Acquisition of Korean short form negation by native Chinese and English speakers: A learner corpus-based study

2021 ◽  
Vol 26 (4) ◽  
pp. 121-144
Author(s):  
Sun Hee Hwang
Keyword(s):  
Short Form ◽  
English Speakers ◽  
Learner Corpus ◽  
Chinese And English

Strategies of Impression Management and Deception among Chinese and English speakers

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chenling Hsieh ◽  
Cheryl Hiscock-Anisman ◽  
Kevin Colwell ◽  
Samantha Florence ◽  
Andrea Sorcinelli ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Impression Management ◽  
English Speakers ◽  
Chinese And English

scholarly journals ‘Almost people’: A Learner Corpus Account of L2 Use and Misuse of Non-numerical Quantification

2016 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Crosthwaite ◽  
Lavigne L.Y. Choy ◽  
Yeonsuk Bae
Keyword(s):  
English Learners ◽  
English Speakers ◽  
L2 Proficiency ◽  
L1 Transfer ◽  
Learner Corpus ◽  
Proficiency Level ◽  
Closed Class ◽  
Corpus Data ◽  
Noun Number ◽  
L1 English

AbstractWe present an Integrated Contrastive Model of non-numerical quantificational NPs (NNQs, i.e. ‘some people’) produced by L1 English speakers and Mandarin and Korean L2 English learners. Learner corpus data was sourced from the ICNALE (Ishikawa, 2011, 2013) across four L2 proficiency levels. An average 10% of L2 NNQs were specific to L2 varieties, including noun number mismatches (*‘many child’), omitting obligatory quantifiers after adverbs (*‘almost people’), adding unnecessary particles (*‘all of people’) and non-L1 English-like quantifier/noun agreement (*‘many water’). Significantly fewer ‘openclass’ NNQs (e.g a number of people) are produced by L2 learners, preferring ‘closed-class’ single lexical quantifiers (following L1-like use). While such production is predictable via L1 transfer, Korean L2 English learners produced significantly more L2-like NNQs at each proficiency level, which was not entirely predictable under a transfer account. We thus consider whether positive transfer of other linguistic forms (i.e. definiteness marking) aids the learnability of other L2 forms (i.e. expression of quantification).

How Learner Corpus Research can inform language learning and teaching

2020 ◽  
Vol 43 (2) ◽  
pp. 196-218
Author(s):  
Martin Schweinberger
Keyword(s):  
Language Learning ◽  
Language Teaching ◽  
English Speakers ◽  
Learning And Teaching ◽  
Learner Corpus ◽  
Informal Conversation ◽  
L1 And L2

Abstract This study aims to exemplify how language teaching can benefit from learner corpus research (LCR). To this end, this study determines how L1 and L2 English speakers with diverse L1 backgrounds differ with respect to adjective amplification, based on the International Corpus of Learner English (ICLE) and the Louvain Corpus of Native English Essays (LOCNESS). The study confirms trends reported in previous research, in that L1 speakers amplify adjectives more frequently than L2 English speakers. In addition, the analysis shows that L1 and L2 English speakers differ substantially with respect to the collocational profiles of specific amplifier types and with respect to awareness of genre-specific constraints on amplifier use, and that even advanced L2 speakers tend to be unaware of stylistic constraints on adjective amplification because they model their academic output based on patterns generalized from informal conversation. These findings are useful for language teaching in that the data can be used to target L1-specific difficulties experienced by L2 English speakers.

Intercultural pragmatics at work: (Self-)perceptions of intercultural behavior of Chinese and English speakers and interpreters in healthcare interactions

2015 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jim Hlavac ◽  
Zhichang Xu ◽  
David Xiong Yong
Keyword(s):  
The Self ◽  
English Speakers ◽  
Cultural Groups ◽  
Theoretical Frameworks ◽  
Patient Centered ◽  
Chinese Speakers ◽  
Intercultural Pragmatics ◽  
Linguistic Behavior ◽  
Healthcare Situation ◽  
Chinese And English

AbstractInterpreters are expected to have an advanced command of not only the vocabulary and grammar of their working languages, but also the pragmatic norms that speakers of their working languages employ in communicative interactions. The aim of this paper is to explore the perceptions and practices of interpreters in relation to intercultural pragmatics at work in healthcare interactions. The paper employs two theoretical frameworks: the first is based on interpretations of behavior according to speakers' discourse-pragmatic features as representative of “high” or “low” context cultures (cf. Hall 1976); the second applies Celce-Murcia's (2007) more refined notion of “communicative competence.” The data sample of this paper focuses on cultural-pragmatic features of two linguistic and cultural groups – 25 Chinese speakers and 24 English speakers – and contrasts their selected responses to five features of Chinese-English interpreted healthcare interactions. Responses from 33 Chinese-English interpreters are matched against those from speakers of the two groups to examine the degree of congruence that interpreters have with the self-reported (para-)linguistic behavior of the two groups of speakers, for whom they interpret. This study shows that the self-reported (para-)linguistic behavior of both groups is determined by their adoption of a particular approach (doctor- vs. patient-centered approach) and other micro-level features (perceived time constraints, different notions of “small talk”) that limit elaborate pragmatic enactments. Over-arching cultural-pragmatic models based on “high” (or “low”) context communication, or “vertical” (vs. “horizontal”) hierarchical perceptions of role and status appear to have limited application to the data. Instead, local features specific to the healthcare situation co-determine both English and Chinese speakers' responses to questions about their use of pragmatics. Findings indicate that interpreters attend to each group's enactment of pragmatic features and, as expert language users, are able to recognize features and components of interactions and their functions to a greater degree than the Chinese and English speakers.

Insight into the structure of compound words among speakers of Chinese and English

2011 ◽  
Vol 33 (4) ◽  
pp. 753-779 ◽  
Author(s):  
JIE ZHANG ◽  
RICHARD C. ANDERSON ◽  
QIUYING WANG ◽  
JEROME PACKARD ◽  
XINCHUN WU ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Sixth Graders ◽  
Compound Word ◽  
English Speakers ◽  
Compound Words ◽  
Chinese Speakers ◽  
Word Structure ◽  
English Speaking ◽  
Noun Compounds ◽  
Chinese And English ◽  
Insight Into

ABSTRACTKnowledge of compound word structures in Chinese and English was investigated, comparing 435 Chinese and 258 Americans, including second, fourth, and sixth graders, and college undergraduates. As anticipated, the results revealed that Chinese speakers performed better on a word structure analogy task than their English-speaking counterparts. Also, as anticipated, speakers of both languages performed better on noun + noun and verb + particle compounds, which are more productive in their respective languages than noun + verb and verb + noun compounds, which are less productive. Both Chinese and English speakers performed significantly better on novel compounds than on familiar compounds, most likely because familiar compounds are lexicalized and do not invite decomposition into constituents.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document