不同水平的英语第二语言学习者对 VP-ellipsis 中反身代词的解释

Francisco Gallardo-del-Puerto, Evelyn Gandón-Chapela
{"title":"不同水平的英语第二语言学习者对 VP-ellipsis 中反身代词的解释","authors":"Francisco Gallardo-del-Puerto, Evelyn Gandón-Chapela","doi":"10.1075/resla.21054.gal","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n English reflexive anaphora in cases of VP-ellipsis may allow for strict and sloppy readings. A few L2 studies\n (Epoge, 2012; Park, 2016; Ying, 2005) have focused on determining the role that L2 proficiency may exert on\n learners’ choices in bare, referential, and non-referential contexts. This paper provides data from 104 Spanish learners of\n English (A2, B1, and B2 levels) and 32 native speakers of English. Results showed that participants tended to interpret reflexives\n sloppily in bare and non-referential contexts, whereas strict readings prevailed in referential ones. There existed significant\n differences in the interpretation of learners versus native speakers, whilst the differences among the three learner groups were\n not so marked. However, the least proficient group differed most from native speakers. Findings partially confirm previous\n research and discrepancies may be tentatively ascribed to extraneous variables (e.g., the learners’ L1, the range of the\n proficiency levels, or the characteristics of the control groups).","PeriodicalId":219483,"journal":{"name":"Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada/Spanish Journal of Applied Linguistics","volume":"7 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The interpretation of reflexive pronouns in VP-ellipsis by L2 English learners with different proficiency\\n levels\",\"authors\":\"Francisco Gallardo-del-Puerto, Evelyn Gandón-Chapela\",\"doi\":\"10.1075/resla.21054.gal\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n English reflexive anaphora in cases of VP-ellipsis may allow for strict and sloppy readings. A few L2 studies\\n (Epoge, 2012; Park, 2016; Ying, 2005) have focused on determining the role that L2 proficiency may exert on\\n learners’ choices in bare, referential, and non-referential contexts. This paper provides data from 104 Spanish learners of\\n English (A2, B1, and B2 levels) and 32 native speakers of English. Results showed that participants tended to interpret reflexives\\n sloppily in bare and non-referential contexts, whereas strict readings prevailed in referential ones. There existed significant\\n differences in the interpretation of learners versus native speakers, whilst the differences among the three learner groups were\\n not so marked. However, the least proficient group differed most from native speakers. Findings partially confirm previous\\n research and discrepancies may be tentatively ascribed to extraneous variables (e.g., the learners’ L1, the range of the\\n proficiency levels, or the characteristics of the control groups).\",\"PeriodicalId\":219483,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada/Spanish Journal of Applied Linguistics\",\"volume\":\"7 4\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada/Spanish Journal of Applied Linguistics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1075/resla.21054.gal\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada/Spanish Journal of Applied Linguistics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1075/resla.21054.gal","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在VP-ellipsis的情况下,英语反身拟声词可能允许严格和马虎的读法。一些 L2 研究(Epoge,2012;Park,2016;Ying,2005)侧重于确定 L2 熟练程度对学习者在裸指、指代词和非指代词语境中的选择可能产生的作用。本文提供了 104 名西班牙语英语学习者(A2、B1 和 B2 水平)和 32 名英语母语者的数据。结果表明,在裸词和非指代语境中,参与者倾向于粗略地解释反射词,而在指代语境中,严格的解读占了上风。学习者与母语使用者的解释存在明显差异,而三个学习者群体之间的差异则不明显。然而,最不熟练群体与母语使用者的差异最大。研究结果部分证实了之前的研究,而差异可初步归因于外部变量(如学习者的 L1、熟练程度的范围或对照组的特征)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The interpretation of reflexive pronouns in VP-ellipsis by L2 English learners with different proficiency levels
English reflexive anaphora in cases of VP-ellipsis may allow for strict and sloppy readings. A few L2 studies (Epoge, 2012; Park, 2016; Ying, 2005) have focused on determining the role that L2 proficiency may exert on learners’ choices in bare, referential, and non-referential contexts. This paper provides data from 104 Spanish learners of English (A2, B1, and B2 levels) and 32 native speakers of English. Results showed that participants tended to interpret reflexives sloppily in bare and non-referential contexts, whereas strict readings prevailed in referential ones. There existed significant differences in the interpretation of learners versus native speakers, whilst the differences among the three learner groups were not so marked. However, the least proficient group differed most from native speakers. Findings partially confirm previous research and discrepancies may be tentatively ascribed to extraneous variables (e.g., the learners’ L1, the range of the proficiency levels, or the characteristics of the control groups).
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信