Progressive or not progressive?

Paula Rautionaho, Sandra C. Deshors
{"title":"Progressive or not progressive?","authors":"Paula Rautionaho, Sandra C. Deshors","doi":"10.1075/IJLCR.16019.RAU","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n This multifactorial analysis of progressive marking contrasts native English to two Asian Englishes and Dutch English.\n Specifically, we (i) model writers’ constructional choices (progressive vs. non-progressive) across Englishes based on several\n linguistic predictors simultaneously, (ii) assess how those factors impact the progressive vs. non-progressive alternation, (iii)\n how several linguistic factors determine, simultaneously, writers’ constructional choices and (iv) how those choices differ across\n varieties and genres. Based on 4,661 verb constructions from five comparable multi-genre corpora, we ran a logistic regression\n analysis to determine which factors cause English-speaking populations to differ in their constructional choices and in which\n specific contexts. While the model strongly predicts speakers’ choices, within individual genres, tense and modality are found to\n influence speakers’ choices differently. Overall, our results yield nuanced insights into the (dis)similarities among and within\n ESL/EFL varieties and contribute to the broader issue of the native-foreign-second language continuum across genres.","PeriodicalId":188451,"journal":{"name":"Tense and Aspect in Second Language Acquisition and Learner Corpus Research","volume":"201 1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-08-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"7","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Tense and Aspect in Second Language Acquisition and Learner Corpus Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1075/IJLCR.16019.RAU","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

Abstract

This multifactorial analysis of progressive marking contrasts native English to two Asian Englishes and Dutch English. Specifically, we (i) model writers’ constructional choices (progressive vs. non-progressive) across Englishes based on several linguistic predictors simultaneously, (ii) assess how those factors impact the progressive vs. non-progressive alternation, (iii) how several linguistic factors determine, simultaneously, writers’ constructional choices and (iv) how those choices differ across varieties and genres. Based on 4,661 verb constructions from five comparable multi-genre corpora, we ran a logistic regression analysis to determine which factors cause English-speaking populations to differ in their constructional choices and in which specific contexts. While the model strongly predicts speakers’ choices, within individual genres, tense and modality are found to influence speakers’ choices differently. Overall, our results yield nuanced insights into the (dis)similarities among and within ESL/EFL varieties and contribute to the broader issue of the native-foreign-second language continuum across genres.
进步还是不进步?
本文对英语进行了多因素分析,并将其与亚洲英语和荷兰英语进行了对比。具体来说,我们(i)基于几个语言预测因素同时对作家在英语中的结构选择(进行式与非进行式)进行建模,(ii)评估这些因素如何影响进行式与非进行式的交替,(iii)几个语言因素如何同时决定作家的结构选择,以及(iv)这些选择在不同的品种和体裁中如何不同。基于来自五个可比较的多体裁语料库的4,661个动词结构,我们进行了逻辑回归分析,以确定哪些因素导致英语人群在结构选择上的差异以及在哪些特定语境下的差异。虽然该模型能强有力地预测说话人的选择,但在不同的体裁中,时态和情态对说话人的选择有不同的影响。总的来说,我们的研究结果对ESL/EFL变体之间和内部的(非)相似性有了细致入微的见解,并有助于研究跨类型的母语-外语-第二语言连续体这一更广泛的问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信