Language Learning上的一篇文章想不明白，恳请帮忙！

[anna_01124]

我的疑问在这篇文章（见附件）中P576-577的Group Results中使用的方法。该文研究的第一个问题是学习者过渡语中情状体（lexical aspect）和使用动词过去时形态（past tense morphology）之间的关系（P579倒数第三行再次强调）。当看回P576的Group Results，我们看到作者把cloze task中的动词形式按照对错分类，而非学习者使用的动词形态。对于这个疑问，我想他们的这一分类是否也可以代表动词的形态分类，似乎可以这样理解。但是，即使可以这样理解，而cloze task中的必要语境有几种时态（主要为一般过去时，还有过去时进行体和一般现在时），按照情状体假设（Aspect Hypothesis）的预测，英语中一般过去时和进行体及一般现在时的习得情况迥异。这样一来，P576中作者对动词形式的标注分类是否把几种时态的习得情况综合再一起了？若是，我个人认为是不合理的，因为根据其研究问题的假设，每种时体形式的习得情况不同。若不是，难道作者统计的排除了其他必要语境而仅仅统计的是一般过去时的必要语境中的数据？

按理说能够发在Language Learning上的文章应该可靠，若是这样，那应该是我的理解偏差，冥思苦想数月，依旧困惑！！！恳请热心人士帮忙解答，不胜感激！

 

[xusun575]

回复: Language Learning上的一篇文章想不明白，恳请帮忙！

我的疑问在这篇文章（见附件）中P576-577的Group Results中使用的方法。该文研究的第一个问题是学习者过渡语中情状体（lexical aspect）和使用动词过去时形态（past tense morphology）之间的关系（P579倒数第三行再次强调）。当看回P576的Group Results，我们看到作者把cloze task中的动词形式按照对错分类，而非学习者使用的动词形态。对于这个疑问，我想他们的这一分类是否也可以代表动词的形态分类，似乎可以这样理解。但是，即使可以这样理解，而cloze task中的必要语境有几种时态（主要为一般过去时，还有过去时进行体和一般现在时），按照情状体假设（Aspect Hypothesis）的预测，英语中一般过去时和进行体及一般现在时的习得情况迥异。这样一来，P576中作者对动词形式的标注分类是否把几种时态的习得情况综合再一起了？若是，我个人认为是不合理的，因为根据其研究问题的假设，每种时体形式的习得情况不同。若不是，难道作者统计的排除了其他必要语境而仅仅统计的是一般过去时的必要语境中的数据？

按理说能够发在Language Learning上的文章应该可靠，若是这样，那应该是我的理解偏差，冥思苦想数月，依旧困惑！！！恳请热心人士帮忙解答，不胜感激！

Frankly,I have no idea about your Q's, but still feel wondering if you do think the "Aspect" used in " lexical aspect" in linguistic implication is the same as the one used in "Aspect Hypothesis".
How come that the term "aspect"should" have been redendered into 情状体? Without tracing back to the origin of the term VID in Russian, one could be less likely to have a proper idea of its English and Chinese equivalents.

 

[anna_01124]

回复: Language Learning上的一篇文章想不明白，恳请帮忙！

Frankly,I have no idea about your Q's, but still feel wondering if you do think the "Aspect" used in " lexical aspect" in linguistic implication is the same as the one used in "Aspect Hypothesis".
How come that the term "aspect"should" have been redendered into 情状体? Without tracing back to the origin of the term VID in Russian, one could be less likely to have a proper idea of its English and Chinese equivalents.

Hi,thank you for your reply. The "aspect" in "Aspect Hypothesis" does refer to lexical aspect. If you refer to the articles on this topic in China, you will find that "lexical aspect" is translated into “情状体”。I think you've mix "aspect" with "lexical aspect".

 

[anna_01124]

回复: Language Learning上的一篇文章想不明白，恳请帮忙！

Again, my question is not in the aspect but in the categorization of the participants' responses to the cloze task. Why did the authors classified the verb forms into "correct", "incorrect", partially correct", "alternative correct" and "missing", each of which may include more than one verb forms, for example, the category of "correct" may include verb forms of "simple past" "past progressive" and "simple present" which may also be included in other categories such as "incorrect" because the obligotory context requires simples past, simple present and past progressive? Why didn't they categorize the responses into "simple past", "simple present", "past progressive", "present perfect", etc. according to the verb morphology so that it can ensure the forms of each category are distinguishable and thus match the first research question?

 

[xusun575]

回复: Language Learning上的一篇文章想不明白，恳请帮忙！

Hi,thank you for your reply. The "aspect" in "Aspect Hypothesis" does refer to lexical aspect. If you refer to the articles on this topic in China, you will find that "lexical aspect" is translated into “情状体”。I think you've mix "aspect" with "lexical aspect".

Aha, how could I have failed to know the 情somthing is the term preferred by some Chinese scholars of a type? '"I think you've mix "aspect" with "lexical aspect"', did I? Why didn't I personally know about it? Or I should apologize for my misleading wordings to you.

If you do have an interest in "Aspect" as a grammatical category, please try to learn one or more Slavonic languagues, say, Russian, so that you could be original or more contributive in this field.

 

[anna_01124]

回复: Language Learning上的一篇文章想不明白，恳请帮忙！

Aha, how could I have failed to know the 情somthing is the term preferred by some Chinese scholars of a type? '"I think you've mix "aspect" with "lexical aspect"', did I? Why didn't I personally know about it? Or I should apologize for my misleading wordings to you.

If you do have an interest in "Aspect" as a grammatical category, please try to learn one or more Slavonic languagues, say, Russian, so that you could be original or more contributive in this field.

Hi, thanks for your suggestion. I will think about it. If possible, could you please search the key words “情状体”in CNKI and think about my questions again？Thank you very much.

 

[xusun575]

回复: Language Learning上的一篇文章想不明白，恳请帮忙！

Hi, thanks for your suggestion. I will think about it. If possible, could you please search the key words “情状体”in CNKI and think about my questions again？Thank you very much.

sorry i will not bother myself with your request or assignemt, though i believe there should be some c pals here who definitely would.

 

[anna_01124]

回复: Language Learning上的一篇文章想不明白，恳请帮忙！

Thanks all the same.

 

[Haiyang Ai]

回复: Language Learning上的一篇文章想不明白，恳请帮忙！

You could write to the authors for help. They know the research best.

 

[anna_01124]

回复: Language Learning上的一篇文章想不明白，恳请帮忙！

Hi, I have tried to ask the first author's help. She said she would write me back as soon as possible. Unfortunately, I've been waiting for the reply for more than one and a half months, during which I wrote again but failed to get any answer. I don't know why.