更熟练的作家在第二语言中使用的同源词更少吗?计算方法

IF 2.5 1区 文学 Q1 LINGUISTICS Bilingualism: Language and Cognition Pub Date : 2023-10-05 DOI:10.1017/s1366728923000482
Liat Nativ, Yuval Nov, Noam Ordan, Shuly Wintner, Anat Prior
{"title":"更熟练的作家在第二语言中使用的同源词更少吗?计算方法","authors":"Liat Nativ, Yuval Nov, Noam Ordan, Shuly Wintner, Anat Prior","doi":"10.1017/s1366728923000482","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Bilinguals often show evidence of cross language influences, such as facilitation in processing cognates. Here we use computational methods for analyzing spontaneous English texts written by hundreds of speakers of different L1s, at different levels of English proficiency, to investigate writers’ preference for using cognates over alternative word choices. We focus on English, since a majority of its lexicon is either of Romance or Germanic origin, allowing an investigation of the preference of speakers of Germanic and Romance L1s towards cognates between their L1 and English. Results show that L2 writers tend to prefer English cognates, and that this tendency is weaker as English proficiency level increases, suggesting diminishing effects of CLI. However, a comparison of the L2 writers with native English writers shows general overuse of cognates only for the Germanic, but not the Romance, L1 speakers, most likely due to the register of argumentative writing.","PeriodicalId":8758,"journal":{"name":"Bilingualism: Language and Cognition","volume":"34 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Do more proficient writers use fewer cognates in L2? A computational approach\",\"authors\":\"Liat Nativ, Yuval Nov, Noam Ordan, Shuly Wintner, Anat Prior\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/s1366728923000482\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Bilinguals often show evidence of cross language influences, such as facilitation in processing cognates. Here we use computational methods for analyzing spontaneous English texts written by hundreds of speakers of different L1s, at different levels of English proficiency, to investigate writers’ preference for using cognates over alternative word choices. We focus on English, since a majority of its lexicon is either of Romance or Germanic origin, allowing an investigation of the preference of speakers of Germanic and Romance L1s towards cognates between their L1 and English. Results show that L2 writers tend to prefer English cognates, and that this tendency is weaker as English proficiency level increases, suggesting diminishing effects of CLI. However, a comparison of the L2 writers with native English writers shows general overuse of cognates only for the Germanic, but not the Romance, L1 speakers, most likely due to the register of argumentative writing.\",\"PeriodicalId\":8758,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Bilingualism: Language and Cognition\",\"volume\":\"34 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Bilingualism: Language and Cognition\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/s1366728923000482\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LINGUISTICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bilingualism: Language and Cognition","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s1366728923000482","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

摘要

双语者经常表现出跨语言影响的证据,如同源词加工的便利化。在这里,我们使用计算方法来分析数百名不同英语水平、不同英语水平的人所写的即兴英语文本,以调查作者对使用同源词的偏好。我们将重点放在英语上,因为它的大部分词汇要么是罗曼语,要么是日耳曼语,从而可以调查日耳曼语和罗曼语L1的使用者对L1和英语之间同源词的偏好。结果表明,二语写作者倾向于使用英语同源词,并且这种倾向随着英语水平的提高而减弱,这表明英语同源词的影响正在减弱。然而,将第二语言作者与母语为英语的作者进行比较后发现,只有日耳曼语作者普遍过度使用同源词,而母语为英语的罗曼语作者则没有,这很可能是议论文写作的原因。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Do more proficient writers use fewer cognates in L2? A computational approach
Abstract Bilinguals often show evidence of cross language influences, such as facilitation in processing cognates. Here we use computational methods for analyzing spontaneous English texts written by hundreds of speakers of different L1s, at different levels of English proficiency, to investigate writers’ preference for using cognates over alternative word choices. We focus on English, since a majority of its lexicon is either of Romance or Germanic origin, allowing an investigation of the preference of speakers of Germanic and Romance L1s towards cognates between their L1 and English. Results show that L2 writers tend to prefer English cognates, and that this tendency is weaker as English proficiency level increases, suggesting diminishing effects of CLI. However, a comparison of the L2 writers with native English writers shows general overuse of cognates only for the Germanic, but not the Romance, L1 speakers, most likely due to the register of argumentative writing.
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
CiteScore
8.90
自引率
16.70%
发文量
86
期刊最新文献
Effects of the French grammatical gender system on bilingual adults' perception of objects Experiential, perceptual, and cognitive individual differences in the development of declarative and automatized phonological vocabulary knowledge Cross-linguistic transfer in bilingual children's phonological and morphological awareness skills: a longitudinal perspective The subject advantage in LIS internally headed relative clauses: an eye-tracking study Flexible functional adaptation of selective attention in bilingualism
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1