Different interpretations of spanish and english referential determiners. A case study based on the translation of noun phrases

FACULTAD de FILOSOFÍA Y LETRAS DEPARTAMENTO de FILOLOGÍA INGLESA Grado en Estudios Ingleses TRABAJO DE FIN DE GRADO DIFFERENT INTERPRETATIONS OF SPANISH AND ENGLISH REFERENTIAL DETERMINERS. A CASE STUDY BASED ON THE TRANSLATION OF NOUN PHRASES AUTORA: Clara Ibáñez González TUTORA: Laura Filardo Llamas Valladolid, junio de 2021 ABSTRACT The semantic meaning of determiners present relevance in communication, as they provide lexical information in the formation of noun phrases. Each language has a different way of acknowledging these communicative elements. The present dissertation seeks to study how native Spanish (L1) learners understand the different referential scopes of given determiners in English, when they are studying it as a foreign language. Including references to the two languages, the study can help us analyse the existence of possible interferences of their native Spanish language. General and individuative expressions are compared to their respective translations in the English language: generic definite articles, indefinite articles compared with their numeral counterpart and, finally, the indefinites "some" and "any". For this purpose, a multiple-choice test based on the translation technique is proposed. The analysed results finally show little interferences from L1 to the L2. Keywords: Referential system, generic and individuative determiners, translation, language learning, English, Spanish. RESUMEN El significado semántico de los determinantes muestra relevancia en la comunicación, ya que proporcionan información léxica en la formación de sintagmas nominales. Estos elementos comunicativos se conocen de manera diferente en cada lengua. Esta tesis investiga como estudiantes nativos españoles (L1) entienden los diferentes ámbitos de los determinantes mencionados en inglés, cuando este idioma se estudia como lengua extranjera. Haciendo referencia a ambas lenguas, este estudio nos ayuda a analizar la existencia de posibles interferencias del español como lengua nativa. Expresiones generales e individuales se comparan con sus respectivas traducciones en la lengua inglesa: artículos definidos genéricos, artículos indefinidos comparados con el referente numeral y, por último, los indefinidos “algún” y “ningún”. Para ello se propone un test de selección múltiple basado en la técnica de traducción. El análisis de resultados indica finalmente escasas interferencias de la L1 a la L2. Palabras clave: sistema referencial, determinantes genéricos e individuales, traducción, aprendizaje de una lengua, español, inglés TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................... 1 2. LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................................... 3 2. 1. REFERENTIAL SYSTEMS .............................................................. 4 2. 1. 1. English referential system ........................................................... 4 2. 1. 2. Spanish referential system .......................................................... 9 2. 2. TRANSLATION TECHNIQUE ...................................................... 14 2. 3. PREVIOUS STUDIES ON REFERENTIAL DETERMINERS AND TRANSLATION TECHNIQUES ........................................................... 16 3. RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES ................................ 19 4. METHODOLOGY .................................................................................. 20 4. 1. PARTICIPANTS ............................................................................. 20 4. 2. TEST ................................................................................................ 21 4. 3. ANALYSIS AND RESULTS .......................................................... 22 5. DISCUSSION ......................................................................................... 27 6. CONCLUSION ....................................................................................... 28 7. BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................... 31 APPENDIX ................................................................................................. 35 1 1. INTRODUCTION When we come to think about the transmission of a message through language, it has to be connected to a mental process, hence the study of communication might bring engaging knowledge about how we come to use and understand the different perspectives of meaning. Communication is done by means of objective perceptions or, on the contrary, by means unconscious creation of different interpretations. Reality can be discursively construed in an objective or a subjective way, but it is important that there exists a reciprocal interaction between people in the appreciation of that reality. Generally, the action of listening to conversations in movies, reading characters’ speeches or paying attention to several details we are being given, makes us endeavour in this communicative responsibility so as not to lose information along the way. Every sentence involves different conceptual communicative elements. We differ between lexical words such as nouns, verbs or adjectives among others, which develop their own lexical meaning, and the grammatical ones which conform the linguistic structure of each language. However, determiners, in linguistics, do not work