Introduction
Usage-based theories hold that our mental representation of language is shaped by a lifetime of usage. Although the precise nature of such representation remains hotly contested (e.g., Ambridge, Reference Ambridge2020), a consensus emerges that usage events shape first (L1) and second language (L2) users’ constructional knowledge and use. There is substantial evidence that L1 and L2 users are sensitive to frequencies of constructions of all grain sizes and recruit this information in processing and learning (Ambridge et al., Reference Ambridge, Kidd, Rowland and Theakston2015; Supasiraprapa, Reference Supasiraprapa2019). In addition to frequencies of individual linguistic items, L1 and L2 users have been found to encode statistical associations of lexemes and constructions. For instance, the degree to which verbs (e.g., regard) were attracted to the as-predicative construction (e.g., We regarded it as a serious problem)—as established by verb-construction association strength scores—was found to predict L1 English speakers’ use of the construction (Gries et al., Reference Gries, Hampe and Schönefeld2005). Likewise, L1 Dutch speakers’ production of double-object and prepositional dative constructions was explained by association strength of verbs and constructions (Colleman & Bernolet, Reference Colleman, Bernolet, Divjak and Gries2012). With respect to L2 users, Ellis and Ferreira-Junior (Reference Ellis and Ferreira-Junior2009) found that verbs produced by naturalistic L2 English learners in verb-argument constructions (VACs) such as a verb locative (VL) construction (e.g., he walked across the field) were those that are strongly attracted to the constructions, whereas Gries and Wulff (Reference Gries and Wulff2009) demonstrated that the strength of associations between verbs and to-infinitive/gerundial complements (e.g., keep going vs. want to know) significantly predicted a complementation pattern that L1 German-L2 English learners supplied in a sentence-completion task (see also Azazil, Reference Azazil2020). In addition, the effect of verb-construction contingencies can be observed in L2 comprehension. L1 Korean-L2 English learners rated resultative sentences (e.g., David made the room dark) as more grammatical when they were paired with strongly attracted verbs (e.g., make or get) than when paired with weakly attracted verbs (e.g., wipe or paint; Sung & Kim, Reference Sung and Kim2022).
Although extensive research during the past 2 decades has demonstrated that frequency and other forms of statistical regularities in the input shape L1 and L2 speaker’s knowledge of constructions, usage-based researchers have long argued that usage events constitute both language input and output (Kemmer & Barlow, Reference Kemmer, Barlow, Barlow and Kemmer2000) and that our linguistic knowledge is shaped as much by what we produce as by what we comprehend (Ellis, Reference Ellis2019, Reference Ellis2022; Schmid, Reference Schmid2015). For example, as Ellis (Reference Ellis2022) clearly pointed out, hearing, reading, and speaking are usage events that promote construction learning and entrenchment. Despite this long-standing view of “usage,” we are not aware of any studies that investigate how L2 speakers’ own constructional use—independent of input statistics to which L2 users are exposed—further affects their constructional knowledge.
Addressing this research gap, the current study attempted to operationalize language output and probed the effect of both input and output on L2 users’ constructional knowledge. We focused on two closely related adjectival complementation patterns in the introductory-it construction, as in it is clear that their plan wasn’t successful (an adjective + that clause, which we will refer to as an Adj-that variant) and it is difficult to know what they stand for (an adjective + to-infinitive clause or an Adj-to variant henceforth). Corpus studies have found that the two variants—along with other patterns—of the introductory-it construction are attested much more frequently in academic discourse (Biber et al., Reference Biber, Johansson, Leech, Conrad and Finegan1999; Larsson, Reference Larsson2016). This focus afforded us an opportunity to investigate the role of both input and output on L1 and L2 users’ academic knowledge of this construction, as they are highly likely to be exposed to this construction and use it in their academic studies. Specifically for the two variants, we found via our cue-outcome contingency analysis with the measure ΔP (Gries & Ellis, Reference Gries and Ellis2015) that each variant did attract certain adjectives, which will be reported in the Method. With this in mind, we asked whether L1 Thai-L2 English users, who were graduate students at U.S. universities, would be able to generate adjectives that were distinctly associated with the target variants (i.e., cued responses of the variants). In an elicitation task, L2 users were prompted with schematic frames (e.g., It is [blank] that …) and instructed to complete each one with as many words as they could within an allotted time. We reasoned that, through constant exposure to and active use of academic English, this group of L2 users would be attuned to adjective–variant contingencies, thus being able to supply cued responses of the target variants. To test the effect of input statistics on L2 users’ constructional knowledge, we predicted learners’ responses on the elicitation task from the association strength of adjectives and variants in the academic section of Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA), which contains approximately 121 million words in peer-reviewed academic articles from a wide variety of disciplines (Davies, Reference Davies2019). Thus, as in previous usage-based research (Conklin & Thul, Reference Conklin, Thul, Godfroid and Hopp2023), we used data from a large corpus as an index of language input to which L1 and L2 users are exposed. Further, to test whether learners’ own constructional use affects their knowledge, L2 users rated how frequently they completed various academic writing tasks in their graduate studies. We entered this indirect measure of constructional use into a statistical analysis. Finally, as L2 construction use expands as a function of L2 proficiency (e.g., Eskildsen, Reference Eskildsen2012; Römer & Berger, Reference Römer and Berger2019), we also probed whether L2 users’ generation of cued responses can be accounted for by their L2 proficiency.
The two variants of the introductory-it construction
The introductory-it construction, also known as anticipatory-it or it-extraposition, consists of various patterns, some of which are shown in (1). What these diverse patterns share syntactically is a matrix predicate with the subject pronoun it that does not have anaphoric reference and a finite (e.g., that-clause) or nonfinite (e.g., to-infinitive) subordinate clause (Quirk et al., Reference Quirk, Greenbaum, Leech and Svartvik1985). The construction serves primarily to introduce and evaluate propositions in an objective and neutral manner (Groom, Reference Groom2005; Herriman, Reference Herriman2000; Hewings & Hewings, Reference Hewings and Hewings2002). Objectivity is achieved, it is argued, through the use of the dummy it. With personal pronouns as subject of the matrix predicate (e.g., I am glad the event went well), an evaluation can be attributed to a specific person. Conversely, an evaluator is obscured with the pronoun it (e.g., it is good that the event went well). That an evaluative stance toward propositions cannot be assigned to a specific person helps depersonalize an evaluation (Kaltenböck, Reference Kaltenböck2005) and creates the impression that the evaluation is impersonal and objective. The introductory-it construction is thus well suited to academic writing, which emphasizes objectivity, among many other things (Hyland & Jiang, Reference Hyland and Jiang2017), and previous corpus studies have shown that the construction is highly frequent in academic prose (Biber et al., Reference Biber, Johansson, Leech, Conrad and Finegan1999; Groom, Reference Groom2005).
