第二语言习得中的动词短语省略与反指消解——对西班牙语英语学习者的研究

Q2 Arts and Humanities
Evelyn Gandón-Chapela, Francisco Gallardo-del-Puerto
{"title":"第二语言习得中的动词短语省略与反指消解——对西班牙语英语学习者的研究","authors":"Evelyn Gandón-Chapela, Francisco Gallardo-del-Puerto","doi":"10.26754/ojs_misc/mj.20196340","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper analyses the choice of sloppy and strict interpretations of reflexive anaphora in verb phrase ellipsis from the perspective of Relevance Theory (RT) (Sperber and Wilson 1986, 1995, 2002, 2008; Wilson and Sperber 2002, 2004). Forty-four Spanish learners of English and 29 native speakers of English were administered two judgement tasks designed to gauge the effect of the Communicative Principle of Relevance on their interpretation of reflexive anaphora in bare, referential and non-referential contexts. Results showed that, in accordance with this principle, the sloppy interpretation is favoured in bare and non-referential contexts, while strict readings prevail in referential contexts, these preferences being less marked for L2 learners than for native speakers. Moreover, the sloppy interpretation is chosen more frequently when native speakers are given a non-referential context, whereas it decreases when L2 learners are provided with the very same context, indicating that the syntax-pragmatics interface makes up an information processing load and acts as a distractor for L2 English learners.","PeriodicalId":35132,"journal":{"name":"Miscelanea","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-12-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Verb Phrase Ellipsis and Reflexive Anaphora Resolution in Second Language Acquisition: A Study of Spanish Learners of English\",\"authors\":\"Evelyn Gandón-Chapela, Francisco Gallardo-del-Puerto\",\"doi\":\"10.26754/ojs_misc/mj.20196340\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This paper analyses the choice of sloppy and strict interpretations of reflexive anaphora in verb phrase ellipsis from the perspective of Relevance Theory (RT) (Sperber and Wilson 1986, 1995, 2002, 2008; Wilson and Sperber 2002, 2004). Forty-four Spanish learners of English and 29 native speakers of English were administered two judgement tasks designed to gauge the effect of the Communicative Principle of Relevance on their interpretation of reflexive anaphora in bare, referential and non-referential contexts. Results showed that, in accordance with this principle, the sloppy interpretation is favoured in bare and non-referential contexts, while strict readings prevail in referential contexts, these preferences being less marked for L2 learners than for native speakers. Moreover, the sloppy interpretation is chosen more frequently when native speakers are given a non-referential context, whereas it decreases when L2 learners are provided with the very same context, indicating that the syntax-pragmatics interface makes up an information processing load and acts as a distractor for L2 English learners.\",\"PeriodicalId\":35132,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Miscelanea\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-12-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Miscelanea\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.26754/ojs_misc/mj.20196340\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Miscelanea","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.26754/ojs_misc/mj.20196340","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文从关联理论(RT)的角度分析了动词短语省略中反诘回指的草率解释和严格解释的选择(Sperber and Wilson 1986, 1995, 2002, 2008;Wilson and Sperber 2002, 2004)。研究人员对44名西班牙语英语学习者和29名英语母语者进行了两项判断任务,旨在衡量交际关联原则对他们在无参照、参照和非参照语境中解释反身回指的影响。结果表明,根据这一原则,在无参考和非参考语境中,人们倾向于草率解读,而在参考语境中,人们倾向于严格解读,二语学习者的这种偏好比母语者要少。此外,当提供给母语人士非参考语境时,草率解释的选择频率更高,而当提供给二语学习者完全相同的语境时,草率解释的选择频率降低,这表明语法-语用界面构成了信息加工负荷,对二语学习者起着干扰作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Verb Phrase Ellipsis and Reflexive Anaphora Resolution in Second Language Acquisition: A Study of Spanish Learners of English
This paper analyses the choice of sloppy and strict interpretations of reflexive anaphora in verb phrase ellipsis from the perspective of Relevance Theory (RT) (Sperber and Wilson 1986, 1995, 2002, 2008; Wilson and Sperber 2002, 2004). Forty-four Spanish learners of English and 29 native speakers of English were administered two judgement tasks designed to gauge the effect of the Communicative Principle of Relevance on their interpretation of reflexive anaphora in bare, referential and non-referential contexts. Results showed that, in accordance with this principle, the sloppy interpretation is favoured in bare and non-referential contexts, while strict readings prevail in referential contexts, these preferences being less marked for L2 learners than for native speakers. Moreover, the sloppy interpretation is chosen more frequently when native speakers are given a non-referential context, whereas it decreases when L2 learners are provided with the very same context, indicating that the syntax-pragmatics interface makes up an information processing load and acts as a distractor for L2 English learners.
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
Miscelanea
Miscelanea Arts and Humanities-Literature and Literary Theory
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
12
审稿时长
32 weeks
×
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