polarity contrast
Recently Published Documents


TOTAL DOCUMENTS

10
(FIVE YEARS 3)

H-INDEX

3
(FIVE YEARS 2)

2020 ◽  
Vol 53 (3) ◽  
pp. 875-884 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bill K. Wheatle ◽  
Nathaniel A. Lynd ◽  
Venkat Ganesan

2019 ◽  
Vol 31 (17) ◽  
pp. 6540-6547 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew J. Dyson ◽  
Eirini Lariou ◽  
Jaime Martin ◽  
Ruipeng Li ◽  
Harikrishna Erothu ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew Dyson ◽  
Natalie Stingelin ◽  
Jaime Martin ◽  
Ruipeng Li ◽  
Harikrishna Erothu ◽  
...  

2015 ◽  
Vol 31 (4) ◽  
pp. 465-491 ◽  
Author(s):  
Giuseppina Turco ◽  
Christine Dimroth ◽  
Bettina Braun

We investigated the second language (L2) acquisition of pragmatic categories that are not as consistently and frequently encoded in the L2 than in the first language (L1). Experiment 1 showed that Italian speakers linguistically highlighted affirmative polarity contrast (e.g. The child ate the candies following after The child did not eat the candies) in 34.3% of the cases, by producing a nuclear pitch accent on the finite verb (i.e. verum focus accent). Experiment 2 revealed that high-proficient German and Dutch non-native speakers of Italian linguistically encoded polarity contrast more frequently, either using a verum focus accent (German) or lexical markers (Dutch). This corresponds closely to the patterns preferred in their native languages. Our results show L1 transfer on three levels: (1) the relevance of the pragmatic category (i.e. marking polarity contrast on the assertion component), (2) the linguistic markers to encode polarity contrast and (3) the phonetic implementation of the intonational marking. These three levels of transfer have implications for how non-native speakers acquire the L2 discourse organizational principles and the linguistic markers to encode them.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document