Search results

1

L2 English derivational knowledge: Which affixes are learners more likely to recognise?

100%

Leontjew D.

Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching

|

2016

|

vol. 6

|

issue 2

225-248

EN

Knowledge of derivational morphology is considered an important aspect of vocabulary knowledge both in L1 (mother tongue) and L2 (second or foreign language) English language learning. However, it is still not clear whether different derivational affixes vary in their (learning) difficulty. The present study examines whether Bauer and Nation’s (1993) teaching order of L2 English affixes can account for the difficulty learners have with recognising the affixes. The participants in the study were L1 Estonian and Russian learners of English at uppersecondary schools in Estonia (n = 62). Their performance was measured on a word segmentation task. There were significant differences in the number of affixes the learners were able to successfully recognise at different levels, as classified by Bauer and Nation (1993). By and large, with the exception of no significant difference between Level 5 and Level 6 affixes, the higher the affix level was, the less likely the learners were to recognise the affixes at this level. I argue that these results can support the order proposed by Bauer and Nation. The implications of the finding for teaching and further research are also discussed.

2

L2 English derivational knowledge: Which affixes are learners more likely to recognise?

100%

Leontjev D.

Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching

|

2016

|

vol. 6

|

issue 2

225-248

EN

Knowledge of derivational morphology is considered an important aspect of vocabulary knowledge both in L1 (mother tongue) and L2 (second or foreign language) English language learning. However, it is still not clear whether different derivational affixes vary in their (learning) difficulty. The present study examines whether Bauer and Nation’s (1993) teaching order of L2 English affixes can account for the difficulty learners have with recognising the affixes. The participants in the study were L1 Estonian and Russian learners of English at upper-secondary schools in Estonia (n = 62). Their performance was measured on a word segmentation task. There were significant differences in the number of affixes the learners were able to successfully recognise at different levels, as classified by Bauer and Nation (1993). By and large, with the exception of no significant difference between Level 5 and Level 6 affixes, the higher the affix level was, the less likely the learners were to recognise the affixes at this level. I argue that these results can support the order proposed by Bauer and Nation. The implications of the finding for teaching and further research are also discussed.

3

Словообразование в белорусско-русской и украинско-русской смешанной речи

75%

Гречко Д., Палинська О.

Linguistica Copernicana

|

2019

|

vol. 16

EN

The article dwells upon reasons that may lay behind the differences between word formation in Belarusian-Russian and Ukrainian-Russian Mixed Speech (BRMS and URMS). Taking into account some derivational phenomena, I demonstrate which affixes (‘Russian’ or ‘Belarusian’/’Ukrainian’) are more preferable. Under scrutiny are also sociodemographic and structural factors that influence on the choice of affixes.Comparison of BRMS and URMS demonstrates the difference in the morphology of these mixed idioms. While in Belarusian Mixed Speech more often are ‘Russian’ suffixes, in URMS they prevail only in some cases, semantically triggered. The most important difference is the fact that ‘Ukrainian’ suffixes in URMS are sometimes even more preferable as a more “prestigious” variant due to the higher status of Ukrainian language in Ukraine.The role of such sociolinguistic factors as rural-urban migration and the age of the informants is minimal, however by non-migrants and younger people the tendency toward the use of ‘Russian’ suffixes is stronger. In both idioms an important parameter is the root affinity, but in URMS ‘Ukrainian’ suffixes are more frequent even with ‘Russian’ roots. Areal differences are discovered – while in URMS the number of ‘Ukrainian’ suffixes is gradually decreasing along the axis “West-East”, in BRMS the areal distribution is quite variegated and there is a clear division along the axis “West-East”, or depending on dialectal areas is not attested. For URSR in separate cases an important role is played by dialectal specialties.

RU

.

PL

В статье рассмотрены возможные причины различий между белорусско-русской и украинско-русской смешанной речью (БРСР и УРСР) в области словообразования: на основе некоторых деривационных явлений показано, какие аффиксы – ‘русские’ или ‘белорусские’ / ‘украинские’ – являются более предпочтительными, а также исследовано, какие социодемографические и структурные факторы влияют на выбор аффиксов.Сопоставление материала БРСР и УРСР показывает разницу в морфологии этих смешанных идиомов: если в белорусской смешанной речи чаще выступают ‘русские’ аффиксы, то в украинской они преобладают только в отдельных случаях, определенных семантикой. Важным отличием является то, что ‘украинские’ аффиксы в УРСР иногда даже являются предпочтительнее в роли «престижного» варианта вследствие более высокого статуса украинского языка в Украине. Роль таких социодемографических факторов, как миграционный статус «деревня – город»и возраст информантов, минимальна, но, тем не менее,у немигрантов и более молодых людей тенденция к употреблению ‘русских’ аффиксов сильнее.В обоих идиомах важным параметром является аффинитет корней, но в УРСР ‘украинские’ аффиксы выступают чаще,даже с ‘русскими’ корнями. Обнаружены различия по месту сбора материала: если в УРСР количество ‘украинских’ аффиксов последовательно уменьшается по оси запад-восток, то в БРСР распределение по месту сбора материала довольно неоднородно, четкое разделение по оси запад-восток или по диалектным зонам отсутствует. Для УРСР в отдельных случаях важную роль играют диалектные особенности.

