Exploring the relation between psychotypologies and article acquisition
Analysis correlations between psychotypology and the number of article-related errors in Polish students of Spanish. Application of nonparametric Mann-Whitney U-tests. Results, the importance of developing successful cross-language associations.
| Рубрика | Философия |
| Вид | статья |
| Язык | английский |
| Дата добавления | 13.07.2021 |
| Размер файла | 487,3 K |
Отправить свою хорошую работу в базу знаний просто. Используйте форму, расположенную ниже
Студенты, аспиранты, молодые ученые, использующие базу знаний в своей учебе и работе, будут вам очень благодарны.
a)
99.000
.936
-4.158e -5
-.025
b)
125.500
.346
.030
.236
c)
92.000
.719
-.020
-.094
d)
108.000
.769
4.264e -5
.064
Finally, a Mann-Whitney U test reported no significant differences in terms of grammatical psychotypology in any case (see Table 10). In general, mean values are higher in group PSI14 with regard to article- related errors in general (B1; B2; B1+B2), wrong article use (B1; B2; B1+B2) and article omission errors (B1; B2; B1+B2), but they are higher in group PSI13 with regard to unnecessary article use (B1; B1+B2) and wrong lexical category (B1; B2; B1+B2) (see Annex 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3). Nevertheless, the differences are not statistically significant. The rank-biserial correlation values indicate very small to medium effect size (see Table 10).
Table 10. Mann-Whitney U test results (grammatical psychotypology)
|
U |
P |
Hodges-Lehmann Estimate |
Rank-Biserial Correlation |
|||
|
B1+B2 |
292.000 |
.167 |
-.100 |
-.242 |
||
|
a) |
298.000 |
.195 |
-.030 |
-.226 |
||
|
b) |
422.500 |
.580 |
.013 |
.097 |
||
|
c) |
302.000 |
.217 |
-.044 |
-.216 |
||
|
d) |
413.000 |
.620 |
4.562e -5 |
.073 |
||
|
B1 |
102.000 |
.824 |
-.021 |
-.056 |
||
|
a) |
88.500 |
.441 |
-.023 |
-.181 |
||
|
b) |
141.500 |
.181 |
.040 |
.310 |
||
|
c) |
102.500 |
.840 |
-.010 |
-.051 |
||
|
d) |
119.500 |
.596 |
5.043e -7 |
.106 |
||
|
B2 |
38.000 |
.074 |
-.210 |
-.510 |
||
|
a) |
44.000 |
.129 |
-.050 |
-.432 |
||
|
b) |
66.500 |
.630 |
-.020 |
-.142 |
||
|
c) |
42.000 |
.109 |
-.080 |
-.458 |
||
|
d) |
72.000 |
.779 |
-1.824e -5 |
-.071 |
Discussion
One aspect is evident from the results of this study. It is striking that the way of framing the questions on psychotypology seems to have been decisive in the way the students related to those questions, although the idea behind them is arguably the same: to assess perceived linguist distance between the languages of the participants' dominant language constellations. As a matter of fact, statistically significant relations were found with regard to the first set of questions, i.e. perceived linguistic distance in terms of the students' L1, whereas no correlations were found in the second set of questions, i.e. perceived linguistic distance in terms of the students' L3. Furthermore, the results of the statistical tests show the complexity of psychotypologies, given that in some cases psychotypologies seem to have had a facilitating effect while in others they resulted in a higher frequency of errors.
The results do not suggest significant differences between groups B1 and B2 in terms of article-related errors. However, this could be explained by the fact that neither group B1 nor B2 were completely homogeneous in terms of proficiency, motivation and the psycholinguistic background of their participants.
Positive correlations were found, at an all-encompassing B1+B2 level, between the grammatical psychotypology and article omission errors (p 0.032), and in group B2 with regard to general article use (p 0.020) and, more especifically, wrong article use (p 0.046) and article omission errors (p 0.041). Moreover, a positive correlation was also found between the lexical psychotypology and general article use in group B2 (p 0.044). On the other hand, negative correlations were found between the phonetic psychotypology and wrong article use in group B1 (p 0.047); and the grammatical psychotypology and unnecessary article use in group B1 (p 0.038).
In light of these results, it seems difficult to assert whether perceived linguistic proximity between Polish and Spanish has a general positive effect in the use of L3 Spanish articles. It seems evident that perceived grammatical proximity in more experienced learners (B2) correlated with a general better command of the Spanish article system, probably because those learners are more likely to establish successful crosslinguistic associations between the use of Spanish articles and their syntactic and lexical `equivalents' in Polish. This may also explain why a positive correlation was found with regard to article omission errors: for these students the article system is probably a less `redundant' element of Spanish language. Furthermore, positive correlations were found especially in group B2, thus suggesting that cross-linguistic links need time to develop. As Otwinowska points out, «lower levels of proficiency in L2 and L3 allow only for limited cross-language activation in language production» (2016: 108).
