2011
DOI: 10.1515/9783110255027
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The Present Perfect in Non-Native Englishes

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

5
48
0
6

Year Published

2013
2013
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
2

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 70 publications
(59 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
5
48
0
6
Order By: Relevance
“…While PhilE, HKE, IndE and the two African varieties align with the average L1 distribution, JamE and once more SgE represent significant outliers both in respect to the overall average and even within the L2 group (ICE-JA: χ 2 = 6.9333, df = 1, p = 0.00846, φ c = 0.08260847; ICE-SIN: χ 2 = 7.403, df = 1, p = 0.006512, φ c = 0.0884623) with PP co-occurrence proportions of just around one fifth, which matches Hundt and Smith's (2009: 54) values found for spoken AmE. For never, Davydova's (2011) figures diverge considerably from the present results. While the PT dominance, exceeding 80% of the share, is further evidenced for SgE (247), she found a prevalence of PP co-occurrence for both IndE (183) and EAfE (226), which in effect is not suggested by the current data.…”
Section: Figure 8 Relative Distribution Between Co-occurring Pp and supporting
confidence: 81%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…While PhilE, HKE, IndE and the two African varieties align with the average L1 distribution, JamE and once more SgE represent significant outliers both in respect to the overall average and even within the L2 group (ICE-JA: χ 2 = 6.9333, df = 1, p = 0.00846, φ c = 0.08260847; ICE-SIN: χ 2 = 7.403, df = 1, p = 0.006512, φ c = 0.0884623) with PP co-occurrence proportions of just around one fifth, which matches Hundt and Smith's (2009: 54) values found for spoken AmE. For never, Davydova's (2011) figures diverge considerably from the present results. While the PT dominance, exceeding 80% of the share, is further evidenced for SgE (247), she found a prevalence of PP co-occurrence for both IndE (183) and EAfE (226), which in effect is not suggested by the current data.…”
Section: Figure 8 Relative Distribution Between Co-occurring Pp and supporting
confidence: 81%
“…As differences between modes of discourse are marginal here, so that exclusive or predominant reliance on written data (as, e.g., in Hundt and Smith 2009) does not seem to be exerting an influence, possible explanations for the discrepancy are either a generally lower amount of PP occurrences that are temporally specified in non-L1 varieties, which would be surprising (and is less pronounced and thus only deducible in tendency in Davydova's [2011] data), or, more likely, the choice of corpus material in the individual studies. Note, however, that others have suggested that differences of genre and register in fact might play a part, which is illustrated by the assertion that "the classic adverb-less PP exists only in formal written English" (Miller 2004: 231) -a statement that appears exaggerated in the light of the corpus findings just presented.…”
Section: A Look Atmentioning
confidence: 79%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Este análisis se centrará en las tres estructuras más difíciles de procesamiento en términos cognitivos de la frase verbal, es decir, presente perfecto, la voz pasiva y el uso de preposiciones Este apartado tiene como objetivo caracterizar el grado de complejidad de dichas estructuras a partir de la propuesta teórica formulada por VanPatten (2004), que caracteriza el procesamiento de input lingüístico como un proceso de interpretación de significado basado en atención a una forma específica y condicionado por las capacidades limitadas de almacenamiento y procesamiento de información, y al esquema de criterios para la clasificación de la complejidad de formas lingüísticas propuesta por Davydova (2011).…”
Section: Discusión Y Análisis De Los Resultadosunclassified
“…Esto permite describir y definir los rasgos lingüísticos de naturaleza compleja en los diversos dominios y dar cuenta de los factores que determinan su grado de complejidad. a) Complejidad gramatical: Un sistema gramatical es más complejo si este contiene un mayor número de expresiones gramaticalizadas para expresar distinciones semántico-pragmáticas específicas (Szmrecsanyi y Kortmann, 2009 Adicionalmente, Davydova (2011) propone el siguiente esquema de criterios para la clasificación de formas lingüísticas de acuerdo a su nivel de complejidad. Podemos concluir que las estructuras que se presentan a los alumnos tienen una carga inherente de complejidad que puede jugar un rol crucial en el procesamiento y posterior comprensión de la estructura en cuanto a su forma y posibles significados.…”
Section: La Complejidad Lingüísticaunclassified