Глагольный Вид В Русском Языке Как Грамматическое (А не лексическое) Явление

Pereltsvaig, Asya

doi:10.1007/s11185-007-9018-8

Cited by 15 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The number of grammatical errors in the speech of bi/multilinguals is, however, significantly higher than in the speech of monolinguals. The complex morpho-syntactic system of the Russian language is known to pose challenges for Russian-English bilinguals (e.g., Akhutina, Kurgansky, Polinsky, & Bates, 1999;Pereltsvaig, 2008;Smyslova, 2012;Scontras et al, 2015). The types of grammar errors in the Russian speech of bi/multilinguals are very similar to earlier studies and include errors in nominal and adjectival cases and verbal forms (e.g., Polinsky 2006Polinsky , 2008Pereltsvaig, 2008;Smyslova, 2012).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 54%

Russian language proficiency of monolingual and Russian–English bi/multilingual children

Makarova

Terekhova

2017

OLBIWP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper reports the results of a study investigating the Russian-language proficiency of bi/multilingual (Russian-English [+additional language]) children in Saskatchewan, Canada, as compared to monolingual children in Russia. Very few studies of Russo-English bilingual children's language performance are available in the Canadian context, and no studies have ever been conducted in Saskatchewan, where input is severely restricted compared to other contexts due to demographic reasons. The major impetus for the study was therefore to determine if in these settings, bi/multilingual children can develop minority language proficiency comparable to that of their monolingual peers in Russia. The methodology employed in the study focuses on the linguistic analysis of audio recordings of a picture description task performed by participants. Oral language proficiency parameters (including vocabulary, fluency, and syntactical complexity) in the speech of the 5-6-year-old bi/multilingual children were compared with the ones produced by a control group (monolingual children) from Russia. The results demonstrate that the oral language proficiency in the bilingual group is on a par with that of the monolingual group. However, reading and writing skills of the bi/multilingual group are less developed than in the control group. OLBI WORKING PAPERS canadien, et aucune étude n'a été menée en Saskatchewan, où l'exposition langagière est drastiquement limitée comparée à d'autres contextes, dû à des motifs démographiques. Par conséquent, la principale motivation de notre étude était de déterminer si, dans de tels contextes, les enfants bi-ou plurilingues étaient en mesure d'acquérir des compétences langagières similaires à leurs pairs monolingues en Russie. La méthodologie employée consiste en l'analyse linguistique des enregistrements auditifs d'une description d'images effectuée par les participants. Les paramètres de la performance de la langue orale (incluant le vocabulaire, l'aisance langagière, et la complexité syntaxique) des enfants bi/multilingues âgés de 5 à 6 ans, sont comparés à ceux d'un groupe témoin (enfants monolingues) de Russie. Les résultats démontrent que la performance en langue orale du groupe bilingue est similaire à celle du groupe monolingue. Cependant, les compétences en lecture et en écriture du groupe bi/multilingue sont moins développées que celles du groupe témoin.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 54%

Russian language proficiency of monolingual and Russian–English bi/multilingual children

Makarova

Terekhova

2017

OLBIWP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, early exposure to the language gives heritage learners a phonetic advantage over L2 learners, so that "the general impression is that even basilectal [the least proficient] heritage speakers sound native-like" (Polinsky & Kagan, 2007, p. 378). In terms of grammatical competence, heritage learners have shown difficulties in a variety of areas, including gender agreement (Montrul, Foote, & Perpiñán, 2008;Polinsky, 2006), tense, aspect, and mood distinctions (Lynch, 1999;Montrul, 2002;Pereltsvaig, 2008;Polinsky, 2006;Silva-Corvalán, 1994), and differential object marking (Montrul & Bowles, 2008), among others. Crucially for this study, many of these same domains of morphosyntactic knowledge are also problem areas for L2 learners of Spanish .…”

Section: Instructional Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Comparison of L2-L2 and L2-Heritage Learner Interactions in Spanish Language Classrooms

Bowles

Adams

Toth

2014

The Modern Language Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Conversational interaction studies have typically focused either on second language (L2) learners participating in native speaker-nonnative speaker (NS-NNS) dyads or in NNS-NNS dyads. This study analyzes the task-based interactions of 26 naturally occurring learner dyads in an intermediate-level, university Spanish language classroom, 13 of which were matched L2 learner dyads and 13 of which were mixed L2 learner-heritage learner (HL) dyads. Specifically, the study compared the two dyad types to determine whether they differed in their focus on form or in the amount of talk produced during interaction. Results revealed that the two types of dyads were largely similar, although instances of focus on form were more likely to be resolved in a target-like way by mixed L2-HL pairs than by matched L2-L2 pairs, and there was significantly more target language talk in mixed pairs. Interestingly, L2 learners used the target language significantly more with HL learners than they did with other L2 learners, suggesting that different conversational norms may be at play in the two pair types. Furthermore, posttask questionnaire data indicated that L2 and HL learners alike saw the interaction as a greater opportunity for the L2 learner's development than for the HL learner's, calling into question whether classroom contexts like this one meet the needs of HL learners.

show abstract

“…However, early exposure to the language gives heritage learners a phonetic advantage over L2 learners, so that “the general impression is that even basilectal [the least proficient] heritage speakers sound native‐like” (Polinsky & Kagan, , p. 378). In terms of grammatical competence, heritage learners have shown difficulties in a variety of areas, including gender agreement (Montrul, Foote, & Perpiñán, ; Polinsky, ), tense, aspect, and mood distinctions (Lynch, ; Montrul, ; Pereltsvaig, ; Polinsky, ; Silva–Corvalán, ), and differential object marking (Montrul & Bowles, ), among others. Crucially for this study, many of these same domains of morphosyntactic knowledge are also problem areas for L2 learners of Spanish (Montrul et al, )…”

Section: Instructional Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Comparison of L2–L2 and L2–Heritage Learner Interactions in Spanish Language Classrooms

Bowles

Adams

Toth

2014

The Modern Language Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Conversational interaction studies have typically focused either on second language (L2) learners participating in native speaker–nonnative speaker (NS–NNS) dyads or in NNS–NNS dyads. This study analyzes the task‐based interactions of 26 naturally occurring learner dyads in an intermediate‐level, university Spanish language classroom, 13 of which were matched L2 learner dyads and 13 of which were mixed L2 learner–heritage learner (HL) dyads. Specifically, the study compared the two dyad types to determine whether they differed in their focus on form or in the amount of talk produced during interaction. Results revealed that the two types of dyads were largely similar, although instances of focus on form were more likely to be resolved in a target‐like way by mixed L2–HL pairs than by matched L2–L2 pairs, and there was significantly more target language talk in mixed pairs. Interestingly, L2 learners used the target language significantly more with HL learners than they did with other L2 learners, suggesting that different conversational norms may be at play in the two pair types. Furthermore, posttask questionnaire data indicated that L2 and HL learners alike saw the interaction as a greater opportunity for the L2 learner's development than for the HL learner's, calling into question whether classroom contexts like this one meet the needs of HL learners.

show abstract

Глагольный Вид В Русском Языке Как Грамматическое (А не лексическое) Явление

Cited by 15 publications

References 17 publications

Russian language proficiency of monolingual and Russian–English bi/multilingual children

Russian language proficiency of monolingual and Russian–English bi/multilingual children

A Comparison of L2-L2 and L2-Heritage Learner Interactions in Spanish Language Classrooms

A Comparison of L2–L2 and L2–Heritage Learner Interactions in Spanish Language Classrooms

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About