216 resultados para Lexical Processing


Relevância:

20.00% 20.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

In this paper we show that heritage speakers and returnees are fundamentally different from the majority of adult second language learners with respect to their use of collocations (Laufer & Waldman, 2011). We compare the use of lexical collocations involving yap- “do” and et- “do” among heritage speakers of Turkish in Germany (n=45) with those found among Turkish returnees (n=65) and Turkish monolinguals (n=69). Language use by returnees is an understudied resource although this group can provide crucial insights into the specific language ability of heritage speakers. Results show that returnees who had been back for one year avoid collocations with yap- and use some hypercorrect forms in et-, whilst returnees who had been back for seven years upon recording produce collocations that are quantitatively and qualitatively similar to those of monolingual speakers of Turkish. We discuss implications for theories of ultimate attainment and incomplete acquisition in heritage speakers.

Relevância:

20.00% 20.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

This study evaluates the differing claims of the Aspect Hypothesis (Anderson & Shirai 1996) and the Sentential Aspect Hypothesis (Sharma & Deo 2009) for perfective marking by L1 English learners of Mandarin. The AH predicts a narrow focus on inherent lexical aspect (the verb and predicate) in determining the use of the perfective marker le, whilst the SAH suggests that – subject to L1 influence – perfective marking agrees with the final derived aspectual class of the sentence. To test these claims data were collected using a controlled le-insertion task, combined with oral corpus data. The results show that learners’ perfective marking patterns with the sentential aspectual class and not inherent lexical aspect (where these differ), and that overall the sentential aspectual class better predicts learners’ assignment of perfective marking than lexical aspect.

Relevância:

20.00% 20.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

This study contributes to ongoing discussions on how measures of lexical diversity (LD) can help discriminate between essays from second language learners of English, whose work has been assessed as belonging to levels B1 to C2 of the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR). The focus is in particular on how different operationalisations of what constitutes a “different word” (type) impact on the LD measures themselves and on their ability to discriminate between CEFR levels. The results show that basic measures of LD, such as the number of different words, the TTR (Templin 1957) and the Index of Guiraud (Guiraud 1954) explain more variance in the CEFR levels than sophisticated measures, such as D (Malvern et al. 2004), HD-D (McCarthy and Jarvis 2007) and MTLD (McCarthy 2005) provided text length is kept constant across texts. A simple count of different words (defined as lemma’s and not as word families) was the best predictor of CEFR levels and explained 22 percent of the variance in overall scores on the Pearson Test of English Academic in essays written by 176 test takers.

Relevância:

20.00% 20.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

The incorporation of new representations into the mental lexicon has raised numerous questions about the organisational principles that govern the process. A number of studies have argued that similarity between the new L3 items and existing representations in the L1 and L2 is the main incorporating force (Hall & Ecke, 2003; Herwig, 2001). Experimental evidence obtained through a primed picture-naming task with L1 Polish-L2 English learners of L3 Russian supports Hall and Ecke’s Parasitic Model of L3 vocabulary acquisition, displaying a significant main effect for both priming and proficiency. These results complement current models of vocabulary acquisition and lexical access in multilingual speakers.

Relevância:

20.00% 20.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

The present study examines the processing of subject-verb (SV) number agreement with coordinate subjects in pre-verbal and post-verbal positions in Greek. Greek is a language with morphological number marked on nominal and verbal elements. Coordinate SV agreement, however, is special in Greek as it is sensitive to the coordinate subject's position: when pre-verbal, the verb is marked for plural while when post-verbal the verb can be in the singular. We conducted two experiments, an acceptability judgment task with adult monolinguals as a pre-study (Experiment 1) and a self-paced reading task as the main study (Experiment 2) in order to obtain acceptance as well as processing data. Forty adult monolingual speakers of Greek participated in Experiment 1 and a hundred and forty one in Experiment 2. Seventy one children participated in Experiment 2: 30 Albanian-Greek sequential bilingual children and 41 Greek monolingual children aged 10–12 years. The adult data in Experiment 1 establish the difference in acceptability between singular VPs in SV and VS constructions reaffirming our hypothesis. Meanwhile, the adult data in Experiment 2 show that plural verbs accelerate processing regardless of subject position. The child online data show that sequential bilingual children have longer reading times (RTs) compared to the age-matched monolingual control group. However, both child groups follow a similar processing pattern in both pre-verbal and post-verbal constructions showing longer RTs immediately after a singular verb when the subject was pre-verbal indicating a grammaticality effect. In the post-verbal coordinate subject sentences, both child groups showed longer RTs on the first subject following the plural verb due to the temporary number mismatch between the verb and the first subject. This effect was resolved in monolingual children but was still present at the end of the sentence for bilingual children indicating difficulties to reanalyze and integrate information. Taken together, these findings demonstrate that (a) 10–12 year-old sequential bilingual children are sensitive to number agreement in SV coordinate constructions parsing sentences in the same way as monolingual children even though their vocabulary abilities are lower than that of age-matched monolingual peers and (b) bilinguals are slower in processing overall.