The present study focuses on two patterns of the introductory-it construction: the Adj-that (schematically, it V ADJ that) and Adj-to variants (it V ADJ to-infinitive), as exemplified by (1d) and (1e), respectively. We investigated the two variants primarily for two reasons. First, they were the two most frequent types of the construction in academic prose (Larsson, Reference Larsson2016, Reference Larsson2017), and we expected our target participants to be familiar with such a genre and by extension the two variants because of their graduate-level studies. Second, although less frequent patterns (e.g., it V that as exemplified by it follows that …) can be restrictive with respect to lexical items they select, the two variants under investigation do accept a diverse set of adjectives, thus affording us the opportunity to elicit multiple responses per variant in our experiment.
Previous corpus studies have shown that the two variants perform specific rhetorical functions in academic English (i.e., Adj-that assessing the likelihood or validity of propositions and Adj-to evaluating the necessity or difficulty of procedures); consequently, they seem to co-occur with adjectives that are semantically compatible (Groom, Reference Groom2005; Herriman, Reference Herriman2000; Larsson, Reference Larsson2016). For example, inspecting Tables 4 and 6 in Peacock (Reference Peacock2011), we can see that clear and evident appear to be used only with Adj-that and difficult and hard only with Adj-to (see also Groom, Reference Groom2005, p. 269). Though some adjectives such as important and possible do occur with both variants, they do not encode the same meaning. For example, possible + to-infinitive denotes the difficulty of a process, whereas possible + that functions as a hedge (Hewings & Hewings, Reference Hewings and Hewings2002; Peacock, Reference Peacock2011). Therefore, the two constructions are not synonymous (Römer, Reference Römer2009).
In this study, we identified the degree to which individual adjectives were attracted to one of the introductory-it variants. A similar type of analysis was previously done to identify adjective–infinitive pairings in the Adj-to variant (e.g., it is important to note …; Larsson & Kaatari, Reference Larsson and Kaatari2019). Usage-based studies have consistently shown that association strength between lexemes and constructions in the input determines L2 constructional learning and use. For example, Ellis and Ferreira-Junior (Reference Ellis and Ferreira-Junior2009) found that verbs that were distinctively associated with VACs (e.g., go for the VL construction) were acquired early. Likewise, words that are strongly attracted to particular constructions are judged to be more acceptable in language comprehension and accessed first in language production (Ellis et al., Reference Ellis, O’Donnell and Römer2014; Gries & Wulff, Reference Gries and Wulff2009; Sung & Kim, Reference Sung and Kim2022). Our cue-outcome contingency analysis was conducted to establish the adjective–variant associations in both Adj-that and Adj-to. The objective was to probe whether attraction between adjectives and variants in the input would play an instrumental part in shaping the knowledge of the introductory-it construction of competent L2 users, who have had extensive exposure to the construction through their academic studies.
Assessing the contribution of language production in L2 users’ constructional knowledge
Although the importance of input has been consistently demonstrated in L2 studies from usage-based perspectives, input itself is not the sole determinant of L2 constructional knowledge. Usage-based researchers have long argued that L1 and L2 users’ linguistic knowledge is built up from what users comprehend in their idiosyncratic linguistic environment as well as from what they themselves produce to accomplish communication goals (Kemmer & Barlow, Reference Kemmer, Barlow, Barlow and Kemmer2000). More recent proposals in usage-based models have also placed both language input and output at the center of language development and use (Ellis, Reference Ellis2019, Reference Ellis2022; Schmid, Reference Schmid2015).
Despite an equally important role of input and output in most—if not all—usage-based models, research investigating L2 users’ knowledge and use of abstract, schematic constructions such as VACs has focused almost exclusively on the effect of input statistics, as evidenced by the body of research reviewed thus far (e.g., Azazil, Reference Azazil2020; Ellis et al., Reference Ellis, O’Donnell and Römer2014). Although more recent usage-based studies have begun to address L2 output, the focus is still on determining the effect of input. Crossley et al. (Reference Crossley, Kyle and Salsbury2016), for example, showed that the words L2 users produced were the ones they heard in their input.
In this study, we sought to establish the relative contribution of L2 users’ own language production on their constructional knowledge. Specifically, we quantified how actively L2 users engaged in academic writing and related this indirect measure of active constructional use to L2 users’ performance in an elicitation task. Dąbrowska (Reference Dąbrowska, Dąbrowska and Divjak2015) demonstrated that L1 speakers’ constructional knowledge differed as a function of linguistic experience. For instance, graduate students and university lecturers performed significantly better than skilled workers on English comprehension tests involving complex structures such as parasitic gaps. Such a difference, Dąbrowska argues, is because university students and professors are exposed to more complex language and they also produce complex structures more often.
Previous corpus studies of the introductory-it construction have likewise suggested that the use of the two variants may be affected by how often L2 writers produce the forms themselves (Römer, 2009), although this issue has never been empirically validated with a statistical analysis. Evidence to date has come from corpus studies comparing L2 writers with published authors. The latter group, which presumably consists of both L1 and L2 English writers, is generally thought to make more use of the construction.Footnote 1 It was found, for example, that as opposed to more experienced writers, L2 users often made use of “extreme” adjectives that are not suitable for academic writing (e.g., dangerous, fascinating, and funny; Larsson, Reference Larsson2019; Römer, Reference Römer2009).
How might L2 users’ active use of constructions further promote their constructional knowledge? Regarding the introductory-it construction, it may be that to conform to an academic register, L2 users will more likely than not make use of the construction in their own language production. Thus, the more L2 users perform academic writing, the more opportunities that they have to use both Adj-that and Adj-to variants. This in turn should attune L2 users to statistical associations between adjectives and variants that exist in the construction. To explore this possibility, we collected as part of the experiment participants’ self-rated academic writing engagement and used the scores to indirectly assess L2 users’ active use of the introductory-it construction.