on their own because their lexical meaning suggests nothing in the communicative process. They actually come together with a noun (e.g. some fruit) and what is more, they ground the meaning into different contexts. Prado (1997) indicates that we are facing two stages in communication that differ one another. We are dealing with the application of linguistics which refers to those definite expressions; and pragmatics where the application of reference comes to be included. Cognitive grammar (Langacker, 2008, 2013), Giovanelli & Harrison (2018) has tried to explain how we come to understand the linguistic role of determiners and their anchorage function in communication. They talk about the action of grounding which they define as “the process by which states and events are fixed in relation to the current speech event, providing information about what happened, when happened and who was involved” (p. 108). Salmon-Alt & Romary (2001) argue that “it is intended to save relevant contextual information for the attribution of referents to referring expressions” (p.2). Therefore, the use of referential determiners is linked to the understanding of a pragmatic context used by the speaker and interpreted by the hearer. This dissertation focuses on the understanding of these communicative elements in the learning of a foreign language. A native language does not normally convey many 2 problems in its usage by native people. However, the dominance of a similar understanding in a foreign language sometimes leads learners to cope with difficulties in the process of communication. In this case, determiners show several characteristics that differ in the comparison of Spanish and English languages, being those languages researched in this dissertation. Nevertheless, as I have mentioned before, determiners also work as referential words, and it is this referential function of determiners that will be discussed in this dissertation, considering the various interpretations speakers may encounter in the semantic process of two different languages. Probably, a person trying to make a talk understandable uses the right referential expressions, but the fact that we normally speak in our mother tongue language, we do not realize the importance the determiners as indexicals have, as we are entering into another language context. So, if we are Spanish native speakers learning English language as an L2, our attention would be focused on the correct semantic use of the determiners of that specific L2 language, as we do not use them instinctively. This dissertation considers the idea of the referential use of determiners on the basis of the interpretation of native Spanish noun phrases translated into an L2 learning language -English. To this effect, it consists of five different sections. In the literature review a theoretical part explains both Spanish and English referential systems supporting the most outstanding differences regarding generic and individuative articles. It also overviews investigations covering similar ideas to this dissertation and other studies about the function of translation techniques. Then it attempts to show this theoretical part applied to an experimental research in regards of the different interpretations that an L1 may generate in the learning of an L2 by native Spanish participants. It focuses on the resolution of three hypotheses which includes most of the variations in the understanding both language pragmatics. Several Tables collect the results obtained after testing participants, followed by a further analysis of the different interpretations they had on the translation of Spanish noun phrases dealing with referential determiners. After the analysis of results, a conclusion of the experimental research is exposed to detect language translation variations of three types of determiners functioning as referents. 3 2. LITERATURE REVIEW Linguistics allows us to understand the structure of a language. Cognitive grammar argues that grammar is not arbitrary and tries to explain what is the originating meaning of different grammatical structures, which in this dissertation are determiners, nouns, and noun phrases. According to Antonelli & May (2012) “a determiner is an expression such as “every,” “no,” “most,” “between 3 and 5,” etc., which combines with a predicate to form a noun phrase” (p. 347). Cognitive grammar was developed by Ronald W. Langacker. A clear point of departure in this theory is that linguistic structures in any language – English and Spanish in this dissertationshow particular types of conceptualizations. Thus, we can argue that all the determiners, as elements used for communication, make sense if we get to analyse them together. Langacker (2008) explains that he is proposing “a framework that offers a comprehensive yet coherent view of language structure, with the further advantages of being intuitively natural, psychologically plausible, and empirically viable” (p. 3). As we can observe the appropriate use of determiners is quite closely related the application of this linguistic theory, hence many researchers, such as González (2016) and Ionin, Montrul, Kim & Philippov (2011) later mentioned, have made use of it in their further investigations of semantic and linguistic aspects of the language. Regarding this dissertation, Cognitive Grammar covers this communicative function of determiners as referents. Prado (1997) understands