Complejidad y corrección de las construcciones con Ser/Estar en diferentes niveles de competencia del español como lengua extranjera

  1. Nuria de la Torre 1
  2. Maria Cecilia Ainciburu 1
  1. 1 Universidad Nebrija
    info

    Universidad Nebrija

    Madrid, España

    ROR https://ror.org/03tzyrt94

Revista:
Porta Linguarum: revista internacional de didáctica de las lenguas extranjeras

ISSN: 1697-7467

Año de publicación: 2019

Número: 32

Páginas: 167-180

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.30827/PL.V0I32.13706 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso abierto editor

Otras publicaciones en: Porta Linguarum: revista internacional de didáctica de las lenguas extranjeras

Objetivos de desarrollo sostenible

Resumen

This paper explores the use of structures with the verbs ser and estar to see if there are empirical data that allow associating their appearance in non-native production, with the levels of linguistic competence proposed by the European Reference Framework. In the study, 124 writing assignments of an academic certification made by university exchange students were considered. The results show that there are features that mark significant differences between levels, for which explanations are advanced based on concepts of difficulty and complexity of the context. The consideration of correct or incorrect use of the verbs ser and estar in grammatical combinatorial is also associated. Candidates make more mistakes in the combinatorial of estar with respect to ser. The general results show that only some of the combinatorics could be used to distinguish levels of competence.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Barahona Coroner, N. (2013). La predicación con ser y estar en español. (Unpublished master’s thesis). Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain.
  • Bulté, B. & Housen, A. (2012). Defining and operationalising L2 complexity, in A. Housen, F. Kuiken, & I. Vedder (Eds) Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA. (pp. 21-44). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
  • Cheng, A. C., Lu, H. C., & Giannakouros, P. (2008). The uses of Spanish copulas by Chinese-speaking learners in a free writing task. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 11(3), 301-317. doi: 10.1017/S1366728908003532
  • Consejo de Europa (2002). Marco común europeo de referencia para las lenguas: aprendizaje, enseñanza, evaluación. Madrid: Grupo ANAYA. Available from: https://cvc.cervantes.es/ ensenanza/biblioteca_ele/marco/cvc_mer.pdf, accessed 11 November, 2016.
  • de Garavito, J.B. & Valenzuela, E. (2008). Eventive and stative passives in Spanish L2 acquisition: A matter of aspect. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 11(3): 323–336. doi: 10.1017/S1366728908003532
  • de la Torre García, N. (2016). La complejidad lingüística en los niveles de competencia del MCER: el caso de la variedad verbal en la expresión escrita en ELE. Revista Nebrija de Lingüística Aplicada, 20(10): 4-21. Available from: https://www.nebrija.com/revista-linguistica/la-complejidad-linguistica-en-los-niveles-de-competencia-del-mcer-el-caso-dela-variedad-verbal-en-la-expresion-escrita-en-ele.html, accessed 15 January, 2017. doi: 10.26378/rnlael1020260
  • Forsberg, F. & Bartning, I. (2010). Can linguistic features discriminate between the communicative CEFR-levels?: A pilot study of written L2 French., in I. Bartning, M. Martin, & I. Vedder (Eds.) Communicative proficiency and linguistic development: Intersections between SLA and language testing research. Eurosla Monograph Series, 1. Available from: http://eurosla. org/monographs/EM01/ EM01home.html, accessed 11 November, 2016.
  • Geeslin, K.L. (2003). A Comparison of Copula Choice: Native Spanish Speakers and Advanced Learners. Language Learning, 53(4): 703–764. doi: 10.1046/j.1467-9922.2003.00240.x
  • Geeslin, K.L & Guijarro-Fuentes, P. (2004). Estudio longitudinal del Ser y Estar en el español como L2. Porta Linguarum, 2, 93–110. Available from: http://www.ugr.es/~portalin/, accessed 6 Juni, 2017.