The current study
In this study, we assessed the relative contribution of the two sides of usage to L2 users’ constructional knowledge. Specifically, we asked whether adjective–variant association strength in the input and L1 Thai-L2 English users’ engagement with academic writing, a proxy for language users’ production of introductory-it variants (among many other constructions), would affect learners’ generation of lexemes of the Adj-that and Adj-to variants. To elicit adjectives that were attracted to each variant, we adapted a task that has been used extensively to assess L1 and L2 speakers’ knowledge of verb–VAC associations (e.g., Ellis et al., Reference Ellis, O’Donnell and Römer2014; Römer et al., Reference Römer, Skalicky and Ellis2020). Although the role of statistical contingencies in the input has been well documented for L2 processing and learning (Ellis & Ferreira-Junior, Reference Ellis and Ferreira-Junior2009; Gries & Wulff, Reference Gries and Wulff2009), the effect of L2 users’ own production on their constructional knowledge is largely underexplored. Additionally, previous corpus-based studies have demonstrated that L2 users’ constructional knowledge expands as a function of their L2 proficiency. For example, more advanced L2 users produce more types of VACs and a wider range of verbs within each VAC (Römer & Berger, Reference Römer and Berger2019). As a result, we also tested whether English L2 proficiency—in addition to academic writing engagement—would increase L2 users’ ability to generate cued responses of the Adj-that and Adj-to variants. The two research questions guiding the present study are as follows:
-
1. To what extent do adjective–variant association strength in the input and engagement with academic English writing predict L2 users’ generation of cued responses?
-
2. To what extent is L2 users’ generation of cued responses explained by their L2 English proficiency?
Given the available evidence in usage-based literature, it is predicted that L2 users’ ability to supply lexemes, when prompted with introductory-it variants, will be influenced by statistical associations of adjectives and variants that are present in the input. We further hypothesize that the degree to which L2 users engage in various academic writing tasks will positively affect their performance on the elicitation task. Specifically, we expect L2 users who perform academic writing tasks more frequently overall to be able to supply more cued responses of the target variants. Finally, we predict that English L2 proficiency will positively affect L2 users’ responses. We test our prediction in a mixed-effects logistic regression model; significant effects of one or more predictors offer evidence in support of our prediction(s).
Method
Participants
We recruited 89 participants from two L1 backgrounds: English and Thai.Footnote 2 The L1 Thai-L2 English users were recruited to guard against any transfer effect, as it is generally argued that there is no equivalent construction for the two variants in Thai (Chainarongdejagul, Reference Chainarongdejagul2018). Both groups were graduate students pursuing a master’s or doctoral degree in the United States at the time of data collection. Five participants were subsequently excluded for the following reasons: currently not pursuing a degree (n = 1), not following the instructions (n = 2), and not pursuing a graduate degree in the United States (n = 2). Thus, 84 participants remained. The L2 group consisted of 40 L1 Thai-L2 English speakers (21 PhDs and 19 master’s degrees; 23 female, 16 male, and 1 nonspecified). The L2 participants’ average TOEFL iBT score was 102 out of 120 (SD = 10.3, range: 78–117). The L2 group started learning English at approximately 6.1 years of age (SD = 3.37). Despite having an early start, all but two participants reported not having studied or lived in an English immersion environment before the age of 10. Their stay in an English-speaking country ranged from 8 months to 8 years (M = 3.21 years, SD = 2.02). The other two participants indicated having been exposed to English in a more immersive environment (i.e., living in a family or studying in a school where English was spoken) at an age earlier than 10.Footnote 3 In addition to the L1 Thai-L2 English group, 44 native English-speaking participants were recruited (23 PhDs and 21 master’s degrees; 25 female and 19 male).
Experiment
Stimuli
To construct target items, each of the two introductory-it variants was paired with two linking verbs, is and seem (e.g., it is [blank] that … and it seems [blank] that …). These two verbs were chosen to represent verbs appearing in the construction (Francis et al., Reference Francis, Hunston and Manning1998). Doing so yielded a total of four target items. Filler items were constructed from two types: “It is a/an [blank] noun” and “It seems like a/an [blank] noun” such that they resembled the target items. Fillers, however, required attributive rather than predicative adjectives. Our decision to elicit adjectives even with fillers was informed by responses collected during our piloting with a different sample of 23 participants. It was found that with fillers eliciting verbs (e.g., It [blank] across), nonadjective answers in the target items accounted for approximately 45% of the total responses; we obtained far fewer nonadjective responses in the target items with the current set of fillers, as will be shown below. To construct fillers, we selected nouns from the Academic Word List (Coxhead, Reference Coxhead2000) and, for each one, performed searches on an academic section of COCA. We ensured that the first 50 frequency-sorted attributive adjectives of each noun were not among the top 25 adjectives strongly cued by either variant. This was done to guard against any spillover effect from filler to target items. There were nine fillers in total.
Writing experience
Participants completed an 18-item academic writing experience questionnaire (AWE-Q), developed by the first author of the present study and validated with item response theory models in a previous unpublished study (Suethanapornkul & McKay, Reference Suethanapornkul and McKay2018). Designed to gauge writers’ experience with academic writing, the questionnaire asked participants to rate, on a scale from 1 (very rarely) to 5 (very often), how frequently they performed each of the 18 writing tasks commonly found in academic settings (e.g., submitting an abstract for a conference presentation, submitting a grant proposal, and writing a part of the thesis or dissertation). Participants checked “Does not apply” if certain tasks were not applicable. The experimental stimuli and questionnaire can be found in the Online Supplementary Materials.
For each participant, we dropped items with no responses and calculated average scores, which served as an indirect measure of constructional use in both L1 English and L1 Thai-L2 English participants. The L1 English group engaged in academic writing somewhat frequently (M = 3.43, SD = 0.88, range: 1.78–5); academic-related emails (M = 4.57, SD = 0.76) and course papers (M = 4.40, SD = 0.96) were the two most common tasks the group performed. The average scores of the L2 English group were similar (M = 3.60, SD = 0.96, range: 1.56–5), with academic-related emails (M = 4.75, SD = 0.67) and academic presentations (M = 4.24, SD = 0.89) being the two most common tasks.
Procedure
The full experiment was delivered via Qualtrics. Participants were informed that they would complete an academic English vocabulary test by typing in as many academic English words that were appropriate for a given item in 1 min. After signing an electronic consent form, participants took three practice trials (e.g., as a/an [blank] of …). For each one, after participants completed their answers, the experiment presented three commonly used words in academic writing (e.g., the three words for the frame as a/an [blank] of … were example, percentage, and result).
For the main part of the experiment, each participant saw two target items, one from each variant, interspersed with three fillers, selected randomly from the nine items. The order of the presentation of these two target items was counterbalanced across participants. For methodological comparability, we followed the procedure in Ellis et al. (Reference Ellis, O’Donnell and Römer2014) and Römer et al. (Reference Römer, Skalicky and Ellis2020). Participants completed each of the five trials by typing their answers in the boxes provided, and their responses remained on the screen until the end of each trial (= 1 min). Once the elicitation task was completed, the participants took the AWE-Q and completed a language background questionnaire, also on Qualtrics.