On the other hand, in less experienced learners (B1) perceived linguistic proximity between Polish and Spanish correlated with a significantly higher frequency of article-related errors. It needs to be borne in mind that the students' L2, i.e. English, is a [+art] language and the lack of perceived linguistic proximity between English and Spanish may have resulted in the students' having `false assumptions' which eventually led to a higher frequency of article-related errors. Finally, the correlation between the grammatical psychotypology and unnecessary article use in group B1 may be explained by the fact that a morpheme that was once redundant (i.e. at levels A1/A2) is now noticed by students and therefore used even in unnecessary contexts.
Conclusion
The main objective of this study was to explore the role of psychotypology in the frequency of L1 Polish students of L3 Spanish article-related errors. As we have already mentioned, the results of the statistical tests show the complexity of the concept of psychotypology.
The most striking results were found in the context of grammatical psychotypology. The data from this study seems to suggest that perceived linguistic distance among more experienced learners may be linked to successful cross-linguistic associations, whereas at lower levels of instruction it can lead to the development of `false assumptions'.
Finally, the present study would benefit from further research on the relation between psychotypologies and unmonitored speech (e.g. interviews), since it is argued to have greater internal consistency (Ellis, 1985). Moreover, it would be interesting to see how psychotypologies evolve at different levels of instruction.
References
1. Aronin, L., & O Laoire, M. (2004). Exploring multilingualism in cultural contexts: Towards a notion of multilinguality. In Charlotte Hoffmann & Johannes Ytsma (Eds.), Trilingualism in Family, School and Community (pp. 11-29). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781853596940-002 Aronin, L., & Singleton, D. (2012). Multilingualism. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/impact.30 Bardel, C., & Falk, Y. (2007). The role of the second language in third language acquisition: The case of Germanic syntax. Second Language Research, 23 (4), 459-484. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658307080557 Bialystok, E. (1979). An analytical view of second language competence: a model and some evidence. The Modern Language Journal, 63, 257-262. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1979.tb02455.x
2. Bialystok, E. (1981). Some evidence for the integrity and interaction of two knowledge sources. In Roger Andersen (Ed.), New Dimensions in Second Language Acquisition Research (pp. 62-74). Rowley: Newbury House.
3. Bialystok, E., & Frцhlich, M. (1977). Aspects of second language learning in classroom setting. Working Papers on Bilingualism, 13, 2-26.
4. Bley-Vroman, R. (1983). The comparative fallacy in interlanguage studies: The case of systematicity. Language Learning, 33, 1-17. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1983.tb00983.x
5. Bono, M. (2011). Cross-linguistic interaction and metalinguistic awareness in third language acquisition. In Gessica De Angelis & Jean-Marc Dewaele (Eds.), New Trends in Cross-Linguistic Influence and Multilingualism Research (pp. 25-52). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847694430-004 Cenoz, J. (2001). The effect of linguistic distance, L2 status and age on crosslinguistic influence in the third language. In Jasone Cenoz, Britta Hufeisen & Ulrike Jessner (Eds.), Cross-linguistic Influence in Third Language Acquisition: Psycholinguistic Perspectives (pp. 8-20). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. https:// doi.org/10.21832/9781853595509-002
6. Cenoz, J., & Jessner, U. (2000). English in Europe: The Acquisition of a Third Language. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
7. Cook, V. (1991). The poverty-of-the-stimulus argument and multicompetence. Second Language Research, 7, 103-117. https://doi.org/10.1177/026765839100700203 Cook, V. (1992). Evidence for multi-competence. Language Learning, 42 (4), 557591. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1992.tb01044.x Cook, V. (1993). Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition. London: Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-22853-9
8. Cook, V. (2003). Introduction: The changing L1 in the L2 user's mind. In Vivian Cook (Ed.), Effects of the Second Language on the First (pp. 1-18). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781853596346-003 Cook, V. (2007). The goals of ELT: Reproducing native-speakers or promoting multicompetence among second language users?. In Jim Cummins & Chris Davison (Eds.), International Handbook of English Language Teaching (pp. 237248). New York: Springer, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-46301-8_18 Corder, S.P. (1967). The significance of learners' errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 5 (4), 161-170. https://doi. org/10.1515/iral.1967.5.1-4.161
9. Corder, S.P. (1982). Error Analysis and Interlanguage. Oxford: Oxford University Press. De Angelis, G. (2007). Third or Additional Language Acquisition. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847690050 de Bot, K. (2008). Introduction: second language development as a dynamic process. The Modern Language Journal, 92 (2), 166-178. https://doi.org/10.1111/І.1540- 4781.2008.00712.x
10. Dewaele, J-M. (2010a). Emotions in Multiple Languages. London: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230289505
11. Dewaele, J-M. (2010b). Multilingualism and affordances: Variation in self-perceived communicative competence and communicative anxiety in French L1, L2, L3 and L4. IRAL, 48, 105-129. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.2010.006 Dцrnyei, Z. (2005). The Psychology of the Language Learner: Individual Differences in Second Language Acquisition. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
12. Ellis, R. (1985). Understanding Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
13. Falk, Y., Lindqvist, C., & Bardel, C. (2015). The role of L1 explicit metalinguistic knowledge in L3 oral production at the initial state. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 18, 227-235. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728913000552 Fantini, A. (1985). Language Acquisition of a Bilingual Child: A Sociolinguistics Perspective. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
14. Fernandez Jodar, R. (2006). Anвlisis de errores lйxicos, morfosintвcticos, y grвficos en la lengua escrita de los aprendices polacos de espanol. Poznan: Adam Mickiewicz University dissertation.
