메뉴 건너뛰기
.. 내서재 .. 알림
소속 기관/학교 인증
인증하면 논문, 학술자료 등을  무료로 열람할 수 있어요.
한국대학교, 누리자동차, 시립도서관 등 나의 기관을 확인해보세요
(국내 대학 90% 이상 구독 중)
로그인 회원가입 고객센터 ENG
주제분류

추천
검색
질문

논문 기본 정보

자료유형
학술저널
저자정보
Hye-ryeong Hahn (Seowon University)
저널정보
한국응용언어학회 응용언어학 응용언어학 제33권 제4호
발행연도
2017.12
수록면
51 - 78 (28page)
DOI
10.17154/kjal.2017.12.33.4.51

이용수

표지
📌
연구주제
📖
연구배경
🔬
연구방법
🏆
연구결과
AI에게 요청하기
추천
검색
질문

초록· 키워드

오류제보하기
Recent studies on native speakers’ acceptance of wh-island sentences suggest that their judgments are affected by processing factors such as properties of fronted wh-phrase and intervening materials in filler-gap dependency. The present study investigated whether L2 learners’ acceptability judgments were likewise affected by the processibility of a sentence. Ninety-eight Korean adult learners of English at three proficiency levels and 21 adult native English speakers participated in an acceptability judgment task. They were instructed to rate the acceptability of four types of wh-island constructions whose processing demands differed in terms of two processing factors: (i) the type of fronted wh-phrase, and (ii) the type of intervening lexical materials in filler-gap dependency. Analyses of these participants’ ratings showed that EFL learners were generally insensitive to these processing factors. In contrast, native speakers were sensitive to these factors, judging that constructions with a low processing cost was more acceptable than those with a high processing cost. Although high-proficiency EFL learners demonstrated some sensitivity to these processing factors, they preferred island constructions that were most costly in terms of intervening lexical materials. These findings suggest that the effect of processing factors in L2 acceptability judgments is relevant only for advanced learners in whose grammar long-distance movement is operative. In addition, their acceptability judgments are more sensitive to semantic information of lexical arguments than to processing costs.

목차

Ⅰ. INTRODUCTION
Ⅱ. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
Ⅲ. METHOD
Ⅳ. RESULTS
Ⅴ. DISCUSSION
Ⅵ. CONCLUSION
REFERENCES

참고문헌 (33)

참고문헌 신청

함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문

논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!

이 논문의 저자 정보

최근 본 자료

전체보기

댓글(0)

0

UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2018-701-001682781