Adjective–variant association strength
To establish adjective–variant association strength in the input of academic English to which language users were potentially exposed, we computed a directional cue-outcome contingency measure, ΔP (Gries & Ellis, Reference Gries and Ellis2015). The measure expresses the likelihood of an outcome occurring when a cue is present as opposed to when it is absent. There are two versions of ΔP; the two differ with respect to what linguistic element is the cue and what the outcome is (Gries, Reference Gries2013). In the context of the present study, the cue can be an adjective and the outcome a variant or vice versa. Because in the experiment participants were given the two introductory-it variants and prompted to complete an empty slot with adjectives, we calculated a version of ΔP where the presence or absence of a variant was the cue and the choice of adjective was the outcome and represented such contingency as ΔP (variant → adjective). For each adjective–variant pair, a ΔP score thus indicates how strongly the variant cues the adjective.
To obtain the ΔP (variant → adjective) scores, we first retrieved from an academic section of COCA through the CQPweb interface (Hardie, Reference Hardie2012) instances of the two introductory-it variants. Our search terms combined part-of-speech tags for verbs with a length requirement, from one to three words, to retrieve different verb tenses and modal verbs (e.g., is, seemed, might be, and could have been). The terms also allowed for intervening adverbial and prepositional phrases before or after an adjective (e.g., it is important for researchers to understand the process). Last, the queries included the to-infinitive and that-clause; thus, only instances where that was explicitly mentioned were retrieved (see Hyland & Jiang, Reference Hyland and Jiang2018, for a similar approach). We retrieved 44,120 hits in total (16,339 Adj-that and 27,781 Adj-to). The search terms, along with example sentences retrieved, are included in the Online Supplementary Materials.
A concordance file was generated such that the two variants were the node with surrounding contexts (+10 words on each side). We then manually removed instances where it had anaphoric reference (e.g., it was able to perform …) or the to-infinitive or that-clause was preceded by other elements but adjectives (e.g., it was good proof that …). We independently coded the first 10% of the file and calculated an interrater agreement, which was 96%. We resolved any discrepancy in our coding through discussion before further coding. After manual editing, we retained 15,862 and 23,627 instances of Adj-that and Adj-to, respectively. Our final preprocessing step included extracting adjectives from the nodes and coding the variant with which each adjective was attested. We additionally lemmatized comparative and superlative adjectives (e.g., good for best and better) and made the spelling consistent (e.g., okay for o.k. and ok). Table 1 presents descriptive information for the two variants. In total, there were 585 types: 262 types appeared with Adj-that and 495 with Adj-to. Of the 262 types, 90 were attested only with Adj-that (49 hapaxes). Likewise, of the 495 types, 323 types appeared solely with Adj-to (152 hapaxes). The two variants shared 172 types. Table 2 presents the top 15 most frequent adjectives of each variant, along with co-occurrence frequencies with each of the constructions.
Table 1. Descriptive information of the two target variants
Note. Hnorm = normalized entropy.
Table 2. The 15 most frequent adjectives of each variant in COCA
In addition to the two target variants, we identified and extracted from COCA five other instantiations of the introductory-it construction, as documented in Francis et al. (Reference Francis, Hunston and Manning1998) and Larsson (Reference Larsson2016). In each of these patterns, a finite or nonfinite subordinate clause is preceded by a matrix predicate with an adjective as the predicate lemma (that is, an element that contributes most to the meaning of the predicate; see Larsson, Reference Larsson2016). Schematic examples of these patterns are it V ADJ wh- (e.g., it is not clear whether the test was reliable) and it V N as ADJ that (e.g., it strikes me as rather odd that nothing was accomplished). Including frequencies of adjectives in these five patterns into a total count enabled us to compute two ΔP (variant → adjective) scores for every adjective, one for each variant, such as ΔP (Adj-that → possible) and ΔP (Adj-to→ possible). In total, we identified 2,300 instances of the five patterns; examples of each pattern can be found in the Supplementary Materials.
A ΔP
(variant → adjective) score for each adjective–variant combination was calculated from frequency counts in a 2 × 2 contingency table as differences of proportions (Gries & Ellis, Reference Gries and Ellis2015, p. 240), and its values range from −1 to +1. Positive ΔP values indicate that the presence of the cue increases the likelihood of the outcome, whereas negative values indicate the opposite. To illustrate, we can establish how strongly Adj-that cues clear by obtaining frequencies when the adjective appears with the variant (n = 2,826) as opposed to when it occurs with Adj-to and other instantiations (n = 523) and summing frequencies of all other adjectives that are attested with Adj-that and with the rest of the patterns but Adj-that (see Table 3). Here, an observed value of ΔP
(Adj-that → clear) is 0.16 (that is, from
$ \frac{\mathrm{2,826}}{\left(\mathrm{2,826}+\mathrm{13,036}\right)}-\frac{523}{\left(523+\mathrm{25,404}\right)} $
). Similarly, we can assess how strongly Adj-to attracts clear by obtaining co-occurrence frequencies between the two elements (n = 2), along with other frequency counts, and constructing a 2 × 2 contingency table, similar to Table 3. Inputting the raw frequencies into a formula, we obtain a ΔP
(Adj-to → clear) score of −0.18. We can therefore see that Adj-that attracts clear but Adj-to repels it. We calculated observed ΔP
(variant → adjective) scores for all of the 585 types identified from the corpus analysis.
Table 3. The 2 × 2 co-occurrence frequencies of clear
The ΔP scores capture adjective–variant contingencies that are present in the input of academic English to which language users are exposed. To ensure that the ΔP scores we included in our statistical analysis (see below) solely reflected such associations, we completed additional steps, as discussed in Gries (Reference Gries2022) and recommended by one of the reviewers. First, we computed two theoretically possible ΔP scores for each adjective–variant combination. For example, Table 4 presents one scenario, in which all instances of clear occur with Adj-that. In this case, a ΔP score would indicate the strongest possible attraction between Adj-that and clear. As all counts of clear are now in the upper-left cell (that is, 2,826 + 523 = 3,349), the frequency counts in the other cells are adjusted so that they sum to actual frequencies of adjectives and variants in the column and row totals, respectively. Note that the actual frequencies are kept unchanged from Tables 3 to 4; this ensures that the effect of frequency is controlled for (see Gries, Reference Gries2022, p. 24). We obtain a ΔP
(Adj-that → clear) score of 0.21 from Table 4. For the other scenario, none of the instances of clear are in Adj-that (that is, the value of 3,349 is moved to the lower-left cell), so a ΔP score would indicate the strongest possible repulsion between Adj-that and clear. In this scenario, we obtain a ΔP score of −0.13 (that is, from
$ \frac{0}{\left(0+\mathrm{15,862}\right)}-\frac{\mathrm{3,349}}{\left(\mathrm{3,349}+\mathrm{22,578}\right)} $
). Second, we determined where observed ΔP scores were with respect to the two theoretically possible ΔP scores on either end of the repulsion–attraction continuum. To illustrate, for the association of Adj-that and clear, we determine where the observed value of 0.16 falls within a theoretically possible range of −0.13 and 0.21. A value of 0.85 is observed—that is, from
$ \frac{0.16-\left(-0.13\right)}{0.21-\left(-0.13\right)} $
. With this transformation, the ΔP scores are between 0 and 1, and the higher the score, the more strongly attracted an adjective is to a particular variant. Table 5 presents the top 15 adjectives of each variant ranked by observed ΔP scores, along with transformed ΔP scores. In the next section, we discuss the statistical analysis we conducted to test the contribution of this item-level predictor, in addition to other predictors, to responses from the elicitation task.