15. Fernandez Jodar, R. (2010). Gramatica frente a pragmatica en la description del uso del ardculo en espanol y su representation en polaco. Kwartalnik Neofilologiczny, 57 (2), 109-114.
16. Fernandez Jodar, R. (2017). El ardculo. In Wiaczeslaw Nowikow (Ed.), Gramвtica contrastiva espanol-polaco (pp. 353-377). Lodz: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Lodzkiego.
17. Gass, S., Behney, J., & Plonsky, L. (2013). Second Language Acquisition: An Introductory Course. New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203137093
18. George, H. (1972). Common Errors in Language Learning. Rowley: Newbury House.
19. Gibson, J.J. (1986). The Ecological Approach to Perception. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
20. Herdina, P., & Jessner, U. (2002). A Dynamic Model of Multilingualism: Perspectives of Change in Psycholinguistics. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. https://doi. org/10.21832/9781853595547
21. Jarvis, S. (2000). Methodological rigor in the study of transfer: Identifying L1 influence in the interlanguage lexicon. Language Learning, 50 (2), 245-309. https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00118
22. Jarvis, S., & Pavlenko, A. (2008). Crosslinguistic Influence in Language and Cognition. New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203935927
23. Jessner, U. (2006). Linguistic Awareness in Multilinguals: English as a Third Language. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. https://doi.org/10.3366/edinbu rgh/9780748619139.001.0001
24. Jessner, U., Megens, M., & Graus, S. (2016). Crosslinguistic influence in third language acquisition. In Rosa Alonso Alonso (Ed.), Crosslinguistic Influence in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 193-214). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783094837-012
25. Kellerman, E. (1977). Towards a characterisation of the strategy of transfer in second language learning. Interlanguage Studies Bulletin, 2 (1), 58-145.
26. Kellerman, E. (1978). Giving learners a break: Native language intuitions as a source of predictions about transferability. Working Papers on Bilingualism, 15, 59-92.
27. Kellerman, E. (1979a). The problem with difficulty. Interlanguage Studies Bulletin, 4 (1), 27-48.
28. Kellerman, E. (1979b). Transfer and non-transfer: Where are we now. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 2, 37-57. . https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100000942
29. Konieczna-Twardzikowa, J. (1992). Caso y definitud en la lengua espanola desde la perspectiva polaca. Estudios Hispвnicos, 2, 171-175.
30. Kormos, J. (1999). The effect of speaker variables on the self-correction behavior of L2 learners. System, 27, 207-221. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(99)00017-2
31. Kowal, I. (2019). Motywacja do studiowania filologii szwedzkiej jako filologii rzadkiej. Jзzyki Obce w Szkole, 3, 37-41.
32. Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. London: Pergamon.
33. Kucharczyk, R. (2018). Nauczanie jзzykфw obcych a dydaktyka wielojзzycznosci (na przykladzie francuskiego jako drugiego jзzyka obcego. Lublin: Wydawnictwo Werset.
34. Lado, R. (1957). Linguistics Across Cultures. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
35. Larsen-Freeman, D. (1997). Chaos/complexity science and second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 18 (2), 141-165. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/18.2.141
36. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2007). Reflecting on the cognitive-social debate in second language acquisition. The Modern Language Journal, 91, 773-787. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2007.00668.x
37. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2014). It's about time. The Modern Language Journal, 98 (2), 665-666. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12097 Larsen-Freeman, D., & Cameron, L. (2008). Research methodology on language development from a complex systems perspective. The Modern Language Journal, 92 (2), 200-213. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2008.00714.x McLaughlin, B. (1978). The Monitor Model: some methodological considerations.