4

Pensoj pri la sufikso -ec en la esperanta leksiko

71%

Jansen W.

Język. Komunikacja. Informacja

|

2019

|

issue 14

53-71

EN

This study addresses the lexical suffix -ec [εts] in Esperanto (traceable to French -esse, Spanish -eza, Italian -ezza). The approach to word building in Esperanto adopted here is based on content lexemes as word stems, not predestined to a particular syntactic application. It describes derivation as a process which is hosted in the lexicon, affecting semantically categorized stems. The issue of syntactically free versus specialized stems is as old as the language itself, originating in the circumstance that Esperanto’s initiator Zamenhof extracted syntactic word forms from his source languages, but turned these into dependent stems in Esperanto. It was not until the 1960s that the Esperanto Academy formalized its views in the debate, but the question as to how to interpret the parts of speech (PoS) continued to be debated in the esperantological press well into the seventies and, in isolated publications, until today. Only recently (2013–2016) these issues were embedded by the author of the present paper in a universal theory of language, Functional Discourse Grammar. In these studies, the suffix -ec was found to be particularly problematic in that its observed use by Esperanto speakers or writers is far from systematic. Even authoritative Esperanto grammars are of no great help in supporting the language user, as they contain ambiguities and internal contradictions, and do not offer adequate instructions. In this paper, a new approach is proposed. The ruling which results from this is simple, and its unrestricted application would be entirely congruent with the hypothesized flexible PoS-system of Esperanto. However, the day-to-day usage of -ec is neither consistent with traditional prescriptions, nor with the rule which is proposed here. It suffers from a persistent unawareness among the language users of the workings of the PoS, whichever way we look at them, and is driven by disparate mother tongue habits and fossilized conventions, rather than by prescriptions. This is the way a natural language works.

PL

Niniejszy tekst dotyczy sufiksu leksykalnego -ec w systemie słowotwórczym w języku esperanto. W poniższej analizie rdzenie esperanckie są uważane za elastyczne, tj. nieprzeznaczone do żadnego konkretnego zastosowania syntaktycznego, a tworzenie wyrazu za pomocą afiksów jest opisane jako proces zachodzący w leksykonie, w którym rolę odgrywają elastyczne składniowo, ale semantycznie sklasyfikowane rdzenie. Pytanie o tzw. przynależność kategorialną rdzeni lub jej brak jest tak stare jak sam ten język. Wynika ono z faktu, że Zamenhof, tworząc słownictwo esperanta, wyodrębniał formy składniowe ze swoich języków źródłowych, ale redefiniował je jako rdzenie składniowo nie bezpośrednio możliwe do użycia. Jeszcze w latach sześćdziesiątych ubiegłego wieku Akademia Esperanta sformalizowała swoje stanowisko w tej debacie, ale dyskusja na temat sposobu interpretacji zasobu rdzeni języka trwała w prasie esperanckiej aż do lat siedemdziesiątych, a w pojedynczych publikacjach aż do dziś. Dopiero niedawno (2013–2016) problem ten został sformułowany przez autora tego tekstu w ramach uniwersalnej teorii języka, tj. w Funkcjonalnej Gramatyce Dyskursu (Functional Discourse Grammar, FDG). W tychże badaniach sufiks -ec, ze względu na niesystemowość w swoim praktycznym zastosowaniu, szczególnie opierał się spójnemu opisowi. Nawet autorytatywne gramatyki esperanta niewiele pomagają użytkownikowi języka, ponieważ zawierają dwuznaczności i sprzeczności i nie dają odpowiednich instrukcji. W niniejszej pracy zaproponowano nowe podejście. Reguła, którą tworzy, jest prosta, a jej bezwyjątkowe zastosowanie byłoby w pełni kompatybilne z hipotetyczną elastyczną strukturą części mowy esperanta. Jednakże zaobserwowane zwyczajowe użycie -ec nie jest zgodne ani z tradycyjnymi zaleceniami ani z proponowaną regułą. Cierpi ono z powodu ciągłej nieświadomości użytkowników na temat funkcjonowania systemu mowy, niezależnie od preferowanej teorii leksyki, i jest napędzany przez różne nawyki pochodzące z języka ojczystego i utarte konwencje. Tak oto działa język naturalny.

Refine search results

2 Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching

1 Język. Komunikacja. Informacja

1 Linguistica Copernicana

2 2019

2 2016

1 Jansen W.

1 Leontjev D.

1 Leontjew D.

1 Гречко Д.

1 Палинська О.

L2 English derivational knowledge: Which affixes are learners more likely to recognise?

L2 English derivational knowledge: Which affixes are learners more likely to recognise?

Словообразование в белорусско-русской и украинско-русской смешанной речи

Pensoj pri la sufikso -ec en la esperanta leksiko