Table 4. A contingency table demonstrating the strongest possible attraction between Adj-that and clear
Table 5. The top 15 adjectives of each variant ranked by observed ΔP scores
Statistical analysis of the elicitation data
We completed the following steps prior to statistical analysis. First, we dropped 42 partial, misspelled, or nonadjective responses (e.g., typic, possile, and surprisingly) from the elicitation data, which altogether constituted approximately 4% of the total observations (n = 1,057). Second, we removed past-participle responses (e.g., argued and understood), which accounted for 10.72% (n = 62 out of 578) and 11.89% (52/437) of the responses in L1 English and L1 Thai-L2 English participants, respectively. Finally, we lemmatized answers that were comparative or superlative adjectives (i.e., good for better and best) and retained 901 responses from 84 participants (L1 English: 516; L1 Thai-L2 English: 385). As can be seen in Table 6, summing over the two variants, important was the most common answer (n = 53), followed by necessary (29), obvious (26), likely (25), and possible (24).
Table 6. The 15 most frequent adjectives of each variant in the experiment (L1 and L2 groups combined)
To address our first research question, we ran a mixed-effects logistic regression model that related adjective–variant contingencies in the input and participants’ engagement with academic English writing—among other things—to their responses in the elicitation task. We began by creating a binary outcome variable that indicated whether each of the 901 responses generated by the participants “fit” a particular variant. Take, for instance, four hypothetical answers—clear, likely, difficult, and important—to the target item it is [blank] that. Based on the observed ΔP (variant → adjective) scores, clear and likely were attracted to Adj-that, whereas difficult and important were cued by Adj-to (see Table 5). In fact, difficult and important were repelled by Adj-that (i.e., ΔP (Adj-that → difficult) = −0.10, and ΔP (Adj-that → important) = −0.12). Therefore, given the Adj-that variant in the target item, we would code clear and likely each as a cued response (cued = 1) but not difficult and important (noncued = 0). With this outcome variable, we were thus able to capture one critical aspect of language users’ constructional knowledge—that is, the knowledge of the adjective–variant associations in the two introductory-it variants.
Of the total 901 responses, 116 were unattested with either variant in our corpus analysis (e.g., able, reliable, and excellent) and thus were dropped, leaving 785 observations in the data set (L1 English: 458; L1 Thai-L2 English: 327).Footnote 4 Altogether, there were 183 types, 63 of which were hapax legomena. On average, the L1 English group supplied 5.34 (SD = 2.86, range: 1–13) responses for Adj-that and 5.19 (SD = 2.11, range: 1–10) answers for Adj-to, whereas the L2 group attempted 4.29 (SD = 2.42, range: 1–11) and 4.54 (SD = 2.23, range: 1–14) responses for Adj-that and Adj-to, respectively. A linear mixed-effects model with participants as random intercepts showed that L1, variant, and the interaction between the two predictors did not predict the number of responses (all ps > .05).
We conducted a mixed-effects logistic regression analysis on the 785 observations, predicting the binary outcome—cued responses—in the elicitation task, from the following set of predictors:
-
(1) Introductory-it variants: a categorical variable for the variant of a target item for which participants supplied their answers, either Adj-that (e.g., It is [blank] that) or Adj-to (e.g., It is [blank] to). We chose this predictor primarily because the two variants differed in the number of attested types (see Table 1; see also Larsson, Reference Larsson2016) and because usage-based studies have shown that high type frequency is critical to constructional generalization (Azazil, Reference Azazil2020).
-
(2) ΔP (variant → adjective) scores: a continuous variable for the adjective–variant associations. Given the design of the elicitation task, we entered as a predictor transformed ΔP (variant → adjective) scores, which ranged from 0.01 to 1 in the data set. We used transformed ΔP rather than observed ΔP to control for the effect of frequencies (see Gries, Reference Gries2022). We used ΔP scores of adjectives in the variant to which they were attracted regardless of the variant of a target item. For instance, a response clear to the items it is [blank] that and it is [blank] to was given the same ΔP score of 0.84 for the word’s attraction to Adj-that.
-
(3) Adjective frequencies: a continuous variable for the co-occurrence frequencies of adjectives with the variant to which they were attracted, as obtained from the academic section of COCA. Take, for example, two answers—clear and difficult—to the item it is [blank] that. We assigned the frequencies of 2,826 to clear for its co-occurrences with Adj-that and 4,615 to important for its co-occurrences with Adj-to.Footnote 5
-
(4) L1s: a categorical variable for participants’ L1, either English or Thai.
-
(5) Degrees: a categorical variable for a graduate degree participants were pursuing, either a master’s or PhD.
-
(6) AWE-Q scores: a continuous variable for participants’ average AWE-Q scores. We used this predictor as an indirect measure of participants’ active use of the two introductory-it variants, among many other constructions, in their academic studies.
In addition to the above predictors, we included two control variables as follows:
-
(7) Linking verbs: a categorical variable for the verb embedded inside a target item, either is (e.g., It is [blank] that) or seems (e.g., It seems [blank] to).
-
(8) Trials: a continuous variable for the order in which responses were supplied in each target item by the participants.
We applied the following transformation to the above predictors. Continuous variables were grand-mean centered and standardized, and adjective frequencies were log2 transformed prior to centering and scaling, but transformed ΔP scores were not because doing so did not affect the shape of the distribution. Categorical predictors were sum-coded.