38. Language Learning, 28, 309-332. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1978.tb00137.x Meisel, J. (1983). Transfer as a second language strategy. Language and Communication, 3, 11-46. https://doi.org/10.1016/0271-5309(83)90018-6 Nowikow, W. (2017). Gramдtica contrastiva espanol-polaco. Lodz: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego.
39. Nowikow, W. (2013). Sobre la modalizacion del contenido proposicional: Contraste tipologico entre lenguas romanicas y eslavas. In Antonio Pamies Bertran (Ed.), De lingьistica, traduccion y lexico-fraseologia. Homenaje a Juan de Dios Luque Durдn (pp. 65-72). Granada: Editorial Comares.
40. Odlin, T. (1989). Language Transfer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524537
41. Odlin, T. (2016a). Was there really ever a contrastive analysis hypothesis?. In Rosa Alonso Alonso (Ed.), Crosslinguistic influence in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 1-23). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783094837-003 Odlin, T. (2016b). Language transfer and the link between comprehension and production. In Liming Yu & Terence Odlin (Eds.), New Perspectives on Transfer in Second Language Learning (pp. 207-225). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783094349-013 Otwinowska, A. (2016). Cognate Vocabulary in Language Acquisition and Use. Attitudes, Awareness, Activation. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. https://doi. org/10.21832/9781783094394
42. Pawlik, J. (2001). Seleccion de problemas de gramдtica espanola. Poznan: Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM.
43. Ringbom, H. (1987). The Role of the First Language in Foreign Language Learning.
44. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
45. Ringbom, H. (2011). Perceived redundancy or crosslinguistic influence? What L3 learners' material can tell us about the causes of errors. In Gessica De Angelis & Jean-Marc Dewaele (Eds.), New Trends in Crosslinguistic Influence and Multilingualism Research (pp. 19-24). Bristol: Multilingual Matters https://doi. org/10.21832/9781847694430-003
46. Ringbom, H. (2016). Comprehension, learning and production of foreign languages: The role of transfer. In Rosa Alonso Alonso (Ed.), Crosslinguistic Influence in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 38-52). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783094837-005 Robinson, E. (1927). The `similarity' factor in retroaction. American Journal of Psychology, 39, 297-312. https://doi.org/10.2307/1415419 Robinson, P. (2001). Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22 (1), 27-57. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/22.L27
47. Safont Jordа, M.P. (2005). Third Language Learners: Pragmatic Production and Awareness. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781853598043
48. Sanchez, L. (2011). `Luisa and Pedrito's dog will the breakfast eat': Interlanguage transfer and the role of the second language factor. In Gessica De Angelis & Jean-Marc Dewaele (Eds.), New Trends in Crosslinguistic Influence and Multilingualism Research (pp. 86-104). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. https://doi. org/10.21832/9781847694430-007
49. Schmidt, R. (1990a). Interaction, acculturation, and the acquisition of communicative competence: A case study of an adult. In Nessea Wolfson & Elliot Judd (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and Language Acquisition (pp. 137-174). Rowley: Newbury House Publishers.
50. Schmidt, R. (1990b). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129-158. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/11.2.129
51. Selinker, L. (1992). Rediscovering Interlanguage. London/New York: Routledge.
52. Sharwood-Smith, M. (1981). Consciousness-raising and the second language learner. Applied Linguistics, 2, 159-69. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/2.2.159
53. Sharwood Smith, M., & Kellerman, E. (1986). Crosslinguistic Influence in Second Language Acquisition. New York: Pergamon Institute of English.
54. Sima Paribakht, T., & Bingham Wesche, M. (2016). L1 influences in L2 lexical inferencing. In Liming Yu & Terence Odlin (Eds.), New Perspectives on Transfer in Second Language Learning (pp. 76-106). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. https:// doi.org/10.21832/9781783094349-007
55. Singleton, D. (1996). Crosslinguistic lexical operations and the L2 mental lexicon. In Tina Hickey & Jenny Williams (Eds.), Language, Education and Society in a Changing World (pp. 246-252). Clevedon: Iraal/Multilingual Matters.
