Startseite Definite article bridging relations in L2: A learner corpus study
Artikel
Lizenziert
Nicht lizenziert Erfordert eine Authentifizierung

Definite article bridging relations in L2: A learner corpus study

  • Peter Robert Crosthwaite ORCID logo EMAIL logo
Veröffentlicht/Copyright: 13. Februar 2016

Abstract

Bridging relations are used when the identity of a discourse-new entity can be inferred via lexical relations from an antecedent (e. g. a cake … the slice) or non-lexically via reference to world knowledge or discourse structure (e. g. a war … the survivors). Such relations are marked in English via the definite article, which is considered a difficult feature of the English language for L2 learners to acquire, particularly for L1 speakers of article-less languages. This paper provides an Integrated Contrastive Model (e. g. Granger 1996) of the L1 and L2 production of definite article bridging relations using L2 English learner corpus data produced by native Mandarin and Korean speakers at four L2 proficiency levels, alongside comparative native English data. The data is taken from the International Corpus Network of Asian Learners of English (ICNALE, Ishikawa 2011, 2013), totalling just under 400,000 words with over 1500 bridging NPs identified. Results suggest subtle but significant differences between L1-L2 and L2-L2 groupings in terms of the frequency of particular bridging relation types and lemmatised wordings identified in the data, although there was little evidence of pseudo-longitudinal development. Such differences may suggest an effect of L1-L2 linguistic relativity, influencing the selection of relational links between given/new discourse entities during L2 production.

References

Aiping, Mo. 2003. Bridging reference in Chinese discourse: A pragmatic-cognitive approach(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). China: Guangdong University of Foreign Studies.Suche in Google Scholar

Ariel, Mira. 1991. The function of accessibility in a theory of grammar. Journal of Pragmatics, 16(5). 443–463.10.1016/0378-2166(91)90136-LSuche in Google Scholar

Ariel, Mira. 1996. Referring expressions and the +/- coreference distinction. In Thorstein Fretheim & Jeanette Gundel (eds.), Reference and referent accessibility. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.38.02ariSuche in Google Scholar

Ariel, Mira. 2008. Pragmatics and grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511791314Suche in Google Scholar

Ariel, Mira. 2010. Defining pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511777912Suche in Google Scholar

Brown, R. 1973. A first language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.10.4159/harvard.9780674732469Suche in Google Scholar

Berry, Kenneth J., J. E. Johnston & Paul W. Mielke Jr. 2006. A measure of effect size for Rx C Contingency tables. Psychological reports, 99(1). 251–256.Suche in Google Scholar

Carroll, Mary., & Christiane von Stutterheim. 2003. Typology and information organisation: perspective taking and language-specific effects in the construal of events. In A. G. Ramat (Ed.), Typology and Second Language Acquisition, 365–402. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110891249.365Suche in Google Scholar

Clark, Eve. 2015. Common ground. In Brian MacWhinney & William O’Grady (eds.) The handbook of language emergence. Oxford: Wiley.10.1002/9781118346136.ch15Suche in Google Scholar

Clark, Herbert. 1975. Bridging. In Roger Schank & Bonnie Nash-Webber (eds.), Theoretical issues in natural language processing, 169–174. New York: Association for Computing Machinery.10.3115/980190.980237Suche in Google Scholar

Clark, Herbert, & Susan Haviland. 1977. Comprehension and the given-new contract. In Roy Freedle (ed.), Discourse production and comprehension, 1–40. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Suche in Google Scholar

Council of Europe. 2001. Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Cohen, Jacob. 1988. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edn. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Suche in Google Scholar

Crosthwaite, P. 2013. An error analysis of L2 English discourse reference through learner corpus analysis. Linguistic Research 30(2). 163–193.10.17250/khisli.30.2.201308.002Suche in Google Scholar

Crosthwaite, P. 2014a. Differences between the coherence of Mandarin and Korean L2 English learner production and English native speakers: An empirical study (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Cambridge, UK.Suche in Google Scholar

Crosthwaite, P. 2014b. Definite discourse-new reference in L1 and L2: A study of bridging in Mandarin, Korean and English. Language Learning 64(3). 456–492.10.1111/lang.12062Suche in Google Scholar