We took a bottom-up approach in building our mixed-effects models, as recommended by Hox et al. (Reference Hox, Moerbeek and van de Schoot2017). First, we added into the model item-level (i.e., variants, frequencies, ΔP scores, linking verbs, and trials) and participant-level predictors (i.e., L1s, degrees, and AWE-Q scores) as fixed effects and assessed whether they were correlated. We found that all variance inflation factors (VIFs) were close to 1. We then included intralevel interaction terms (e.g., the interaction between variants and ΔP scores) and checked the VIFs. Along with the fixed-effect structure, we placed random intercepts on participants and items. For item-specific random intercepts, we considered only adjectives with frequency ≥ 2 as individual factor values and coded all 63 hapax legomena as “other.” Thus, instead of 183, there were 121 factor values for items.
Second, we assessed whether random slopes were justified. Initially, our model consisted of by-participant random slopes for variants, adjective frequencies, and ΔP scores and by-item random slopes for L1s. As singular fit was reported, we ran a principal components analysis on the random-effect structure (see Gries, Reference Gries2021) and subsequently simplified the model by dropping random slopes for—in this exact order—L1s, ΔP scores, and adjective frequencies. Likelihood-ratio tests (LRTs) confirmed the removal (all ps > .75). In the end, the random-effect structure consisted of random intercepts for participants and items as well as by-participant random slopes for variants.
Last, we incorporated cross-level interaction terms into the model and tested whether any of the fixed-effect terms could be removed (see Gries, Reference Gries2021).Footnote 6 The final model from which we drew inferences was significantly different from the null model—χ 2(9) = 179.81, p < .001; AICfinal model = 825.52; and AICnull model = 987.33—with all VIFs near 1. The value for R 2marginal was .36, and R 2conditional was .52. The model’s C score was 0.89, which was above the 0.80 threshold commonly used in linguistics.
To address the second research question vis-à-vis L2 users’ English proficiency and their performance on the elicitation task, we performed a mixed-effects logistic regression analysis with only data from the L2 English participants. Because four participants did not report their TOEFL scores, they were removed from further analysis. In total, there were 301 data points. Initially, we included the same set of predictors used to address the first research question, except L1s and related interactions. Subsequently, we simplified the random-effect structure of the model, retaining only the by-participant random intercepts and random slopes for variants, and tested which predictors could be dropped with LRTs (all ps > .25). At this stage, as the AWE-Q scores were nonsignificant, the predictor was dropped. The final model from which we drew inference was significantly different from the null model—χ 2(5) = 86.87, p < .001; AICfinal model = 299.16; AICnull model = 376.03. All predictors had VIFs close to 1. The R 2marginal was .42, and R 2conditional was .60. The model’s C score was 0.91.
Results
To address the research questions, we extracted the predicted probability of cued responses from the models. We use the term proportion instead of probability to facilitate readers in their comprehension of results.
RQ 1: The effect of input and output on elicitation task performance
Before discussing the main results, we present a crosstab of cued responses by variants and L1s. As can be seen in Table 7, the participants were largely able to generate cued responses for each introductory-it variant. The only exception, however, is the L2 users’ performance on Adj-that; only 37.3% of the responses were considered attracted to the variant. On average, Adj-to elicited a higher proportion of cued responses (> 70%), whereas only 46.8% of the responses were cued by Adj-that.
Table 7. Crosstab of cued responses by variants and L1s
Table 8 presents cued and noncued responses of each variant across the two groups of participants. Zooming in on the cued responses, the 10 most common answers of the L1 English group were important (n = 16); necessary (13); clear, likely, and obvious (10 each); evident and probable (8 each); and good, reasonable, and unlikely (6 each). Six of these words were cued by Adj-that. All answers had transformed ΔP scores above 0.80, and only four (important and necessary for Adj-to and clear and likely for Adj-that) occurred more than 1,000 times with their respective variants in COCA. The L2 English participants produced important most often (16), followed by crucial and possible (8 each); difficult and easy (7 each); good and interesting (6 each); and acceptable, impossible, and obvious (5 each). Of the 10 answers, only obvious and possible were attracted to Adj-that; the rest were cued by Adj-to. Half of the answers occurred more than 1,000 times with their respective variants in COCA, and seven (i.e., acceptable, difficult, easy, good, important, impossible, and obvious) had ΔP (variant → adjective) scores above 0.80.
Table 8. The 10 most frequent responses of each variant separated by their cued/noncued status
Regarding noncued responses, the L1 English group generated important most often (12), followed by likely, necessary, and obvious (8 each); logical (6); essential, good, interesting, and possible (5 each); and unlikely (4). For the L2 English group, the 10 most common noncued responses were important (9); impossible and possible (7 each); interesting (6); essential (5); good and necessary (4 each); and correct, crucial, and reasonable (3 each).
As shown in Table 9, the mixed-effects logistic regression model revealed a significant and positive effect of ΔP (variant → adjective) scores. The significant effect was driven by the participants’ generation of adjectives that were distinctive responses of the variants. Examples include difficult, easy, important, and necessary for Adj-to and clear and obvious for Adj-that. Adjective frequencies, however, did not influence the participants’ generation of cued responses. Contrary to our prediction, academic writing engagement, which we used to indirectly assess participants’ active use of the introductory-it construction, was nonsignificant. Participants who were more actively engaged with academic writing did not produce more cued responses.
Table 9. Summary of components in the mixed-effects logistic regression model predicting cued responses
Note. The 95% CIs were approximated using the Wald method; *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.
In addition to the two target predictors, the main effect of variants was significant, with Adj-that eliciting considerably fewer cued responses than Adj-to. Consistent with the descriptive statistics in Table 7, the model estimated that 50.1% of the answers in Adj-that were cued responses of the variant, as opposed to 73.0% in Adj-to. Unlike variants, participants’ L1s were not a significant predictor, though according to the model the L1 English group generated more cued responses (64.5%) than the L1 Thai-L2 English group (58.0%). One control variable, trials, was significant: cued responses were generated earlier, and the probability that an answer would become attracted to a variant decreased for each additional response (see Ellis et al., Reference Ellis, O’Donnell and Römer2014, p. 75).
There were three significant interactions in the model. For the first one, although the main effect of L1s was nonsignificant, the interaction between L1s and variants was. In Figure 1, we can see a sharp drop in the estimated mean proportion of cued responses in the L2 English group, from Adj-to to Adj-that (75.0% vs. 38.9%). In contrast, such a drop was much less pronounced in the L1 English group (69.8% vs. 59.7%). Figure 1 graphically highlights this interaction; the L1 Thai-L2 participants supplied more cued responses given Adj-to than their L1 English counterparts, but their performance on Adj-that was much less robust. Fewer than 40% of the responses supplied by the L2 group were distinctive adjectives of Adj-that.