56. Singleton, D., & Aronin, L. (2007). Multiple language learning in the light of the theory of affordances. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 1 (1), 83-96. https://doi.org/10.2167/illt44.0
57. Skaggs, E. (1925). Further studies in retroactive inhibition. Psychology Monograph, 34 (8), 1-60.
58. Stevick, E. (1980). Teaching Languages: A Way and Ways. Rowley: Newbury House.
59. Stockwell, R., Bowen, J., & Martin, M. (1965a). The Grammatical Structures of English and Italian. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
60. Stockwell, R., Bowen, J., & Martin, M. (1965b). The Grammatical Structures of English and Spanish. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
61. Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In Susan Gass & Carolyn Madden (Eds.), Input in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 235-253). Rowley: Newbury House.
62. Testa, M. (2018). The psycholinguistic background of L1 Polish students of L3 Spanish. Crossroads: A Journal of English Studies, 22 (3), 69-90. https://doi. org/10.15290/cr.2018.22.3.04
63. Testa, M. (in press). The acquisition of Spanish articles by L1 Polish students. Neofilologia: perspektywy transdyscyplinarnosci.
64. Vildomec, V. (1971). Multilingualism. Leiden: A.W. Sijthoff.
65. Wardhaugh, R. (1970). The contrastive analysis hypothesis. TESOL Quarterly, 4, 12330. https://doi.org/10.2307/3586182
66. Williams, S., & Hammarberg, B. (1998). Language switches in L3 production: Implications for a polyglot speaking model. Applied Linguistics, 19 (3), 295-333. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/19.3.295
67. Yule, G. (2010). The Study of Language, 4th edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Additions
|
Annex 1.1: Group descriptives for psychotypology I (B1+B2) |
|||||
|
Group |
N |
Mean |
SD |
SE |
|
|
Total Psi1 |
19 |
.371 |
.184 |
.042 |
|
|
Psi2 |
53 |
.483 |
.274 |
.038 |
|
|
Psi3 |
32 |
.485 |
.294 |
.052 |
|
|
Psi4 |
40 |
.428 |
.224 |
.035 |
|
|
Psi5 |
27 |
.386 |
.217 |
.042 |
|
|
Psi6 |
45 |
.494 |
.273 |
.041 |
|
|
a Psi1 |
19 |
.095 |
.096 |
.022 |
|
|
Psi2 |
53 |
.104 |
.101 |
.014 |
|
|
Psi3 |
32 |
.130 |
.120 |
.021 |
|
|
Psi4 |
40 |
.078 |
.073 |
.012 |
|
|
Psi5 |
27 |
.082 |
.090 |
.017 |
|
|
Psi6 |
45 |
.113 |
.104 |
.015 |
|
|
b Psi1 |
19 |
.144 |
.077 |
.018 |
|
|
Psi2 |
53 |
.132 |
.109 |
.015 |
|
|
Psi3 |
32 |
.149 |
.080 |
.014 |
|
|
Psi4 |
40 |
.125 |
.115 |
.018 |
|
|
Psi5 |
27 |
.140 |
.092 |
.018 |
|
|
Psi6 |
45 |
.132 |
.108 |
.016 |
|
|
c Psi1 |
19 |
.125 |
.133 |
.031 |
|
|
Psi2 |
53 |
.217 |
.218 |
.030 |
|
|
Psi3 |
32 |
.192 |
.206 |
.036 |
|
|
Psi4 |
40 |
.194 |
.202 |
.032 |
|
|
Psi5 |
27 |
.144 |
.205 |
.039 |
|
|
Psi6 |
45 |
.222 |
.198 |
.029 |
|
|
d Psi1 |
19 |
.008 |
.017 |
.004 |
|
|
Psi2 |
53 |
.028 |
.045 |
.006 |
|
|
Psi3 |
32 |
.013 |
.026 |
.005 |
|
|
Psi4 |
40 |
.202 |
.047 |
.007 |
|
|
Psi5 |
27 |
.020 |
.035 |
.007 |
|
|
Psi6 |
45 |
.025 |
.043 |
.006 |
|
|
Annex 1.2: Group descriptives for psychotypology I (B1) |
|||||
|
Group |
N |
Mean |
SD |
SE |
|
|
