4.6 Article

Effects of EFL Learning on L1 Chinese Lexis

期刊

SUSTAINABILITY
卷 13, 期 23, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/su132313496

关键词

crosslinguistic influence; multi-competence; backward transfer; lexical complexity and diversity

资金

  1. Humanities and Social Sciences Project of Ministry of Education [18YJA740019]
  2. Department of Education of Zhejiang Province, China [jg20180469]
  3. College of Science and Technology, Ningbo University [xyjy2020029]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study compared abstracts written by English majors and Chinese majors to investigate the effects of EFL learning on written L1 Chinese at the lexical level. Significant differences were found in various word classes and lexical complexity, but not in lexical diversity, supporting the multi-competence theory.
The advocates of multi-competence theory argue that the L2 learners' language system is unique because of the crosslinguistic influences of both languages. However, the influence of a foreign language on the learner's L1 has not been extensively investigated. In order to address the gap, the present study sought to investigate the effects of EFL learning on written L1 Chinese at the lexical level. Two studies were conducted on 200 abstracts of MA theses written in Chinese, half on English literature written by Chinese-L1 English majors (EMs), and half on Chinese literature written by Chinese-L1 Chinese majors (CMs). The first study investigated the differences between the two groups in terms of the frequencies of nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs, pronouns, prepositions, and conjunctions in the abstracts. The second study examined the differences in the lexical complexity and diversity between the two groups. The results reveal 12 significant differences in 27 investigated word classes and subclasses, as well as significant differences in lexical complexity, but no significant difference in lexical diversity. The identified differences are discussed from a multi-competence perspective.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据