the term reference as “generic” which assigns a virtual reality or the appointing class (in this case determiners); or as “specific” which relates to concrete simple or several utterances of that appointed class. The function of determiners is described in this framework and as Salmon-Alt & Romary (2001) – cited from Langacker, (2008) – claim: In Cognitive Grammar, determiners […] specify the status of nominals in relation to the “ground”, comprising the speech event and its participants. […] whether or to what degree the speech act participants can locate the thing referred to within the mass of objects populating their conceptual universe. (p. 14) From an objective point of view, referential determiners behave in order to create communicative connection. Each language collects and provides further descriptions of the meaning of a noun phrase applying established semantic rules. According to Giovanelli & Harrison (2008, p. 134), “when a ‘discourse’ is broached, […], we produce 4 a usage event, […] an instance of language use that comprises both phonetic parts, and wider contextual information speakers/listeners need in order to understand expressions” (p. 134). In this dissertation, the study will be focused on both Spanish and English referential systems, explained below, to acknowledge the differences of certain referential determiners. 2. 1. REFERENTIAL SYSTEMS While the underlying indexical functioning of the English and Spanish referential systems could be arguably similar, the semantic and grammatical realisation in both languages differs. The use of determiners as referents can be sometimes confusing for a Spanish learner of the English language. Therefore, we have to observe whether a native Spanish student with Spanish as an L1 and English as an L2 applies the same semantic structure criterion while using both languages, or on the contrary, he or she acknowledges the natural use of these systems without dealing with linguistic inferences. Giovanelli & Harrison (2006) talk about the fact that languages are embodied, and they define that concept as “how our use and understanding of language is shaped by our physical experience in and with the world […]. Consequently, we, as producers of a language, build and create meanings in our mind” (p. 6). Ibarretxe (2013) also supports this claiming saying that this idea of embodiment is originated by traditional means, and it asserts that linguistic elements are not abstract. They actually depend on human beings as they are created according to certain and specific experiences and limited by our own bodies. 2. 1. 1. English referential system Having a conversation with another person or writing an essay that is going to be later read by others makes the use of determiners essential not to lose the connection between the speaker and the hearer when referring to nouns or noun phrases and to make a fluent connected speech; especially when we are dealing with the acknowledgement of how the use of determiners in the English language (L2) can be altered by the natural influence that a native language (L1) produces. Radden & Dirven (2007) in their book Cognitive English Grammar explain the different types of referential meaning associated to each of the determiners in English. First, they explain that the utterance the speaker keeps in mind has to be accessible in the hearer’s one. The speech a person wants to project has to be done in an appropriate way, so that the speaker’s interpretation of the 11 indefinite determiner. Montero (2017, p. 406), after Langacker (2008), agrees that zero article (∅) is intended to mean indefiniteness as it does not ensure that the hearer interprets the referring expression the same way as the speaker. She also says that it provides indeterminate connotations and no limitations of utterances. As in English, in Spanish a difference can be also found between the use of definite and indefinite determiners with generic or non-generic (individuative) meaning. Montero (2017) quotes this example, taken from Leonetti (1999): “Un conejo vive en una madriguera” and she argues that the first indefinite article assigns a generic reference talking about bunnies in general and the second one is concluding the meaning of the referential expression into a non-specific utterance of certain place. Alonso (2017), also after Leonetti (1999), provides another explanation of a generic reference regarding definite articles. He claims that the singular form of the definite article regarding genericity is intended to refer to a certain type of objects as a common and unique class or unit already known by the speakers. In regards to the difference between these definite and indefinite determiners, “definite and bare forms are grammatical in the sense that they denote generic meaning, whereas the indefinite singular article does not allow to illustrate ambiguity” (González, 2016, p. 15). These authors prove that, as it happens in English, both the definite and indefinite articles in Spanish could be used with generic referential meaning. Generic expressions Definite determiners Indefinite determiners Articles: El/ La/ Los/ Las: -‘Qué bonitas son las calles’ Articles: Un/ Una/ Unos/ as -‘Una calle peatonal no permite vehículos’ ∅ -‘Hay calles iluminadas’ Table 3. Spanish generic referential determiners. 12 Non-generic expressions Definite determiners Indefinite determiners Articles: El/ La/ Los/ Las: - ‘¿Me puede decía la calle?’ Articles: Un/ Una/ Unos/ Unas -‘Vivo en una calle a las afueras de la ciudad’ Quantifiers: algún/a/os/as -‘Vivo en alguna calle a las afueras de la ciudad’ Table 4. Spanish individuative referential determiners After reviewing the grammatical realization of reference in both English and Spanish separately, it is necessary to revise the similarities and differences between both languages. As we have observed, there is a variation in the number of determiners used in each referential system. English determiners present the same forms for both singular and plural referring expressions. Although they do not differ in relation to number and gender, they still concord with the noun or noun phrase they are making reference to. On the contrary, the Spanish language includes gender and number in its referential system, as we can see in this English noun phrase “The apples”, it applies the use of the article “the”, But in Spanish we encounter instances such as “Las manzanas/Los árboles” depending on the noun gender. Spanish definite articles (el/la/los/las) may be the easiest ones to recognize and acknowledge in the English language with its equivalent representation through the article “the”. But, talking about the generic sense that these definite articles provide, we may encounter some mistakes in the process when native Spanish speakers are learning English as an L2. The generalization of a noun or a noun phrase in the Spanish language requires a definite article either in the plural or singular form whereas the English language uses zero article in the plural form (∅). “Las manzanas son rojas” → “Apples are red”. (The apples are red). “Thus, unlike English, in characterizing sentences, Spanish allows the use of the definite article with singular and plural N[oun] P[hrase]s. In addition, 13 Spanish requires the definite article with mass nouns, a property that is not present in English”. (Snape, García and Gürel, 2006, p. 7). However, when the sentence has an individuative definite or indefinite determiner, the acquisition of the English referential system may be more complicated as we encounter the determiners “a/an/some/any/∅/” as equivalent to “un/a/os/as.” There is no difference in Spanish between the indefinite article “un” and the quantifier “un”. On the contrary, in English a difference can be seen between the indefinite article “a/an” and the quantifying determiner “one”, which indicates an actual quantity. Affirmative Spanish sentences covering the indefinite determiner “algún/a/os/as” relate to the English determiners “some” and “any”. Depending on what they have already acknowledge and their level of English, Spanish native speakers, link “any” with negative sentences, and they would relate it with their L1 determiner “ningún/a/os/as”. That argument is not valid when learning this second language as “any” may also be interpreted as a referent to an affirmative sentence. If I say “¿Queda alguna manzana en la caja?”, we see how the expectative of the sentence may mean that the speaker notices that it is possible that there are no apples in the box (any) or that there might be more than one (some). These affirmative or question sentences are understood by the variability of interpretations in which “any” and “some” create positive and negative contexts. Another issue that varies between these two languages is the use of determiners together with mass nouns, as it happens something similar to what we have seen with generic referents. Snape (2006) confirms that: English is a language […] which allows bare plural and mass nouns to function as arguments without the need for a licensing determiner, but count singular nouns require licensing otherwise they are ungrammatical […], whereas Spanish is a language where all nouns need to be licensed by some kind of determiner. (p. 7) For instance, generally speaking, the mass noun “gold” needs a determiner in Spanish, so that we would say “El oro es muy valioso”. But when interpreting this sentence in the English language the referent “El” disappears and we have “Gold is quite valuable”. Montero (2017) after White (2010), shows this example: “Bob likes wine - A Bob le gusta el vino” (p. 406). Following this observation, this dissertation is going to test native Spanish speakers learning English as an L2 in order to see their acknowledgement 14 that mass nouns in the English language omit their generic indefinite article functioning as a referent. 2. 2. TRANSLATION TECHNIQUE This dissertation aims to observe if native Spanish students interpret different semantic inferences their language provides when learning a foreign language. These inferences might affect to the rendering of determiners in the English language referential system. Thus, it is important that a translation technique from Spanish into English is applied so that we will be able to analyze experimental information regarding the previous theory. Newmark (1988) defines this technique as “transference is the process of transferring a S[ource] L[anguage] word to a T[arget] L[anguage] text as a translation procedure” (p. 81). Then, Ghilzai (2014) affirms that “if the transfer facilitates in L2 learning that its positive transfer but if transfer causes interference or results in mistakes and errors than its negative transfer” (p. 3). In this dissertation, the translation technique will be applied to test which English translated sentence