Aug 2026· Cankaya University journal of humanities and social sciences· 0 citations· 19 references
Abstract
Acquiring L2 prepositions is a complex process, as bilinguals often find it difficult to use the correct preposition in a target language such as English. While frequency of prepositions and prepositional phrases can help this acquisition process, additional factors such as L1 influence also play an important role. Furthermore, the acquisition of L2 prepositions follows a non-linear pattern, similar to U-shaped development in L2 acquisition, making investigations across different proficiency levels crucial in understanding the whole phenomenon. Using an error-coded learner corpus, this study investigated the frequencies of L2 preposition use and error types in the essays written by Turkish-English bilinguals. Three types of preposition errors (substitution, addition, and omission) were examined across different score bands corresponding to different writing proficiency levels. Overall results showed that although the frequency of prepositions accounted for their usage in L2 for the most common 10 prepositions, error types and how they differ across score bands are also essential in understanding the developmental pattern of L2 prepositions. In line with the literature, substitution and omission errors were the most common error types. Notably, omission errors demonstrated a statistically significant U-shaped developmental pattern, while substitution errors showed a similar but non-significant descriptive tendency across proficiency bands. Addition errors, on the other hand, decreased steadily with higher score bands. The current findings offer important insights into L2 preposition error types and development for fields like psycholinguistics, bilingualism, and corpus linguistics.
This study employs the comparative-inductive method prevalent in research on cross-linguistic transfer within multilingual production. Taking Chinese, English and Japanese writing samples collected from nine student participants as research data, it conducts cross-text comparisons to investigate lexical errors in tri-l...
Ma You, Hui Shi· Social Sciences and Humaniti...· 0 citations
Fundamental differences exist between the tense-aspect systems of English and Chinese: English primarily expresses temporal meanings through grammatical tense and verbal inflections, whereas Chinese lacks a grammaticalized tense system and relies mainly on aspect markers such as le, zhe, and guo, together with lexical...
Chen-Chen Yang· Advances in Humanities Resea...· 0 citations
The efficiency metrics showed the tool to be effective in accurately identifying the target suffixes across proficiency levels, with a significant reduction in time and effort.
Ana Abigahil Flores-Hernández, Roilhi Frajo Ibarra-Hernández, P. Moore et al.· International Journal of Lea...· 0 citations
Using the HSK Dynamic Composition Corpus 3.0, this study examines 541 instances of object omission in Chinese compositions written by Japanese and Korean learners. The screened sample contains 277 instances from Japanese learners and 264 from Korean learners. Nominal objects account for 487 cases (90.02%), including 32...
Wen-Pan Guo· Global Education Ecology· 0 citations
The Russian suffix -sja presents a learnability problem: a single morpheme signals five distinct argument-structure alternations (anticausative, reflexive, antipassive, reciprocal, and impersonal). How do monolingual and bilingual children acquire this complex form-function mapping? We report a longitudinal corpus stud...
Pasha Koval, Sophia A. Malamud, Ruth Rosenblum et al.· Languages· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.