Crosthwaite, P. in press. L2 article use by speakers of article-less languages. The International Journal of Learner Corpus Research.10.1075/ijlcr.2.1.03croSuche in Google Scholar

Diez-Bedmar, Maria Belén. 2015. Article use and criterial features in Spanish EFL writing. In M. Callies & S. Gotz (eds.), Learner corpora in language testing and assessment, 163–190. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/scl.70.07dieSuche in Google Scholar

Diez-Bedmar, Maria Belén, & Szilvia Papp. 2008. The use of the English article system by Chinese and Spanish learners. In Gaëtanelle Gilquin, Maria-Belén Diez-Bedmar, & Szilvia Papp (eds.), Linking up contrastive and learner corpus research, 147–175. New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1163/9789401206204Suche in Google Scholar

Ekiert, Monika. 2007. The acquisition of grammatical marking of indefiniteness with the indefinite article a in L2 English. Teachers College, Columbia University Working Papers in TESOL & Applied Linguistics 7(1). http://journal.tc-library.org/index.php/tesol/article/viewFile/265/224 (accessed 8 May 2014)Suche in Google Scholar

Ekiert, Monika. 2010. Linguistic effects on thinking for writing: The case of articles in L2 English. In Zhaohong Han & Teresa Cadierno (eds.), Linguistic relativity in SLA: Thinking for speaking, 125–153. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.10.21832/9781847692788-008Suche in Google Scholar

Fellbaum, Christiane. (ed.) (1998). WordNet: An electronic lexical database. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/7287.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar

Filipović, Luna & John Hawkins. 2013. Multiple factors in second language acquisition: The CASP model. Linguistics 51. 145–176.10.1515/ling-2013-0005Suche in Google Scholar

Fleiss, Joseph, Bruce Levin & Myunghee Paik. 1981. Statistical methods for rates and proportions, 2nd edn. New York: Wiley.Suche in Google Scholar

Gardent, Claire, Helene Manuélian & Eric Kow. 2003. Which bridges for bridging definite descriptions? In Proceedings of the EACL 2003 Workshop on Linguistically Interpreted Corpora, 69–76. http://www.cnrtl.fr/corpus/dede/gardent-manuelianLINC.pdf (accessed 8 May 2014).Suche in Google Scholar

Granger, Sylviane. 1996. From CA to CIA and back: An integrated approach to computerized bilingual and learner corpora. In Karin Aijmer, Bengt Altenberg & Mats Johansson (eds.), Languages in contrast, 37–51. Lund, Sweden: Lund University Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Grice, Herbert P. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Peter Cole & Jerry Morgan (eds.), Syntax and semantics, vol. 3, 41–58. New York, NY: Academic Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Gundel, Jeanette, Nancy Hedberg & Ron Zacharski. 1993. Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language 69. 274–307.10.2307/416535Suche in Google Scholar

Hawkins, John. 1978. Definiteness and indefiniteness: A study in reference and grammaticality prediction. London: Croom Helm.Suche in Google Scholar

Hawkins, John A. 2004. Efficiency and Complexity in Grammars. New York, N.Y.: Oxford University Press10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199252695.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar

Huang, Yan. 2000. Anaphora: A Cross-Linguistic Study. New York, N.Y.: Oxford University PressSuche in Google Scholar

Huebner, Thom. 1983. A longitudinal analysis of the acquisition of English. Ann Arbor, MI: Karoma.Suche in Google Scholar

Ionin, Tania, Heejong Ko & Kenneth Wexler. 2004. Article semantics in L2 acquisition: The role of specificity. Language Acquisition 12. 3–69.10.1207/s15327817la1201_2Suche in Google Scholar

Ionin, Tania, Soondo Baek, Eunah Kim, Heejong Ko & Kenneth Wexler. 2012. That’s not so different from the: Definite and demonstrative descriptions in second language acquisition. Second Language Research 28. 69–101.10.1177/0267658311432200Suche in Google Scholar