option suits students better for a sentence provided in their Spanish L1. This example below shows an instance of a type of sentence regarding genericity in which students will have to elect one of the four translations suggested which better interpret the meaning of the Spanish L1 sentence. Example: -Las manzanas son dulces. a. The apples are sweet. b. Apples are sweet. c. Their apples are sweet. d. Some apples are sweet. According to Artar (2017) after House (2009), “the term ‘translation’ is defined as a process of replacing a text in one language by a text in another” (p. 17). Munday (2009) covers the idea of Translation as a Cognitive Activity. He exposes that this process covers some difficulties related to the application of a cognitive development. Gathered from Sleskovitch and Lederer, Munday (2009) affirms that “the interpretive theory of translation (ITT) is pioneering in the cognitive approach to the study of translation. […] ITT identifies three interrelated phases of the translation/interpreting process” (p. 54). He 15 classifies them as “Understanding”, which “highlights the role of memory […] and distinguishes between immediate memory, which stores words for a short time, and cognitive memory, which stores the whole range of knowledge possessed by an individual” (Munday, 2009, p. 55); “Deverbalization” defined as “non-verbal synthesis resulting from the process of understanding” (Munday, 2009, p. 55); and “Re-expression” which “involves the whole cognitive apparatus of an individual and generates an association between linguistic and non-linguistic knowledge” (Munday, 2009, p. 55). Another type of translation in research studies is what Munday (2009) calls “a phase of justified analysis which […] entails the process of interpreting the equivalence found in order to […] express exactly the meaning conveyed by the source text” (p. 55-56). This translation technique based on different phases is going to be executed by means of a test as according to J. Marsh, L. Roediger, A. Bjork and L. Bjork (2007), they “are viewed as tools for measuring students’ mastery of skills and knowledge” (p. 194). This dissertation is using a multiple-choice test as Marsh, Roediger, Bjork and Bjork (2007) claim that “they may teach students new facts, because students use reasoning to eliminate lures, select the correct answer, and thereby learn it” (p. 195). It is predicted that the participants tested should fulfill this multiple-choice translation technique accurately if their semantic knowledge of the English referential system is not inferred by their native language. Hambleton (1993) argues “that multiple item formats are used in the test and that analyses are conducted after the test administration to determine the extent of the problem associated with the use of unfamiliar item formats” (p. 8). Newmark (1988, p. 41) also explains that “communicative translation attempts to render the exact contextual meaning of the original in such a way that both content and language are readily acceptable and comprehensible to the readership”. For me this is one of the most valuable functions that the learning of the referential system might convey as determiners are used to ground what we have in our minds and come along with nouns or noun phrases. After Petrocchi (2006), Ferreira (2011) pointed that “when students translate, they unconsciously follow three steps: analysis, transfer, and restructuring” and that “a mental process takes place in their minds on an unconscious level, every time they speak the other language” (p. 184). However, translation also triggers some problems. Newmark (1988) talks about how these problems arise: “The first sign of a translation problem is where these automatic procedures from language to language are not adequate. […] The mental 16 struggle between the SL words and the TL thought then begins” (p. 31). As exposed by Artar (2017) “the term ‘translation’ is used both as a process (learners’ translating consciously or subconsciously while learning a language) and as a product (the translated texts produced by learners in the contexts where translation is used a technique)” (p. 17). This dissertation relies on the idea of translation as a L2 learning process, and participants will not be asked to produce their own written translation, but to judge four predetermined translated English sentences through a multiple-choice test. 2. 3. PREVIOUS STUDIES ON REFERENTIAL DETERMINERS AND TRANSLATION TECHNIQUES Some studies have focused on how English definite and indefinite determiners have been learnt by Spanish native speakers. For example, in her study Generic Reference: A Comparison between English and Catalan Languages, González (2016) compares the English and Catalan generic referential system. Taking into account underlying similarities between Catalan and Spanish, her work is of interest for this dissertation. She wanted to investigate “the patterns of how to use English and Catalan articles in generic reference with regard to mass and count nouns as well as taking into account whether the count noun is singular or plural” (p. 5). Her main objective was to prove how linguistic inferences may affect in the L2 language regarding different word positions of the determiners. After covering definite and indefinite determiners, she pointed out what uses of these referring expressions may vary from the Spanish speakers as L1 participants when learning