首页> 外文学位 >Pushing for processing: The roles of depth of processing, working memory, and reactivity on comprehension.
【24h】

Pushing for processing: The roles of depth of processing, working memory, and reactivity on comprehension.

机译:推动处理:处理深度,工作记忆和理解能力的作用。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

VanPatten's (1996, 2004) Primacy of Meaning Principle claims that second language learners process for meaning before they process for form. Previous research has empirically tested this principle with varied results (Greenslade, Bowden, & Sanz, 1999; Leow, Hsieh, & Moreno, 2008; Morgan-Short, Heil, Botero-Moriarty, & Ebert, 2012; VanPatten, 1990; Wong, 2001). In each of these studies, attention to form has been operationalized either by circling the specific forms (for the reading modality, e.g., Greenslade et al., 1999; Leow et al, 2008; Wong, 2001) or by placing a check mark on a piece of paper (for the aural modality, e.g., VanPatten, 1990; Wong, 2001). As Leow et al. (2008) note, in their study, this resulted in a low level of processing that may not have been sufficient to have the detrimental effect on meaning postulated in the Primacy of Meaning Principle. Morgan-Short et al. (2012), who conceptually replicated Leow et al. (2008) with the addition of a Non-Think-Aloud group and a larger group of participants, found that level of processing was positively related to comprehension. Nonetheless, as they coded for processing after the experiment was over, their processing conditions were not random, and the potential for mediating variables to have played a role cannot be excluded. One such variable may be working memory, as this variable has been found to be related to reading comprehension (e.g., Harrington & Sawyer, 1992), the assessment task, and multitask performance (e.g., Konig, Buhner, & Murling, 2005). In this study, I randomly assigned participants to six groups, partitioned by Depth of Processing (DP), which included three depths, and the Think-Aloud vs. Non-Think-Aloud groups (TANTA). Data gathered revealed that processing for form at the depth of interpreting negatively affected L2 comprehension. Positive reactivity was also found. No evidence was found to support a role for amount of processing, a relationship between working memory capacity (WMC) and comprehension, or any interaction between the three main variables (DP, WMC, TANTA). The negative impact of processing for form at the depth of interpreting on L2 reading comprehension supports VanPatten's (2004) Primacy of Meaning Principle.
机译:VanPatten(1996,2004)的意义优先原则主张第二语言学习者在处理形式之前先处理含义。先前的研究以不同的结果对这一原理进行了经验检验(Greenslade,Bowden,&Sanz,1999; Leow,Hsieh,&Moreno,2008; Morgan-Short,Heil,Botero-Moriarty,&Ebert,2012; VanPatten,1990; Wong, 2001)。在每项研究中,对形式的关注都可以通过盘旋特定形式来实现(例如阅读方式,例如Greenslade等,1999; Leow等,2008; Wong,2001),或者在其上打上勾号。一张纸(用于听觉方式,例如VanPatten,1990; Wong,2001)。如Leow等。 (2008年)注意到,在他们的研究中,这导致处理水平较低,可能不足以对意义原则的首要性所假设的意义产生不利影响。 Morgan-Short等。 (2012年),他在概念上复制了Leow等。 (2008年),加上一个非思考大声小组和更大的参与者小组,发现加工水平与理解能力成正相关。但是,由于他们在实验结束后编码进行处理,因此它们的处理条件不是随机的,并且不能排除中介变量发挥作用的可能性。这样的变量之一可能是工作记忆,因为已经发现该变量与阅读理解力(例如Harrington&Sawyer,1992),评估任务和多任务性能(例如Konig,Behner和Murling,2005)有关。在这项研究中,我将参与者随机分为六个组,按处理深度(DP)划分,其中包括三个深度,以及“大声思考”与“非大声思考”组(TANTA)。收集的数据表明,在解释负面影响L2理解的深度进行形式处理。还发现阳性反应。没有证据支持处理量,工作记忆能力(WMC)与理解之间的关系或三个主要变量(DP,WMC,TANTA)之间的任何相互作用。在解释的深度对形式的处理对第二语言阅读理解的负面影响支持了VanPatten(2004)的意义原则的首要性。

著录项

  • 作者

    Mercer, Johnathan D.;

  • 作者单位

    Georgetown University.;

  • 授予单位 Georgetown University.;
  • 学科 Linguistics.;Foreign language education.
  • 学位 Ph.D.
  • 年度 2015
  • 页码 285 p.
  • 总页数 285
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

  • 入库时间 2022-08-17 11:52:54

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号