of dynamic interactions at all levels: all of the learner’s linguistic subsystems are

interconnected and the learner is interacting with the target-language-speaking community, which in turn is embedded in other systems, such as the socio-political context.

4. In the expression of a particular meaning, there are points in a learner’s

development when one type of construction might be used to such an extent that another type is temporarily used less. This kind of interaction in learner language is called competition.

5. Variability occurs when the learner tries out different strategies and new and old strategies may alternate.

6.

Constructions can develop in two ways, either from lexically specific patterns or from relatively abstract schemas.

7. Only a mediocre person is always at his best. W. Somerset Maugham

8. Suomen kieli ei ole vaikea oppia. ’Finnish language is not difficult to learn.’ Maisa Martin

Referenties

GERELATEERDE DOCUMENTEN

The returning process is an important part of the company performance which could be improved and apparel is the product category with (one of) the

All four learners, Lena, Khadiza, Alvaro, and Jungo, used verbal and adjectival constructions almost exclusively to express evaluation and these two

One major finding of this study is that the different linguistic means that learners use to express evaluation, namely verbal and adjectival constructions, are in

Voidaankin siis todeta, että kilpailu ja kielessä esiintyvä vaihtelu ovat yleisiä kehittyvän toisen kielen piirteitä, sillä niitä on pystytty tunnistamaan, kun kieltä

Dynamic systems theory and a usage-based approach to second language development. Lowie (eds.) A dynamic approach to second language

PAR partitive (partitiveness) PL plural PST past tense PPC past participle Q interrogative SG singular 1 1 st person ending 2 2 nd person ending 3 3 rd person

Valuing variability: Dynamic usage-based principles in the L2 development of four Finnish language

Because our interest was in finding out whether our participants’ constructions develop from lexically specific to productive patterns, we calculated the number of different forms