Total Psi1 |
7 |
.431 |
.108 |
.041 |
|
|
Psi2 |
28 |
.458 |
.276 |
.052 |
|
Psi3 |
17 |
.465 |
.289 |
.070 |
||
|
Psi4 |
18 |
.440 |
.216 |
.051 |
||
|
Psi5 |
12 |
.437 |
.133 |
.038 |
||
|
Psi6 |
23 |
.460 |
.296 |
.062 |
||
|
a |
Psil |
7 |
.154 |
.127 |
.048 |
|
|
Psi2 |
28 |
.100 |
.102 |
.019 |
||
|
Psi3 |
17 |
.153 |
.129 |
.031 |
||
|
Psi4 |
18 |
.072 |
.065 |
.015 |
||
|
Psi5 |
12 |
.125 |
.116 |
.033 |
||
|
Psi6 |
23 |
.104 |
.105 |
.022 |
||
|
b |
Psil |
7 |
.163 |
.058 |
.022 |
|
|
Psi2 |
28 |
.119 |
.086 |
.016 |
||
|
Psi3 |
17 |
.144 |
.077 |
.019 |
||
|
Psi4 |
18 |
.112 |
.086 |
.020 |
||
|
Psi5 |
12 |
.166 |
.076 |
.022 |
||
|
Psi6 |
23 |
.107 |
.080 |
.017 |
||
|
c |
Psil |
7 |
.110 |
.106 |
.040 |
|
|
Psi2 |
28 |
.204 |
.200 |
.038 |
||
|
Psi3 |
17 |
.152 |
.184 |
.045 |
||
|
Psi4 |
18 |
.216 |
.191 |
.045 |
||
|
Psi5 |
12 |
.126 |
.109 |
.031 |
||
|
Psi6 |
23 |
.216 |
.214 |
.045 |
||
|
d |
Psil |
7 |
.009 |
.023 |
.009 |
|
|
Psi2 |
28 |
.034 |
.051 |
.010 |
||
|
Psi3 |
17 |
.018 |
.032 |
.008 |
||
|
Psi4 |
18 |
.040 |
.058 |
.014 |
||
|
Psi5 |
12 |
.022 |
.038 |
.011 |
||
|
Psi6 |
23 |
.033 |
.053 |
.011 |
||
|
Annex 1.3: |
Group descriptives for psychotypology I (B2) |
|||||
|
Group |
N |
Mean |
SD |
SE |
||
|
Total |
Psil |
12 |
.336 |
.214 |
.062 |
|
|
Psi2 |
25 |
.512 |
.275 |
.055 |
||
|
Psi3 |
15 |
.507 |
.309 |
.080 |
||
|
Psi4 |
22 |
.419 |
.236 |
.050 |
||
|
Psi5 |
15 |
.346 |
.265 |
.068 |
||
|
Psi6 |
22 |
.529 |
.248 |
.053 |
|
a |
Psil |
12 |
.060 |
.052 |
.015 |
|
|
Psi2 |
25 |
.108 |
.102 |
.020 |
||
|
Psi3 |
15 |
.105 |
.106 |
.027 |
||
|
Psi4 |
22 |
.084 |
.080 |
.017 |
||
|
Psi5 |
15 |
.048 |
.039 |
.010 |
||
|
Psi6 |
22 |
.122 |
.104 |
.022 |
||
|
b |
Psil |
12 |
.133 |
.087 |
.025 |
|
|
Psi2 |
25 |
.148 |
.130 |
.026 |
||
|
Psi3 |
15 |
.155 |
.086 |
.022 |
||
|
Psi4 |
22 |
.135 |
.136 |
.029 |
||
|
Psi5 |
15 |
.120 |
.100 |
.026 |
||
|
Psi6 |
22 |
.159 |
.127 |
.027 |
||
|
c |
Psil |
12 |
.133 |
.151 |
.044 |
|
|
Psi2 |
25 |
.233 |
.239 |
.048 |
||
|
Psi3 |
15 |
.238 |
.226 |
.058 |
||
|
Psi4 |
22 |
.175 |
.213 |
.045 |
||
|
Psi5 |
15 |
.159 |
.261 |
.067 |
||
|
Psi6 |
22 |
.229 |
.184 |
.039 |
||
|
d |
Psil |
12 |
.007 |
.014 |
.004 |
|
|
Psi2 |
25 |
.022 |
.036 |
.007 |
||
|
Psi3 |
15 |
.007 |
.016 |
.004 |
||
|
Psi4 |
22 |
.024 |
.037 |
.008 |
||
|
Psi5 |
15 |
.018 |
.033 |
.008 |
||
|
Psi6 |
22 |
.017 |
.030 |
.006 |
||
|
Annex 2.1: |
Group descriptives for psychotypology II (B1+B2) |
|||||
|
Group |
N |
Mean |
SD |
SE |
||
|
Total |
Psi7 |
6 |
.400 |
.265 |
.108 |
|
|
Psi8 |
65 |
.461 |
.259 |
.032 |
||
|
Psi10 |
53 |
.442 |
.272 |
.037 |
||
|
Psi11 |
16 |
.422 |
.153 |
.038 |
||
|
Psi13 |
14 |
.351 |
.159 |
.043 |
||
|
Psi14 |
55 |
.476 |
.277 |
.037 |
||
|
a |
Psi7 |
6 |
.102 |
.067 |
.027 |
|
|
Psi8 |
65 |
.102 |
.102 |
.013 |
||
|
Psi10 |
53 |
.099 |
.102 |
.014 |
||
|
Psi11 |
16 |
.114 |
.097 |
.024 |
|
Psi13 |
14 |
.071 |
.072 |
.019 |
||
|
Psi14 |
55 |
.114 |
.104 |
.014 |
||
|
b |
Psi7 |
6 |
.150 |
.105 |
.043 |
|
|
Psi8 |
65 |
.135 |
.102 |
.013 |
||
|
Psi10 |
53 |
.132 |
