An Analysis of Interlanguage Development over Time: Part II, ser and estar

Abstract

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

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 69 citations exist upstream.