English as an L2. Her participants were divided depending on their level of the English language, and they had to fulfill a multiple-choice task. In this case, she made a difference between the uses of determiners within three different positions at the sentence level. She concluded that: The data shows that the beginner and intermediate subjects find it difficult the use of articles in subject position. […] due to L1 transfer effects since sentences that required the zero article with mass or plural nouns were difficult as they selected the as the alternative option. (p. 43). She also discussed that indefiniteness was also misunderstood and her participants also failed in the acquisition of referents as mass nouns in the L2. “The advanced subjects 17 show slight problems when dealing with articles in object position and it seems that mass nouns were the trickiest ones since they used the instead of ” (González, 2016, p. 43). Ionin, Montrul, Kim & Philippov (2011) have also investigated on the use of referential determiners regarding English genericity, although in their study no conclusion was obtained about the role of Spanish L1. Instead, they focused on a group comparison of “L1-Russian and L1-Korean L2-English learners, whose article-less L1s do not morphologically encode the distinction between the two types of genericity” (p. 2). Their main purpose was to do some research on the different types of generic determiners interpretations understood by the English semantics usage. They had two predictions tested through an acceptability judgment task, which argued about the fact that: L2-English learners who are target-like on the basic properties of English articles should be target-like in allowing indefinite singular N[oun]P[hrase]s in the context of sentence-level genericity, but not N[oun]P[hrase]-level genericity. […] L2English learners who are otherwise target-like on English articles may nevertheless disallow definite singular N[oun]P[hrase]s in the context of N[oun]P[hrase]-level genericity. (p. 20). The conclusion they reached at the end of the project coincides with the one by González (2016) as they said, “the learners were more successful with indefinite singular than with definite singular generics” (p. 36). Other studies researching linguistic inferences when learning a second language have made use of diverse translation procedures for testing participants, and they have observed how native languages can affect in the learning of another language as an L2. However, these procedures may vary depending on the research interests. Some of them used the multiple-choice test, similar to the one the participants in this dissertation have been asked to fill in; but we could also see other studies whose methodology was to make the participants provide an L2 translation resulting from what they have learnt or from their recent knowledge in that language. Artar (2017), for instance, made the participants apply written and oral translation techniques to evaluate their capacity of learning in the academic sphere. She collected data through writing and questionnaires, in which: 18 Learners in both groups wrote two pieces of writing to be assessed and graded. […] In addition to the written work, the learners in the experiment group also provided another set of data by completing a questionnaire at the end of the module. (p, 65). These methodologies have proved that the participants have improved their knowledge in their L2 because of the application of translation in written processes. Ghilzai (2014) and Qadoury (2011) researched about how learning a language as an L2 deals with linguistic inferences produced by the transfer of communicative elements from the native speaking L1. And also to observe the way that process has positively contributed to a correct learning. The first one tested German participants whose expressions of possession differed from the ones used in the English language, as it depended on how they were applied in various linguistic structures. She tested some students by providing them some sentences they had to rate, mixed with some distractors. The hypotheses that this researcher proposed were confirmed by the participants and she finally argued that these tests could provide how an L1 language may infer in the acquisition of and L2 language. “The German speakers’ ratings were based on their L1 and hence indicate that German speakers transfer their L1 while processing L2 English possessive constructions”. (Ghilzai, 2014, p. 23). Then, Qadoury (2011) aimed to research on “the speech act of refusal” (p. 169). He collected data from Iraqi L1 students of English as an L2 compared to the way native English and Iraqi native speakers would react in such acts. They were provided a test which involved a questionnaire with different types of refusing strategies. They were given some sentences in the target language and they had to answer in a negative way. He finally showed that there “Iraqi EF learners were pragmatically aware of refusals since many evidences of pragmatic transfer existed” (Qadoury 2011 p. 174). Both researchers agree when they come to investigate that native languages may transfer their understanding of different semantic structures when learning a second language – in this case English. 