.087 |
.012 |
||
|
Psi11 |
16 |
.146 |
.146 |
.036 |
||
|
Psi13 |
14 |
.138 |
.088 |
.023 |
||
|
Psi14 |
55 |
.130 |
.105 |
.014 |
||
|
c |
Psi7 |
6 |
.142 |
.163 |
.067 |
|
|
Psi8 |
65 |
.198 |
.208 |
.026 |
||
|
Psi10 |
53 |
.186 |
.206 |
.028 |
||
|
Psi11 |
16 |
.152 |
.138 |
.034 |
||
|
Psi13 |
14 |
.116 |
.099 |
.026 |
||
|
Psi14 |
55 |
.209 |
.218 |
.029 |
||
|
d |
Psi7 |
6 |
.010 |
.024 |
.010 |
|
|
Psi8 |
65 |
.025 |
.041 |
.005 |
||
|
Psi10 |
53 |
.023 |
.038 |
.005 |
||
|
Psi11 |
16 |
.012 |
.022 |
.006 |
||
|
Psi13 |
14 |
.027 |
.043 |
.011 |
||
|
Psi14 |
55 |
.020 |
.040 |
.005 |
||
|
Annex 2.2: |
Group descriptives for psychotypology II (B1) |
|||||
|
Group |
N |
Mean |
SD |
SE |
||
|
Total |
Psi7 |
3 |
.383 |
.055 |
.032 |
|
|
Psi8 |
32 |
.459 |
.261 |
.046 |
||
|
Psi10 |
24 |
.427 |
.253 |
.052 |
||
|
Psi11 |
9 |
.420 |
.161 |
.054 |
||
|
Psi13 |
9 |
.407 |
.138 |
.046 |
||
|
Psi14 |
24 |
.469 |
.290 |
.059 |
||
|
a |
Psi7 |
3 |
.103 |
.059 |
.034 |
|
|
Psi8 |
32 |
.112 |
.112 |
.020 |
||
|
Psi10 |
24 |
.102 |
.111 |
.023 |
||
|
Psi11 |
9 |
.138 |
.112 |
.037 |
||
|
Psi13 |
9 |
.087 |
.076 |
.025 |
||
|
Psi14 |
24 |
.129 |
.117 |
.024 |
||
|
b |
Psi7 |
3 |
.127 |
.059 |
.034 |
|
|
Psi8 |
32 |
.128 |
.085 |
.015 |
|
Psi10 |
24 |
.122 |
.078 |
.016 |
||
|
Psi11 |
9 |
.141 |
.097 |
.032 |
||
|
Psi13 |
9 |
.152 |
.082 |
.027 |
||
|
Psi14 |
24 |
.108 |
.074 |
.015 |
||
|
c |
Psi7 |
3 |
.143 |
.140 |
.081 |
|
|
Psi8 |
32 |
.189 |
.193 |
.034 |
||
|
Psi10 |
24 |
.172 |
.174 |
.036 |
||
|
Psi11 |
9 |
.132 |
.137 |
.046 |
||
|
Psi13 |
9 |
.140 |
.113 |
.038 |
||
|
Psi14 |
24 |
.205 |
.212 |
.043 |
||
|
d |
Psi7 |
3 |
.020 |
.035 |
.020 |
|
|
Psi8 |
32 |
.030 |
.049 |
.009 |
||
|
Psi10 |
24 |
.030 |
.043 |
.009 |
||
|
Psi11 |
9 |
.013 |
.026 |
.009 |
||
|
Psi13 |
9 |
.030 |
.042 |
.014 |
||
|
Psi14 |
24 |
.027 |
.051 |
.010 |
||
|
Annex 2.3: |
Group descriptives for psychotypology II (B2) |
|||||
|
Group |
N |
Mean |
SD |
SE |
||
|
Total |
Psi7 |
3 |
.417 |
.415 |
.240 |
|
|
Psi8 |
33 |
.463 |
.262 |
.046 |
||
|
Psi10 |
29 |
.454 |
.291 |
.054 |
||
|
Psi11 |
7 |
.424 |
.155 |
.059 |
||
|
Psi13 |
5 |
.250 |
.156 |
.070 |
||
|
Psi14 |
31 |
.481 |
.271 |
.049 |
||
|
a |
Psi7 |
3 |
.100 |
.089 |
.051 |
|
|
Psi8 |
33 |
.093 |
.093 |
.016 |
||
|
Psi10 |
29 |
.097 |
.096 |
.018 |
||
|
Psi11 |
7 |
.084 |
.069 |
.026 |
||
|
Psi13 |
5 |
.042 |
.060 |
.027 |
||
|
Psi14 |
31 |
.103 |
.092 |
.017 |
||
|
b |
Psi7 |
3 |
.173 |
.150 |
.087 |
|
|
Psi8 |
33 |
.142 |
.118 |
.020 |
||
|
Psi10 |
29 |
.140 |
.094 |
.018 |
||
|
Psi11 |
7 |
.153 |
.201 |
.076 |
||
|
Psi13 |
5 |
.112 |
.101 |
.045 |
||
|
Psi14 |
31 |
.147 |
.122 |
.022 |
|
c |
Psi7 |
3 |
.140 |
.217 |
.125 |
|
|
Psi8 |
33 |
.207 |
.224 |
.039 |
||
|
Psi10 |
29 |
.197 |
.232 |
.043 |
||
|
Psi11 |
7 |
.177 |
.146 |
.055 |
||
|
Psi13 |
5 |
.072 |
.054 |
.024 |
||
|
Psi14 |
31 |
.213 |
.226 |
.041 |
||
|
d |
Psi7 |
3 |
.000 |
.000 |
.000 |
|
|
Psi8 |
33 |
.019 |
.032 |
.006 |
||
|
Psi10 |
29 |
.018 |
.033 |
.006 |
||
|
Psi11 |
7 |
.010 |
.017 |
.007 |
||
|
Psi13 |
5 |
.022 |
