第二语言意大利语助词的非优化加工:眼动和可接受性判断研究

IF 0.6 3区 文学 0 LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS Zeitschrift Fur Sprachwissenschaft Pub Date : 2022-07-29 DOI:10.1515/zfs-2022-2007
Stefano Rastelli, M. Porta
{"title":"第二语言意大利语助词的非优化加工:眼动和可接受性判断研究","authors":"Stefano Rastelli, M. Porta","doi":"10.1515/zfs-2022-2007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract We investigated whether 68 non-native, tutored beginning L2 learners of Italian – with alphabetical and non-alphabetical L1s – discriminated between sentences containing target-like and non-target-like auxiliaries. We questioned whether learners’ choices could be informed by a grammatical rule, frequency of auxiliaries in the input or whether both grammatical and statistical knowledge could be eclipsed by processing difficulties. Eye-tracking and timed acceptability judgment data showed that – unlike native speakers – these L2 learners were unskilled readers of the target language and that their processing was still non-optimal. In particular, they did not process “core” (i. e., strongly agentive and inherently telic) and “peripheral” (i. e., less semantically specified) intransitive predicates differently, nor did they do so with “matching” and “mismatching” predicates. Frequency and transition probabilities speeded up learners’ decisions on acceptability, but did not affect response accuracy or reading patterns. Finally, recency and length of classroom instruction – unlike learners’ L1, duration of stay in Italy, and proficiency level – positively correlated with greater nativelikeness in the processing of auxiliaries. Our results indicate that beginning L2-Italian learners – as long as their processing is still non-optimal – are not sensitive to the consequences of the unaccusative/unergative split at the syntax-semantics interface.","PeriodicalId":43494,"journal":{"name":"Zeitschrift Fur Sprachwissenschaft","volume":"41 1","pages":"279 - 308"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Non-optimal processing of auxiliaries in L2 Italian: An eye-movement and acceptability judgment study\",\"authors\":\"Stefano Rastelli, M. Porta\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/zfs-2022-2007\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract We investigated whether 68 non-native, tutored beginning L2 learners of Italian – with alphabetical and non-alphabetical L1s – discriminated between sentences containing target-like and non-target-like auxiliaries. We questioned whether learners’ choices could be informed by a grammatical rule, frequency of auxiliaries in the input or whether both grammatical and statistical knowledge could be eclipsed by processing difficulties. Eye-tracking and timed acceptability judgment data showed that – unlike native speakers – these L2 learners were unskilled readers of the target language and that their processing was still non-optimal. In particular, they did not process “core” (i. e., strongly agentive and inherently telic) and “peripheral” (i. e., less semantically specified) intransitive predicates differently, nor did they do so with “matching” and “mismatching” predicates. Frequency and transition probabilities speeded up learners’ decisions on acceptability, but did not affect response accuracy or reading patterns. Finally, recency and length of classroom instruction – unlike learners’ L1, duration of stay in Italy, and proficiency level – positively correlated with greater nativelikeness in the processing of auxiliaries. Our results indicate that beginning L2-Italian learners – as long as their processing is still non-optimal – are not sensitive to the consequences of the unaccusative/unergative split at the syntax-semantics interface.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43494,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Zeitschrift Fur Sprachwissenschaft\",\"volume\":\"41 1\",\"pages\":\"279 - 308\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-07-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Zeitschrift Fur Sprachwissenschaft\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/zfs-2022-2007\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Zeitschrift Fur Sprachwissenschaft","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/zfs-2022-2007","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要本研究调查了68名非母语的、接受辅导的初级意大利语学习者(包括字母和非字母的L2学习者)是否能够区分含有目标助词和非目标助词的句子。我们质疑学习者的选择是否会受到语法规则、输入中助词的频率的影响,或者语法和统计知识是否会因处理困难而黯然失色。眼球追踪和时间可接受性判断数据显示,与母语人士不同,这些第二语言学习者对目标语言的阅读并不熟练,他们的处理仍然不是最佳的。特别是,他们没有处理“核心”(即。例如,强烈的代理和内在的目的性)和“外围”(即:对于“匹配”和“不匹配”谓词,它们也没有这样做。频率和转换概率加快了学习者对可接受性的决定,但不影响反应准确性或阅读模式。最后,课堂教学的时间和长度(与学习者的母语不同)、在意大利停留的时间和熟练程度都与助词加工中更大的本土性呈正相关。我们的研究结果表明,初级l2 -意大利语学习者-只要他们的加工仍然不是最佳的-在语法-语义界面上对非宾格/非否定分裂的后果不敏感。
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
Non-optimal processing of auxiliaries in L2 Italian: An eye-movement and acceptability judgment study
Abstract We investigated whether 68 non-native, tutored beginning L2 learners of Italian – with alphabetical and non-alphabetical L1s – discriminated between sentences containing target-like and non-target-like auxiliaries. We questioned whether learners’ choices could be informed by a grammatical rule, frequency of auxiliaries in the input or whether both grammatical and statistical knowledge could be eclipsed by processing difficulties. Eye-tracking and timed acceptability judgment data showed that – unlike native speakers – these L2 learners were unskilled readers of the target language and that their processing was still non-optimal. In particular, they did not process “core” (i. e., strongly agentive and inherently telic) and “peripheral” (i. e., less semantically specified) intransitive predicates differently, nor did they do so with “matching” and “mismatching” predicates. Frequency and transition probabilities speeded up learners’ decisions on acceptability, but did not affect response accuracy or reading patterns. Finally, recency and length of classroom instruction – unlike learners’ L1, duration of stay in Italy, and proficiency level – positively correlated with greater nativelikeness in the processing of auxiliaries. Our results indicate that beginning L2-Italian learners – as long as their processing is still non-optimal – are not sensitive to the consequences of the unaccusative/unergative split at the syntax-semantics interface.
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
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
19
审稿时长
20 weeks
期刊介绍: The aim of the journal is to promote linguistic research by publishing high-quality contributions and thematic special issues from all fields and trends of modern linguistics. In addition to articles and reviews, the journal also features contributions to discussions on current controversies in the field as well as overview articles outlining the state-of-the art of relevant research paradigms. Topics: -General Linguistics -Language Typology -Language acquisition, language change and synchronic variation -Empirical linguistics: experimental and corpus-based research -Contributions to theory-building
期刊最新文献
Frontmatter X-Wörter im Deutschen: Ein Wortbildungsmuster zur diskursiven Vermeidung von Begriffen An experimental investigation of the interaction of narrators’ and protagonists’ perspectival prominence in narrative texts What cues do children use to infer the meaning of unknown words while reading? Empirical data from German-speaking third graders In the periphery of an indefinite pronoun. Forms and functions of conceptual agreement with jemand
×
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