Unpacking L2 explicit linguistic knowledge and online processing of the English modals may and can: A comparison of acceptability judgments and self-paced reading

IF 4.2 1区 文学 Q1 LINGUISTICS
Nadia Mifka-Profozic, David O’Reilly, Leonarda Lovrovic
{"title":"Unpacking L2 explicit linguistic knowledge and online processing of the English modals may and can: A comparison of acceptability judgments and self-paced reading","authors":"Nadia Mifka-Profozic, David O’Reilly, Leonarda Lovrovic","doi":"10.1017/s0272263123000475","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The present study uses self-paced reading as a measure of online processing and an acceptability judgement task as a measure of offline explicit linguistic knowledge, to understand L2 learners’ comprehension processes and their awareness of subtle differences between the modal auxiliaries <span>may</span> and <span>can.</span> Participants were two groups of university students: 42 native speakers of English and 41 native speakers of Croatian majoring in L2 English. The study is part of a larger project that has provided empirical evidence of the two modals, <span>may</span> and <span>can</span>, being mutually exclusive when denoting ability (<span>can</span>) and epistemic possibility (<span>may</span>) but equally acceptable in pragmatic choices expressing permission. The present results revealed that L1 and L2 speakers rated the acceptability of sentences in offline tasks similarly; however, L2 learners showed no sensitivity to verb–context mismatches in epistemic modality while demonstrating sensitivity when processing modals expressing ability. Implications for L2 acquisition of modals and future research are discussed.</p>","PeriodicalId":22008,"journal":{"name":"Studies in Second Language Acquisition","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studies in Second Language Acquisition","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263123000475","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The present study uses self-paced reading as a measure of online processing and an acceptability judgement task as a measure of offline explicit linguistic knowledge, to understand L2 learners’ comprehension processes and their awareness of subtle differences between the modal auxiliaries may and can. Participants were two groups of university students: 42 native speakers of English and 41 native speakers of Croatian majoring in L2 English. The study is part of a larger project that has provided empirical evidence of the two modals, may and can, being mutually exclusive when denoting ability (can) and epistemic possibility (may) but equally acceptable in pragmatic choices expressing permission. The present results revealed that L1 and L2 speakers rated the acceptability of sentences in offline tasks similarly; however, L2 learners showed no sensitivity to verb–context mismatches in epistemic modality while demonstrating sensitivity when processing modals expressing ability. Implications for L2 acquisition of modals and future research are discussed.

解析二语显性语言知识与英语情态动词在线加工:可接受性判断与自定阅读的比较
本研究使用自定节奏阅读作为在线加工的衡量标准,使用可接受性判断任务作为离线外显语言知识的衡量标准,以了解二语学习者的理解过程以及他们对情态助词may和can之间细微差异的意识。参与者是两组大学生:42名以英语为母语的人,41名以克罗地亚语为母语的人,主修第二语言英语。这项研究是一个更大项目的一部分,该项目提供了两种情态may和can的经验证据,它们在表示能力(can)和认知可能性(may)时相互排斥,但在表示许可的语用选择中同样可以接受。本研究结果表明,母语和第二语言的说话者对离线任务中句子的可接受性的评价相似;然而,二语学习者在认知情态上对动词-语境不匹配表现出敏感性,而在情态表达能力上表现出敏感性。讨论了对二语情态习得的启示和未来的研究。
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
CiteScore
8.00
自引率
9.80%
发文量
52
期刊介绍: Studies in Second Language Acquisition is a refereed journal of international scope devoted to the scientific discussion of acquisition or use of non-native and heritage languages. Each volume (five issues) contains research articles of either a quantitative, qualitative, or mixed-methods nature in addition to essays on current theoretical matters. Other rubrics include shorter articles such as Replication Studies, Critical Commentaries, and Research Reports.
×
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