An Analysis of Interlanguage Development over Time

Part II, ser and estar

Dados Bibliográficos

ID3559641
AutoresGail Guntermann (autor correspondente)
Ano1992
Volume75
Fascículo5
Páginas1294
Data de publicação1992-12-01
Peer ReviewedSim
Open AccessNão
TipoARTICLE
PeriódicoHispania (JOURNAL)
Identificadores do periódicoISSN: 0018-2133 • E-ISSN: 2153-6414
EditoraJSTOR (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.2307/344396
OpenAlexW2013975885
IdiomaEN
Citações recebidas23

bation stage, in spite of the fact that its counterseveral for which this study seeks answers: part in English as a Second Language has flourWhich is used more at each level, por or para; ished for over two decades. Some notable excepthat is, which one is the default, on marked, tions are studies reported by Andersen (1984), form? What meanings are expressed by por and Blake (1982), De Keyser (1991), Finnemann para, and which uses are not attempted? At what (1990), Frantzen (1991), Lafford and Collentine levels are most errors made with each form and (1989), Lantolf (1988), Licenas (1985, 1986), function? Finally, in what ways do learners exStokes(1988), and VanPatten(1985, 1987,1989). tend these prepositions beyond their designated This study, the first part of a larger planned functions, and what other forms do they substiinvestigation, examines the use of por and para tute for them? These questions ultimately relate by nine Peace Corps volunteers in oral interto the greaten issue of how these learners exviews at the end of training and roughly one year pressed meanings at different stages of acquisilater, in order to trace their acquisition over time, tion. in two learning contexts. The ultimate goal of the larger project is to describe the interlanguage of The Study these subjects from the standpoint of both form The Subjects and the Learning Contexts

Interlanguage · Linguistics · EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning · Multilingual Education and Policy · Philosophy · Psychology · Second Language Learning and Teaching