adoviance 语言学迁移Word下载.docx
- 文档编号:17608669
- 上传时间:2022-12-07
- 格式:DOCX
- 页数:27
- 大小:45.50KB
adoviance 语言学迁移Word下载.docx
《adoviance 语言学迁移Word下载.docx》由会员分享,可在线阅读,更多相关《adoviance 语言学迁移Word下载.docx(27页珍藏版)》请在冰豆网上搜索。
YoshinoriJ.Fukuya
UniversityofHawai‘iatMānoa
ABSTRACT
ThisstudyinvestigatestheavoidanceofEnglishphrasalverbs(PVs)byChineselearnersinrelationtotheirproficiencylevels(advanced,intermediate),PVtypes(figurative,literal),andtesttypes(multiple-choice,translation,recall).EachofthesixgroupsofChineselearnerstookoneofthethreetestsandagroupofnativespeakerstookthemultiple-choicetest.TheANOVAresultsshowedthattheintermediatelearners,whoseL1lacksthePVstructure,tendedtoavoidusingPVsandpreferredtheirone-wordequivalents.Also,bothadvancedandintermediatelearnerstendedtoproducelessfigurativethanliteralPVs,whichwasmanifestedinthetranslationtestalone.Incorporatingthefindingsofthreepreviousstudiesonthesametopic,thisstudyclaimsthatlearners’PVavoidancebehaviorisamanifestationofILdevelopmentandthatthesemanticnatureofthePVstendstointeractwiththetranslationtest.
INTRODUCTION
ThephenomenonofavoidancebehaviorsinSLAwasfirstbroughttolightbySchachter(1974),whopointedouttheimportanceofexaminingnotonlytheL2formsthatwereactuallyproducedbythelearnersofaforeignlanguage,butalsotheL2formstheyseemtoavoidusingconsistently.Sincethen,ithasdrawntheattentionofmanyresearchers(e.g.,Dagut&
Laufer,1985;
Hulstijn&
Marchena,1989;
Kamimoto,Shimura&
Kellerman,1992;
Kleinmann,1977,1978).
Whencomparingtheerrorsinrelativeclauses(RCs)madebynativespeakers(NSs)ofChinese,Japanese,Persian,andArabianlearnersintheirEnglishcompositions,Schachter(1974)foundthatthedifficultyofRCforChineseandJapanesestudents,whichwaspredictedbyContrastiveAnalysis(CA),manifesteditselfnotinthenumberoferrorsmadebythesetwogroupsoflearners,butinthenumberofRCsproduced,whichwasmuchsmallerthanthatproducedbythePersianandArabianspeakers.Sheconcludedthat“ifastudentfindsaparticularconstructioninthetargetlanguagedifficulttocomprehenditisverylikelythathewilltrytoavoidproducingit”(p.213).ShefurtherpointedoutthatErrorAnalysis,whichhadbeenprevailinginprevioustransferstudies,wasdeficientinSLAbecauseitwasincapableofexplainingthephenomenonofavoidance.
Schachter’sstudyisinconclusivedespitetheimportantrevelationoftheavoidancebehaviors.Foronething,itdidnotcontrolproficiencylevelandthefrequencyofRCsinthetexts.Furthermore,asKleinmann(1977,1978)argued,“tobeabletoavoidsomelinguisticfeaturepresupposesbeingabletochoosenottoavoidit,i.e.,touseit”(1977,p.97).However,inSchachter’sstudy,therewasnoproofthatthelearnershadtheabilitytouseRCs.Therefore,theChineseandJapaneselearners’so-calledavoidanceofproducingEnglishRCsmayhaveresultedsimplyfromtheirignoranceofthestructureratherthanconsciousavoidance.Avoidance,asinterpretedbyKleinmann,wasastrategythatL2learnersmightresorttowhen,withtheknowledgeofatargetlanguagewordorstructure,theyperceivedthatitwasdifficulttoproduce.
Tobetterpinpointavoidancebehavior,Kleinmann(1977,1978)examinedfourEnglishgrammaticalstructures(passive,presentprogressive,infinitivecomplement,anddirectobjectpronounstructures)performedbytwogroupsofintermediatelevelESLlearners:
NSsofArabic,andNSsofSpanishandPortuguese.Beforelookingatanypossibleavoidancebehavior,Kleinmannadministeredcomprehensionteststoestablishthepresenceofthelearners’knowledgeofthefourstructuresinquestion.TheresultsofthestudyshowedanavoidancepatterninaccordancewithCAdifficultypredictions.Thefrequencyofuseofthetargetstructureswasalsocorrelatedwithvariousaffectivemeasures(e.g.,confidence,facilitatinganxiety).Thefindingsinthisaspect,togetherwiththeavoidancepattern,ledtothesuggestionthat“whileCAisafairlygoodpredictorofavoidance,thereisaninteractionoflinguisticandpsychologicalvariablesindetermininglearnerbehaviorinasecondlanguageinthatstructureswhichotherwisewouldbeavoidedarelikelytobeproduceddependingontheaffectivestateofthelearner”(Kleinmann,1977,p.93).Therefore,thestudysupportedSchachter’spointthatavoidancebehaviorcanbepredictedbythestructuraldifferencebetweenL1andL2,althoughotherfactorsoperateatthesametimetodeterminetheactualoccurrenceoftheavoidancebehavior.