  • Guntermann, G. (1992). An Analysis of Interlanguage Development over Time: Part II, ser and estar. Hispania, 75(5): 1294–1303.
  • Housen, A., Kuiken, F. & Vedder, I. (2012). Complexity, accuracy and fluency: Definitions, measurement and research, in A. Housen, F. Kuiken & I. Vedder (Eds.) Dimensions of L2 Performance and Proficiency: Complexity, Accuracy and Fluency in SLA (pp. 1-20). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
  • Hulstijn, J.H. (2010). Linking L2 proficiency to L2 acquisition: Opportunities and challenges of profiling research, in I. Bartning, M. Martin, & I. Vedder (Eds.) Communicative proficiency and linguistic development: Intersections between SLA and language testing research (pp. 233-238). Eurosla Monograph Series, 1. Available from: http://eurosla.org/monographs/ EM01/ EM01home.html, accessed 15 November, 2016.
  • Instituto Cervantes. (2006). Plan curricular del Instituto Cervantes: niveles de referencia para el español. Instituto Cervantes. Madrid: Biblioteca Nueva. Available from: https://cvc. cervantes.es/ensenanza/biblioteca_ele/plan_curricular/, accessed 6 Juni, 2017.
  • Larsen-Freeman, D. (2009). Adjusting Expectations: The Study of Complexity, Accuracy, and Fluency in Second Language Acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 30(4): 579–589. doi: 10.1093/applin/amp043
  • Lu, H. C. & Cheng, A. C. (2015). Estudio de verbos copulativos a partir de corpus de aprendices. Porta Linguarum, 23: 205–220. Available from: http://www.ugr.es/~portalin/, accessed 12 December, 2017
  • Martin, M., Mustonen, S., Reiman, N. & Seilonen, M. (2010). On Becoming an Independent User, in I. Bartning, M. Martin, & I. Vedder (Eds.) Communicative proficiency and linguistic development: Intersections between SLA and language testing research (pp. 57-80). Eurosla Monograph Series, 1. Available from: http://eurosla.org/monographs/EM01/ EM01home. html, accessed 11 November, 2016.
  • Ortega, L. (2012). Interlanguage complexity, in B. Kortmann & B. Szmrecsanyi (Eds.) Linguistic Complexity: Second Language Acquisition, Indigenization, Contact (pp. 127–155). Munich: Walter de Gruyter.
  • Ortega, L. (2015). Syntactic complexity in L2 writing: Progress and expansion. Journal of Second Language Writing, 29: 82–94. doi: 10.1016/j.jslw.2015.06.008
  • Rodríguez López, P. (2017). Análisis de interlengua de los rasgos gramaticales y léxico-semánticos con los verbos ser y estar, in M.C. Ainciburu (Ed.) La adquisición del sistema verbal del español. Datos empíricos del proceso de aprendizaje del español como lengua extranjera (pp. 201–234). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
  • Ryan, J. M. & Lafford, B. A. (1992). Acquisition of lexical meaning in a study abroad environment: Ser and estar and the Granada experience. Hispania, 75(3), 714-722.
  • Salamoura, A. & Saville, N. (2010). Exemplifying the CEFR: criterial features of written learner English from the English Profile Programme, in I. Bartning, M. Martin & I. Vedder (Eds.) Communicative proficiency and linguistic development: Intersections between SLA and language testing research (pp. 101-132). Eurosla Monograph Series, 1. Available from: http://eurosla.org/monographs/EM01/ EM01home.html, accessed 11 November, 2016.
  • VanPatten, B. (1985). The Acquisition of ser and estar by Adult Learners of Spanish: A Preliminary Investigation of Transitional Stages of Competence. Hispania, 68(2): 399–406.
  • VanPatten, B. (1987). The acquisition of ser and estar: Accounting for developmental patterns, in B. VanPatten, T. Dvorak & J. Lee, (Eds.) Foreign language learning: A research perspective (pp. 61-75). New York: Newbury House.
  • Verspoor, M., Schmid, M. S. & Xu, X. (2012). A dynamic usage based perspective on L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(3), 239-263. doi: 10.1016/j.jslw.2012.03.007
  • Weir, C.J. (2005). Language Testing and Validation. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet