{"title":"EFL 和 ESL 中的限制性交流","authors":"Gaëtanelle Gilquin, Lea Meriläinen","doi":"10.1075/eww.23001.gil","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n This study relies on the constrained communication framework to compare the use of embedded inversion in English\n as a Foreign Language (EFL) and English as a Second Language (ESL). It is based on several (sub)corpora of EFL and ESL, but also\n reference corpora of native English, which differ along the constraint dimensions of language activation (monolingual/bilingual),\n proficiency (native users/proficient L2 users/learners), and modality (speech/writing). In addition to these constraint\n dimensions, we also investigate the possible effect of linguistic factors that have been claimed to play a role in the use of\n embedded inversion. A multifactorial analysis comparing embedded inversion with standard-like indirect questions, supplemented by\n a close examination of the patterns of use of embedded inversion, reveals both shared and distinctive features across EFL and ESL.\n It also highlights the importance of linguistic factors and variety/L1, and their interaction with communicative constraints.","PeriodicalId":0,"journal":{"name":"","volume":"60 s79","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Constrained communication in EFL and ESL\",\"authors\":\"Gaëtanelle Gilquin, Lea Meriläinen\",\"doi\":\"10.1075/eww.23001.gil\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n This study relies on the constrained communication framework to compare the use of embedded inversion in English\\n as a Foreign Language (EFL) and English as a Second Language (ESL). It is based on several (sub)corpora of EFL and ESL, but also\\n reference corpora of native English, which differ along the constraint dimensions of language activation (monolingual/bilingual),\\n proficiency (native users/proficient L2 users/learners), and modality (speech/writing). In addition to these constraint\\n dimensions, we also investigate the possible effect of linguistic factors that have been claimed to play a role in the use of\\n embedded inversion. A multifactorial analysis comparing embedded inversion with standard-like indirect questions, supplemented by\\n a close examination of the patterns of use of embedded inversion, reveals both shared and distinctive features across EFL and ESL.\\n It also highlights the importance of linguistic factors and variety/L1, and their interaction with communicative constraints.\",\"PeriodicalId\":0,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"\",\"volume\":\"60 s79\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1075/eww.23001.gil\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1075/eww.23001.gil","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
This study relies on the constrained communication framework to compare the use of embedded inversion in English
as a Foreign Language (EFL) and English as a Second Language (ESL). It is based on several (sub)corpora of EFL and ESL, but also
reference corpora of native English, which differ along the constraint dimensions of language activation (monolingual/bilingual),
proficiency (native users/proficient L2 users/learners), and modality (speech/writing). In addition to these constraint
dimensions, we also investigate the possible effect of linguistic factors that have been claimed to play a role in the use of
embedded inversion. A multifactorial analysis comparing embedded inversion with standard-like indirect questions, supplemented by
a close examination of the patterns of use of embedded inversion, reveals both shared and distinctive features across EFL and ESL.
It also highlights the importance of linguistic factors and variety/L1, and their interaction with communicative constraints.