LANGUAGE TRANSFER AND DISCOURSE UNIVERSALS IN INDIAN ENGLISH ARTICLE USE
LANGUAGE TRANSFER AND DISCOURSE UNIVERSALS IN INDIAN ENGLISH ARTICLE USE
复制标题
印度英语文章使用中的语言迁移和话语普遍性
DOI：
10.1017/s0272263105050242
复制
发表时间：
2005
影响因子：
4.1
通讯作者：
D. Sharma
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
D. Sharma
随着时间的推移，在没有母语输入的情况下习得和使用的稳定的非母语英语变体可能会系统性地偏离母语变体（Cheshire, 1991; Kachru, 1983; Platt, Weber, & Ho, 1984）。着眼于印度人英语文章的使用，本研究提出了以下问题：如果确实发生了差异，那么新的特征主要来自第一语言（L1）迁移还是来自普遍原则？自然会话语音的评估与四个假设有关的母语迁移和语言共性，并进行多元回归分析评估每个因素的相对强度。新物品制度与L1物品制度并不相同。虽然当第一语言中存在显性形式（特定不定冠词）时，母语迁移似乎是有效的，但当第一语言中出现空白时（没有定冠词），说话者不会完全省略第二语言英语中的定冠词。使用Prince（1981）的假设熟悉度分类法，研究表明，如果不存在定冠词的L1模型，就可以使用普遍可用的话语知识进行干预，因此，说话者在使用显性冠词时采用了一种经济的、消除歧义的原则，主要将其保留在新的（较少给定或可推断的）信息中，而在更冗余的语境中省略它们。我非常感谢John Rickford， Elizabeth Traugott, Arnold Zwicky, Ishtla Singh，以及SSLA的编辑和匿名审稿人提供的非常有帮助的反馈。我还收到了来自亚特兰大LSA（2003年1月）以及加州大学戴维斯分校和加州大学圣地亚哥分校（2003年2月）听众的宝贵意见。
Stable nonnative varieties of English acquired and used in the absence of native English input can diverge systematically from native varieties over time (Cheshire, 1991; Kachru, 1983; Platt, Weber, & Ho, 1984). Focusing on Indian English article use, this study asks the following question: If divergence is indeed occurring, do new features derive primarily from first language (L1) transfer or from universal principles? Natural conversational speech is assessed in relation to four hypotheses relating to L1 transfer and language universals, and a multivariate regression analysis evaluates the relative strength of each factor. The new article system is not found to be identical to the L1 article system. Although L1 transfer appears to be operative when an overt form (the specific indefinite article) exists in the L1, when a gap occurs in the L1 (no definite article), speakers do not completely omit the definite article in their second language English. Using Prince's (1981) taxonomy of assumed familiarity, it is shown that the absence of a L1 model for definite articles permits the intervention of universally available discourse knowledge, such that speakers apply an economical, disambiguating principle to the use of overt articles, reserving them mainly for new (less given or inferable) information and omitting them in more redundant contexts.I am indebted to John Rickford, Elizabeth Traugott, Arnold Zwicky, Ishtla Singh, and the SSLA editors and anonymous reviewers for much helpful feedback. I also received valuable comments from audiences at the LSA, Atlanta (January 2003) and at UC Davis and UC San Diego (February 2003).