Ishikawa, Shin’ichiro. 2011. A New horizon in learner corpus studies: The aim of the ICNALE Project. In George Weir, Shin’ichiro Ishikawa & Kornwipa Poonpon (eds.), Corpora and language technologies in teaching, learning and research, 3–11. Glasgow: University of Strathclyde Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Ishikawa, Shin’ichiro. 2013. The ICNALE and sophisticated contrastive interlanguage analysis of Asian learners of English. In Shin’ichiro Ishikawa (ed.), Learner corpus studies in Asia and the World, 191–118. Kobe, Japan: Kobe University.Suche in Google Scholar

Lecomte, Josette. 1997. Codage multext-grace pour l’action grace multitag. Technical report, INALF, Nancy.Suche in Google Scholar

Leung, Yan-kit. 2001. The initial state of L3A: Full transfer and failed features? In Xenia Bonch-Bruevich, William Crawford, John Hellerman, Christina Higgins & Hahn Nguyen (eds.), The past, present, and future of second language research: Selected proceedings of the 2000 second language research forum, 55–75. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Levinson, Stephen. 2006. On the human “Interaction Engine”. In N. Enfield & S. C. Levinson (eds.) Roots of human sociality: Culture, cognition, and interaction, 39–69. Oxford: Berg.10.4324/9781003135517-3Suche in Google Scholar

Master, Peter. 1987. A cross-linguistic interlanguage analysis of the acquisition of the English article system (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of California at Los Angeles.Suche in Google Scholar

Matsui, Tomoko. 2000. Bridging and relevance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.76Suche in Google Scholar

Nicholls, Diane. 2003. The Cambridge Learner Corpus – error coding and analysis for lexicography and ELT. In Dawn Archer, Paul Rayson & Tony McEnery (eds.), Proceedings of the Corpus Linguistics 2003 Conference. UCREL: Lancaster University.Suche in Google Scholar

O’Donnell, Mick. 2008. Demonstration of the UAM CorpusTool for text and image annotation. Proceedings of the ACL-08: HLT Demo Session (Companion Volume), pages 13–16, Columbus, June 2008.Suche in Google Scholar

Poesio, Massimo, Rahul Mehta, Axel Maroudas & Janet Hitzeman. 2004. Learning to resolve bridging references. In Proceedings of the 42nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 143–150.Suche in Google Scholar

Poesio, Massimo & Renata Vieira. 1998. A corpus-based investigation of definite description use. Computational Linguistics 24. 183–216.Suche in Google Scholar

Prince, Ellen. 1981. Toward a taxonomy of given-new information. In Peter Cole (ed.), Radical pragmatics, 223–256. New York: Academic Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Robertson, Daniel. 2000. Variability in the use of the English article system by Chinese learners of English. Second Language Research 16. 135.10.1191/026765800672262975Suche in Google Scholar

Slobin, Dan. 1975. The more it changes… On understanding language by watching it move through time. Papers and Reports on Child Language Development 10. 1–30.Suche in Google Scholar

Slobin, Dan. 1996. From “thought and language” to “thinking for speaking.” In John Gumperz & Stephen Levinson (eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity, 70–96. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Socher, Richard, John Bauer, Christopher Manning & Andrew Ng. 2013. Parsing With Compositional Vector Grammars. Proceedings of ACL 2013.Suche in Google Scholar

Sperber, Dan, & Dierdre Wilson. 1995. Relevance: Communication and cognition (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Suche in Google Scholar

Stalnaker, Robert. 1974. Pragmatic presuppositions. In Milton Munitz & Peter Unger (eds.), Semantics and philosophy: Essays, 197–213. New York: New York University Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Vieira, Renata, & Massimo Poesio. 2000. An empirically based system for processing definite descriptions. Computational Linguistics 26. 539–593.10.1162/089120100750105948Suche in Google Scholar

Wilson, Dierdre & Tomoko Matsui. 1998. Recent approaches to bridging: Truth, coherence, relevance. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 10. 173–200.10.1017/CBO9781139028370.012Suche in Google Scholar

Young, Richard. 1996. Form-function relations in articles in English interlanguage. In Robert Bayley & Dennis Preston (eds.), Second language acquisition and linguistic variation, 135–175. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/sibil.10.07youSuche in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2016-02-13
Published in Print: 2019-10-25

©2019 by De Gruyter Mouton

Heruntergeladen am 11.11.2025 von https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/cllt-2015-0058/html
Button zum nach oben scrollen