Figure 1. Estimated mean proportion of cued responses by L1 and variants. The values plotted in this graph were estimated from the mixed-effects logistic regression model. The error bars represent bootstrapped 95% confidence intervals from 100 simulations.
Regarding the other two interactions, we found that participants’ generation of distinctive adjectives varied as a function of variants and input statistics (i.e., frequencies and ΔP scores). The left panel of Figure 2 presents the interaction between the variants and adjective frequencies, and the right panel illustrates the interaction between the variants and transformed ΔP scores. Note that in Figure 2 the two predictors are in their original scale (log2 adjective frequencies and transformed ΔP scores). To explain the findings, it is worth inspecting a list of cued and noncued responses of each variant in Table 8. When prompted with the Adj-that variant, participants supplied extremely frequent lexemes of the construction, with the response logical being the exception. This is why, in the left panel of Figure 2, the mean proportion of cued responses of Adj-that increased as adjective frequencies were higher. The model estimated that, at logged frequency of zero (raw frequency = 1), the mean proportion of cued responses of Adj-that was at 32.0% (95% CI = [21.7%, 42.4%]). But at logged frequency of 11 (raw frequency = 2,048), the mean proportion of cued responses went up to 60.0% (95% CI = [54.8%, 65.4%]). For the Adj-to variant, we found that participants often generated responses such as possible, essential, and logical, which despite being cued by Adj-that appeared slightly more frequently with Adj-to in COCA (for frequencies of possible and essential, see Table 2). In the context of the present study, these answers were treated as noncued responses of the variant; thus, the lower mean proportion of cued responses in Adj-to as frequencies increased.
Figure 2. Estimated mean proportion of cued responses as a function of variants and input statistics. The values plotted in this graph were estimated from the mixed-effects logistic regression model. Error bands are bootstrapped 95% confidence intervals from 100 simulations.
The right panel of Figure 2 presents the mean proportion of cued responses as a function of introductory-it variants and transformed ΔP scores. This interaction was driven mainly by the observation that as ΔP scores increased, the proportion of distinctive lexemes of Adj-that decreased from 87.2% (95% CI = [82.1%, 92.3%]) to 40.2% (95% CI = [37.7%, 42.7%]). This is because, as shown in Table 8, participants completed the item it is [blank] that with such adjectives as important, necessary, interesting, and good, which were strongly cued by Adj-to (transformed ΔP(Adj-to → adjective) scores > 0.7) and repelled by Adj-that. Though these responses had high ΔP scores for their attraction to Adj-to, they were considered noncued responses of the Adj-that variant.
RQ 2: The effect of L2 users’ English proficiency on elicitation task performance
The model revealed that L2 proficiency had a positive, yet insignificant effect on cued responses, which contradicted our prediction, β = 0.34, SE = 0.18, 95% CI = [−0.02, 0.70], p = .061. In other words, L2 users’ ability to generate responses that fit a given construction did not depend on their L2 proficiency. Like the first question, the model identified a significant effect of variants, β = −1.17, SE = 0.29, 95% CI = [−1.74, −0.61], p < .001, and ΔP scores, β = 0.48, SE = 0.22, 95% CI = [0.05, 0.91], p = .030. As is evident in Table 7, the L1 Thai-L2 English group generated fewer cued responses for Adj-that, thus the negative effect of variants. The effect of ΔP scores was driven in large part by responses the L2 group generated for Adj-to, as discussed above. Note that though frequencies had a positive effect on cued responses, their effect was not significant, β = 0.08, SE = 0.17, 95% CI = [−0.26, 0.42], p = .653. Last, a significant interaction between variants and ΔP scores was observed, β = −1.33, SE = 0.22, 95% CI = [−1.76, −0.90], p < .001. Like the previous analysis, the mean proportion of cued responses of Adj-that decreased because the L1 Thai-L2 English participants completed the target item it is [blank] that with adjectives that were highly distinctive to Adj-to.
Discussion
The results from the elicitation task demonstrated that both L1 and L2 users of English were able to supply adjectives that were attracted to the introductory-it variants. As predicted, we observed the effect of association strength of adjectives and variants on the elicitation task performance, particularly for the L2 groups. However, we were not able to confirm the other two predictions regarding the effect of academic writing engagement and L2 proficiency. As reported in the first analysis, participants who performed academic writing tasks more frequently, and by extension used the two introductory-it variants more often, did not produce more cued responses. With respect to L2 users, we predicted that their English proficiency would affect their task performance, but this prediction was not supported by the data.
Given the available evidence for the effect of lexeme–construction associations, particularly those between verbs and VACs, in both L1 and L2 speakers (Azazil, Reference Azazil2020; Ellis & Ferreira-Junior, Reference Ellis and Ferreira-Junior2009; Sung & Kim, Reference Sung and Kim2022), the effect of adjective–variant contingencies on language users’ generation of cued responses was expected. Both L1 and L2 users supplied adjectives that are distinctively attracted to the two variants. This was particularly true with the L1 users, whose most common cued responses were among the top 10 lexemes of the two variants (e.g., important, necessary for Adj-to; clear, likely, obvious for Adj-that). Larsson (Reference Larsson2016) showed that these adjectives were prototypical exemplars of their respective variants and, because of this, often accessed first in language production (Ellis et al., Reference Ellis, O’Donnell and Römer2014, Experiment 1). The use of transformed ΔP scores, which captured adjective–variant contingencies without the effect of frequency (see Gries, Reference Gries2022), in our mixed-effects logistic regression models helps rule out the possibility that participants’ generation of cued responses was driven by the co-occurrence frequencies between adjectives and their preferred variants. This claim is further aided in that adjective frequency was not a significant predictor in both models. Nonetheless, we note that for L2 users the top two answers, important and possible, were the two most frequent adjectives in our COCA data (summing across the two variants: important = 5,468 and possible = 4,282). In fact, important and possible are in the top 10 most frequent predicative adjectives in academic discourse (Biber et al., Reference Biber, Johansson, Leech, Conrad and Finegan1999). Moreover, the L2 group’s most common cued responses generally had lower ΔP (variant → adjective) scores than those produced by the L1 participants.
