期刊文献+

二语熟练度和语言间句法结构相似性对中国学习者英语被动句加工过程的影响 被引量:12

The effects of second language proficiency and syntactic structure similarity on the processing of English passives by Chinese EFL learners
原文传递
导出
摘要 本文以中等熟练者和高熟练者这两类二语熟练度不同的中国大学生为受试,采用ERP技术,以具有语言间句法结构相似性的直译型英语被动句和具有语言间句法结构差异性的意译型英语被动句作为实验材料,在比较两类受试在无违例、句法违例、语义违例以及双违例条件下的行为数据和ERP多维数据变化的基础上,探讨二语熟练度和语言间句法结构对汉-英双语者英语被动句加工过程的影响及其二者各自的作用。结果表明:1)熟练度可以预测英语被动句实时加工的程度和水平;2)高熟练者对于句法违例和双违例的处理模式相似,引发了最为明显的P600。中等熟练者对于语义违例和双违例的处理模式相似,引发了最为明显的N400;3)中等熟练者和高熟练者对于英语被动句的加工过程可能存在本质差异——前者以语义信息加工为中心,后者以句法信息加工为中心;4)行为指标分析结果支持语言间句法结构相似性效应——直译句反应快、正确率高;句法结构低通达的意译句反应慢、正确率低,并且此效应在中等熟练者身上表现得更为明显。 With 40 Chinese university students of intermediate and high proficiency as subjects,this study investigates the effects of second language proficiency and L1-L2 syntactic structure similarity on the processing of English passives by Chinese EFL learners.Focusing on literally translated passive sentences with similar syntactic constructions and freely translated passive sentences with different syntactic constructions as data,it compares the behavioral and ERP(event-related potential) patterns of data from the two types of subjects under four conditions.The results indicate:1) Reaction time of the subjects with high proficiency is faster and their accuracy rate higher than those of the intermediate subjects,indicating that the degree and level of English passive sentence processing can be predicted on the basis of proficiency;2) The subjects with high proficiency deal with syntactic and double anomalies in a similar way,with P600 being observed;the subjects of intermediate proficiency deal with semantic and double anomalies in a similar way,with N400 being observed;3) There are fundamental differences between the two types of subjects in processing passive sentences,with the intermediate subjects focusing on semantic information and the high proficient subjects on syntactic information;4) Behavioral patterns of data support syntactic accessibility between languages — reaction time and accuracy rate in the syntactic structures of high accessibility(literally translated sentences) being faster and higher than those of syntactic structures of low accessibility(freely translated sentences),which is observed more clearly in the intermediate subjects.
作者 常欣 王沛
出处 《外语教学与研究》 CSSCI 北大核心 2013年第2期241-252,319-320,共12页 Foreign Language Teaching and Research
基金 上海市教委科研创新重点项目"二语熟练度与语言间句法结构通达性对晚期汉-英双语者英语被动句加工过程的影响"(13ZS092)资助
  • 相关文献

参考文献28

  • 1Ardal, S., M. Donald, R. Meuter, S. Muldrew & M. Luce. 1990. Brain responses to se- mantic incongruity in bilinguals [J]. Brain and Language 39: 187-205.
  • 2Chen, L., H. Shu, L. Zhao & P. Li. 2007. ERP signatures of subject-verb agreement in L2 learning [J]. Bilingualisrn : Language and Cognition 10.. 161-174.
  • 3Clahsen, H. & C. Felser. 2006. Grammatical processing in language learners [J]. Applied Psycholinguist 27.- 3-42.
  • 4Coulson S., J. King & M. Kutas. 1998. ERPs and domain specificity: Beating a straw horse [J]. Language and Cognitive Processes 13: 653-672.
  • 5Friederici, A. 2002. Towards a neural basis of auditory sentence processing [J]. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 6: 78-84.
  • 6Hahne, A. 2001. What's different in second language processing? Evidence from event-re- lated brain potentials [J]. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 30: 251-266.
  • 7Hahne, A. &A. Friederici. 2001. Processing a second language.. Late learners' comprehen- sion mechanisms as revealed by event-related brain potentials [J]. Bilingualisrn : Lan- guage and Cognition 4.. 123-141.
  • 8Hahne, A., J. Mueller & H. Clahsen. 2006. Morphological processing in a second language: Behavioral and event-related brain potential evidence for storage and decom- position [J]. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 18.. 121-134.
  • 9Jiang, N. 2007. Selective integration of linguistic knowledge in adult second language learn- ing [J]. Language Learning 57.. 1-33.
  • 10Kotz, S. 2009. A critical review of ERP and fMRI evidence on L2 syntactic processing [J]. Brain and Language 109. 68-74.

二级参考文献24

  • 1[1]Smith M C. How do bilinguals access lexical information? In: J F Kroll ed. Tutorials in Bilingualism: Psycholingualistics Perspectives. New Jersey: Lawrence Erbaum Associate, 1997. 145~168
  • 2[2]Potter M C, So K F,Eckhardt B von,Feldman L B. Lexical and conceptual representation in beginning and more proficient bilinguals. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1984, 23: 23~38
  • 3[3]Lambert W,Ignatow M,Krauthamer M. Bilingual organization in free recall. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1968, 7(1): 207~214
  • 4[4]Glanzer M, Duarte A. Repetition between and within languages in free recall. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1971, 10(6): 625~630
  • 5[5]Keatley C W, Spinks J A, Gelder J A de. Asymmetrical cross-language priming effects. Memory and Cognition, 1994, 22: 70~84
  • 6[6]Kolers P A, Gonzalez E. Memory for words, synonyms, and translations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 1980, 6(1): 53~65
  • 7[7]Kolers P A. Interlingual word associations. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1963, 2: 291~300
  • 8[8]Kolers P A. Interlingual facilitation of short-term memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1966, 5: 314~519
  • 9[9]Taylor I. Similarity between French and English words-A factor to be considered in bilingual language behavior? Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 1976, 5: 85~94
  • 10[10]Altarriba J, Mathis K M. Conceptual and lexical development in second language acquisition. Journal of Memory and Language, 1997, 36: 550~568

共引文献593

同被引文献133

引证文献12

二级引证文献50

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部