.049 |
.022 |
||
|
Psi14 |
31 |
.015 |
.028 |
.005 |
Размещено на Allbest.ru Размещено на Allbest.ru
Подобные документы
Language picture of the world, factors of formation. The configuration of the ideas embodied in the meaning of the words of the native language. Key ideas for Russian language picture of the world are. Presentation of the unpredictability of the world.
реферат [17,2 K], добавлен 11.10.2015Fr. Nietzsche as German thinker who lived in the second half of the Nineteenth Century. The essence of the concept of "nihilism". Peculiarities of the philosophy of Socrates. Familiarity with Nietzsche. Analysis of drama "Conscience as Fatality".
доклад [15,3 K], добавлен 09.03.2013Reading the article. Matching the expressions from the first two paragraphs of this article. Answer if following statements true or false or is it impossible to say, are given the information in the article. Find adjectives to complete some definitions.
контрольная работа [33,0 K], добавлен 29.04.2010General characteristics of the stylistic features of English articles, the main features. Analysis of problems the article in English as one of the most difficult. Meet the applications of the definite article, consideration of the main examples.
доклад [15,8 K], добавлен 28.04.2013The linguistic status of the article. Noun: the category of determination. Indefinite meaning expressed by a/an. The definite article the. Cataphoric the as heavily concentrated in non-fiction writing. Percentage use of reference for definite phrases.
курсовая работа [357,9 K], добавлен 27.04.2015General Overview of the Category of Article in English and French. The Article in French Grammar: The Definite, Indefinite and The Partial Article. The History, functons and The Usage of the Definite Article with Class Nouns in English and French.
курсовая работа [31,8 K], добавлен 09.06.2010Article as a part of speech. Theoretical and practical aspect. The historical development of articles. Lexico-grammatical aspects of translation of the definite and indefinite articles. Realization of the contextual meanings of the indefinite article.
дипломная работа [2,1 M], добавлен 14.11.2011General description of the definite and indefinite articles or their absence meaning, facts about their origin. Detailed rules and recommendations of the use of the article or its omission in dependence on various features of the noun and of the sentence.
курсовая работа [47,9 K], добавлен 23.05.2013Analyze the translation of English indirect article "a" into Russian pronoun in the meaning of "unknown". Translate the indefinite article before the surname with negative accent. Translated into a pronoun in the meaning of "somewhat" after "there+to be".
контрольная работа [12,2 K], добавлен 12.09.2011Match the right words to form expressions from the first two paragraphs of the article. Matching the expressions to the equivalent expressions. Answering are the statements true or false or is it impossible to say, given the information in the article.
контрольная работа [32,9 K], добавлен 16.05.2010