As shown in Figure 1, we can see that the participants overall generated far fewer cued responses for Adj-that than for Adj-to. The L2 group showed a greater drop than did their L1 peers, being able to supply adjectives that were attracted to Adj-that only 40% of the time. That the Adj-to variant elicited a higher proportion of cued responses may be due in part to higher productivity of the variant. There were almost twice as many adjective types in Adj-to as in Adj-that (495 vs. 262; see Table 1). Usage-based studies have shown that high type frequency affects constructional generalization and language production (Ambridge et al., Reference Ambridge, Kidd, Rowland and Theakston2015; Gries & Ellis, Reference Gries and Ellis2015; Sung & Kim, Reference Sung and Kim2022), and we see a similar effect at play in the present study. We also found that the L2 group generated more cued responses for Adj-to than did the L1 group (that is, 75.0% vs. 69.8%) and that almost all of their top 10 answers were attracted to Adj-to. This may be the case because—with higher type frequencies (as well as token frequencies) in Adj-to—L2 users were able to acquire and form a schematic representation for the construction much better than they did with the Adj-that variant (see Azazil, Reference Azazil2020, for similar results). As one reviewer suggested, given findings from corpus-based studies that a VAC may contain verbs from heterogeneous semantic classes (e.g., Perek, Reference Perek, Glynn and Robinson2014), another reason for the higher proportion of elicited cued responses for the Adj-to variant may be the semantic openness of the adjectives in this variant. This is therefore a possibility that could be explored further in future research.
As discussed in the Method section, we classified participants’ answers into cued or noncued responses based on ΔP (variant → adjective) scores, with the goal of capturing L1 and L2 users’ knowledge of lexeme–construction contingencies. Thus, noncued responses are by and large not malformed instances of the construction but rather adjectives that were repelled by a particular variant. For the L2 group, we found that many of their noncued responses were synonymous or semantically related to cued responses, and these noncued responses were equally frequent. For example, for the item it is [blank] that …, L2 users supplied possible, a cued response, eight times and impossible, which is distinctively attracted to Adj-to, seven times. Moreover, for the item it is [blank] to …, they supplied crucial, a cued response, eight times and essential, a lexeme of Adj-that, five times. It is therefore possible that the L2 users’ generation of adjectives was driven in part by how closely adjectives are related. This finding is also in line with previous research findings that L2 users, even those at an advanced level, may overgeneralize the use of synonymous or semantically related adjectives (e.g., Sonbul, Reference Sonbul2015).
The current study constituted the first attempt to operationalize language output and investigate usage-based researchers’ proposal that language users’ own constructional use–independent of input statistics to which they are exposed—strengthens their constructional knowledge (e.g., Ellis, Reference Ellis2022; Schmid, Reference Schmid2015). It was hypothesized that L1 and L2 users’ greater use of the Adj-to and Adj-that variants, as assessed with an academic writing questionnaire, should further attune these users to adjective–variant associations. However, we did not find evidence in the present work that language output influenced elicitation task performance. Our results indicated that L1 and L2 users’ academic writing engagement did not predict cued responses. There are two possible explanations for this null effect. First and most importantly, the scales of the questionnaire—from 0 to 5—encompass a narrow range, and a substantial number of participants in each group rated their engagement as high (i.e., 12 out of 44 L1 English participants and 12 out of 40 L2 English participants with rating of 4 or higher). This was to be expected, given the research-intensive nature of graduate school. However, because of these negatively skewed rating scores over a narrow range of possible values, the effect was estimated imprecisely, as evidenced in the standard error (0.11) that was twice as large as the mean (0.05). Second, what the AWE-Q captures may not be sensitive to what was assessed in the elicitation task. We employed the questionnaire, which assesses the level of engagement with academic writing in English, as a proxy for participants’ active use of the introductory-it construction. Because of its focus on various writing tasks rather than specific instances of language use, the questionnaire can only capture linguistic experience holistically. In contrast, the elicitation task tapped language users’ ability to generate adjectives that were associated with the Adj-that and Adj-to variants. It is highly possible that this form of statistical association may have been too fine-grained to be precisely detected by such a questionnaire as the AWE-Q. We must stress that the null effect of academic writing engagement does not negate the role of language production but rather raises an important question about how to assess output in a way that is both consistent with predictions from usage-based models and useful for L2 research.
In the present study, L2 users’ generation of cued responses did not depend on their L2 proficiency scores. One explanation for the null effect of L2 proficiency is that the TOEFL scores no longer reflected L2 users’ current language abilities. Recall that we recruited L1 Thai-L2 English participants who were graduate students in U.S. universities, with half of them being doctoral students. The L2 group reported having spent 3.3 years (SD = 2.2 years) in an English-speaking country by the time of data collection (4.3 years [SD = 2.3] for PhD students). It is reasonable to assume, given constant exposure to academic English for such an extended period, that the L2 participants had made significant gains in their English beyond what was captured by the L2 proficiency test.
Limitations and conclusion
As with any study, some limitations and outstanding questions remain. First, although previous corpus studies on VACs reported that more proficient L2 users are more likely to learn and use less frequent verb-VAC combinations, indicating their knowledge of verbs beyond prototypical verbs (Kyle et al., Reference Kyle, Crossley and Verspoor2021), the current study did not probe whether more proficient L2 users are more likely to use adjectives that are less strongly attracted to the two variants. Second, whether L2 users’ knowledge of adjective–variant contingencies is mediated by other types of associations that are also present in each variant remains to be seen. From usage-based perspectives, it is likely that L2 users’ ability to form associations between individual adjectives and their preferred variants is facilitated by additional cues, such as the pairings between adjectives and infinitives for the Adj-to variant (Larsson & Kaatari, Reference Larsson and Kaatari2019). Future work can address this issue, for instance, by including verbs—or other lexical items—into a target frame (e.g., It is [blank] to note …). This design can increase the naturalness of the test stimuli while still being able to address lexeme–construction contingencies (see Dąbrowska, Reference Dąbrowska, Evans and Pourcel2009). By investigating how adjective–variant associations and other types of contingencies interact as L2 users traverse their developmental trajectories, L2 researchers will be able to have a fuller understanding of learners’ constructional knowledge.
Despite these limitations, the current study has demonstrated that lexeme–construction contingencies shape L2 users’ knowledge of introductory-it constructions in much the same way that they influence knowledge of VACs. The effect of associations varies by constructions and is likely to be mediated by constructional frequencies (i.e., type frequencies). Although L2 users’ constructional use—as operationalized in the present study—does not affect elicitation task performance, the null effect should serve to heighten the need for more robust assessment tools that can capture learners’ active use of a target construction. Only when both sides of usage, language input and output, are taken into consideration will we be able to paint a more complete picture of L2 users’ constructional knowledge.
Supplementary material
The supplementary material for this article can be found at http://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263123000517.
Data availability statement
The experiment in this article earned an Open Data badge for transparent practices. The data and the R script can be found at https://github.com/suesakol/introductory-it.
Acknowledgments
We thank Lourdes Ortega and Brandon Tullock for their feedback at various stages of this project. Part of this work was presented at the American Association for Corpus Linguistics (2018) in Atlanta, GA.
Competing interest
The authors declare none.
