High vs. low negation in English NPQs: How Korean EFL and ESL learners diverge
0
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
This studyinvestigates how Korean learners of English interpret positive polar questions (PPQs)and the two structurally distinct negative polar questions (NPQs). Thirty classroom‑basedEFL learners in Korea and sixty immersion‑based ESL learners in the United Statescompleted a series of three online experiment. Each task paired an unambiguous visualprompt with either a PPQ, a high‑negation NPQ (Didn’t you see…?), or a low‑negationNPQ (Did you really not see…?). Response times and answering patterns reveal a cleardissociation. Immersive exposure yields near‑native performance on the high‑negationNPQs, yet both learner groups—most strikingly the higher‑proficiency ESL cohort—show severe difficulty with low‑negation NPQs, producing up to 74 % unexpectedanswers and significantly slower responses. These results challenge the traditional“polarity‑ vs. truth‑based” dichotomy, demonstrating that acquisition hinges on inputfrequency and explicit form–meaning mapping rather than overall proficiency. Pedagogically, targeted instruction on inner‑VP negation is recommended.
Abstract
This studyinvestigates how Korean learners of English interpret positive polar questions (PPQs)and the two structurally distinct negative polar questions (NPQs). Thirty classroom‑basedEFL learners in Korea and sixty immersion‑based ESL learners in the United Statescompleted a series of three online experiment. Each task paired an unambiguous visualprompt with either a PPQ, a high‑negation NPQ (Didn’t you see…?), or a low‑negationNPQ (Did you really not see…?). Response times and answering patterns reveal a cleardissociation. Immersive exposure yields near‑native performance on the high‑negationNPQs, yet both learner groups—most strikingly the higher‑proficiency ESL cohort—show severe difficulty with low‑negation NPQs, producing up to 74 % unexpectedanswers and significantly slower responses. These results challenge the traditional“polarity‑ vs. truth‑based” dichotomy, demonstrating that acquisition hinges on inputfrequency and explicit form–meaning mapping rather than overall proficiency. Pedagogically, targeted instruction on inner‑VP negation is recommended.