Ontheotherhand,someresearchersarguedthattheunderproductionofcertainlinguisticfeaturesdoesnotnecessarilysuggestavoidance,andthestructuraldifferencebetweenL1andL2alonemaynotbetheonlyreasonforunderproduction.Kamimotoetal.(1992)pointedoutthatinordertobeabletoestablishwhetheravoidanceisafeasibleexplanationforrelativeunderproductionofagroupoflearners,itisnecessarytolookattheL1form,distribution,andfunctionoftheentitysupposedlybeingavoidedintheL2,aswellasthemeansbeingusedtoestablishwhetherandtowhatextenttheentityisalreadypartoftheL2knowledgeofmembersofthatgroup.InadetailedstudyofChineseandEnglishRCs,Li(1996)foundthatintermediateandadvancedlearnersdidnotnecessarilyavoidstructuresthatwereapparentlydifferentinformfromtheirL1.HehenceconcludedthatitwasnottheapparentstructuraldifferencethatcausedChineselearnerstoconsciouslyavoidEnglishRCs,butthemoresubtlepragmaticdifferencesthatmadethemsubconsciouslyunderproducethisstructure.
Theabove-mentionedstudiespointedouttheexistenceandsomepotentialcausesofavoidancebehaviorinL2learners.ThefollowingsectiondiscussesthreestudiesontheavoidanceofEnglishphrasalverbs(PVs).
AvoidanceofPhrasalVerbsinEnglish
ThePVstructureisapeculiarityofthefamilyofGermaniclanguages(Dagut&
Darwin&
Gary,1999),andonthewholeoccursmorefrequentlyinspokenthaninwrittenlanguage(Cornell,1985;
Dixon,1982;
Side,1990).APVisusuallydefinedasastructurethatconsistsofaverbproperandamorphologicallyinvariableparticlethatfunctionasasingleunitbothlexicallyandsyntactically(Darwin&
Gary,1999;
Quirk,Greenbaum,Leech,&
Svartvik,1985).VariousattemptshavebeenmadetoclassifyPVs.Somelookedattherelationshipbetweentheverbproperandtheparticle(e.g.,Fraser,1976),whilesomeothersfocusedonthesemantics.Cornell(1985)observedthatlargenumbersofPVsarenon-idiomaticinnature,inthesensethattheirmeaningiseasytodeduceiftheverbelementisknown.Forexample,ifthemeaningofrushorsteamisknowntothelearner,itwouldnotbehardtounderstandrushawayorsteamoff.IntwostudiesontheavoidanceofPVs(tobediscussedindetailbelow),DagutandLaufer(1985)andLauferandEliasson(1993)approachedtheclassificationwithdifferenttermsbutthesamenature.DagutandLaufer(1985)dividedthe15PVsusedintheirstudyintothreetypes:
(a)literal—phrasalverbswhosemeaningisastraightforwardproductoftheirsemanticcomponents:
goout,takeaway,comein;
(b)figurative—inwhichanewmeaninghasresultedfromametaphoricalshiftofmeaningandthesemanticfusionoftheindividualcomponents:
turnup,letdown,...;
(c)completive—inwhichtheparticledescribestheresultoftheaction:
cutoff,burndown,...(p.74).
Similarly,LauferandEliasson(1993)workedwiththreetypes:
semanticallytransparent(themeaningofthewholeverb-particlecombinationcanbederivedfromthemeaningofitsparts),semitransparent(thosethataretransparentwhenputintocontext),andfigurativeor“semanticallyopaque”(p.37),whichhavelexicalizedmeaning.Thefigurative,oridiomatic,PVswereconsideredsemanticallymoredifficultthanothertypesofPVs.Thedifferencebetweenfigurativeandnon-figurativePVswasalsolookedintoinbothstudies.
TherearethreestudiesontheavoidanceofPVsintheliterature.ThefirststudyisDagutandLaufer(1985),whichlookedattheperformanceofIsraelilearnersofEnglishonPVs,alexicosyntacticformwithnoformalequivalentinHebrew.ThreegroupsofintermediateHebrewlearnerstookthreetests(amultiple-choicetest,averbtranslationtest,andaverb-memorizingtest).ThestudyalsolookedintothefrequencyofavoidanceinthreePVtypes(literal,figurative,andcompletive).TheresultsshowedthatthemajorityofthelearnersavoidedusingthePVs,preferringtheone-wordverbs.Furthermore,avoidancewasmostevidentwiththefigurativePVs.DagutandLauferconcludedthattheHebrewlearners’difficultyinproducingEnglishPVscouldnotbeexplainedbyanyintralingualfactorssuchasover-generalizationorfossilization.Instead,itcouldonlybeunderstoodbyaninterlingualapproach,thatis,structuraldifferencesbetweenL1andL2.Thus,thestudyprovidedstrongevidencethattypologicaldifferencebetweenHebrewandEnglishresultedintheavoidance.
DagutandLaufer’s(1985)studyhastwoweaknesses.First,themethodusedtoestablishparticipants’priorknowledgeofthelinguisticfeatureinquestionwasnotsound.ThechoiceofthePVsdependedprimarilyontheresearchers’impressionfromtheirteachingexperience,asthePVsusedinthestudywerechosenbecausetheywerelistedinoneofthestandardtextbooksandweresupposedtobecoveredinthecurriculum.Thus,aspointedoutbyKamimotoetal.(1992),theirconclusionthattheyhad“agenuineavoidancephenomenon”(p.78)wasnotwellgrounded.TheunderproductionmayhaveresultedfrompureignoranceofthePVs.Second,althoughDagutandLaufer(1985)pointed
- 配套讲稿:
如PPT文件的首页显示word图标,表示该PPT已包含配套word讲稿。双击word图标可打开word文档。
- 特殊限制:
部分文档作品中含有的国旗、国徽等图片,仅作为作品整体效果示例展示,禁止商用。设计者仅对作品中独创性部分享有著作权。
- 关 键 词:
- adoviance 语言学迁移 语言学 迁移