19 3. RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES My dissertation aims to observe whether native Spanish students (L1) learning a foreign language in an intermediate level –in this case English –as an L2, understand and have mastered the differences between the Spanish and English referential systems. On the contrary, opposite to that, their native L1 still is present and it affects in the learning of the linguistic structure of this L2 referential system due to semantic Spanish inferences. This dissertation deals with an experimental task intended to analyze different understandings of specific determiners functioning as referents in the English language as an L2 by native Spanish students. This, it has tried to answer three research questions followed by three hypotheses predicting participants attitude towards their understanding of English determiners. RQ1. Would native Spanish students learning English as an L2 acknowledge that the referential generic understanding of definite articles applies a zero article, despite the fact that their own language forces them to use the articles “El/La/Los/Las”? Hypothesis 1. Regarding this first research question, it deals with the generic definite articles as referents differing in their understanding from Spanish into English. The percentage of generic determiners used in the Spanish language is higher than in English as the articles “El/la/los/las” are compulsory, and their referential use provides meaning to the sentence. Nevertheless, in English (L2) this is not the case, as this language does not require an article expressing definite genericity. The semantic rules from the L1 consider a mistake the fact that these determiners are not implicit. That is why, I think that the participants would elect the sentences translated with the definite article ‘the’ instead of zero article. RQ2. Would native Spanish students learning English as an L2 make a semantic difference between the use of the determiners “one” and “a/an” both translated in Spanish with the same word “un”, which means either indefiniteness or quantity? My second hypothesis relates to the difference between the individuative indefinite article ‘un’ and the numeral determiner ‘un’ in the Spanish language (L1). Hypothesis 2. It is predicted that participants will highly elect its L2 translation based on the individuative indefinite determiner “a/an” rather than the numeral ‘one’. 20 This stems from the lack of difference in form between the two meanings of “un”. They might not encounter the different meanings that “a/an” and “one” convey in this type of sentences, so that they would opt for the indefinite determiners, which are most frequently used. RQ3. Would native Spanish students learning English as an L2 consider the referential individuative indefinite articles “some” and “any”, for affirmative and negative sentence respectively, the same way the Spanish understanding of these structures does (“algún/a/os/as” and “ningún/a/os/as”)? Hypothesis 3. It relates to the use of the individuative indefinite determiners “some” and “any” within affirmative sentences, and questions. “Some”, translated in Spanish as “algún/a/os/as” always denotes an affirmative meaning, but “any” does not always follow a negative meaning the same way its Spanish equivalent translation “ningún/a/os/as” does. Apart from negative sentences with a non-affirmative meaning, it can also function as a referent in affirmative ones. On the contrary, the fact that native Spanish participants whose L1 uses specific determiners for affirmative (“algún/a/os/as”) and negative (“ningún/a/os/as”) sentences to conform referring expressions, might lead them not to interpret that “any” also functions as a referential determiner in affirmative contexts. I hypothesize that my participants will prefer using the indefinite determiner “some” when ‘any’ is required. 4. METHODOLOGY This section explains the methodology used to compile the data and to analyse what it is provided. It covers two main sections: one related to the way the collection of data has been accomplished for a further analysis in the dissertation, and the other to the description of participants involved in the empirical test. 4. 1. PARTICIPANTS This dissertation was intended to prove the difficulties that a native language may cause in the learning of a second language. For this purpose, 89 native Spanish people (L1), mainly students at university, and who have been in touch with the English language on an average of fourteen years, with an intermediate level of English (B2), were sent this 27 5. DISCUSSION The present dissertation covers three research questions together with three hypotheses in the investigation of different semantic interpretations of L2 referential determiners. Finally, this has allowed us to analyse the multiple-choice test results represented in the tables above. The first research question was “would native Spanish students learning English as an L2 acknowledge that the referential generic understanding of definite articles applies a zero article, despite the fact that their own language forces them to use the articles “El/La/Los/Las”?” Considering possible linguistic interferences from the L1 into the L2, I hypothesized that my participants would interpret the English L2 definite genericity the same way it is done in their native L1 language. However, my hypothesis has been rejected, as they were apt to acknowledge that the Spanish required definite articles “el/la/los/las” are translated as a bare determiner. They were able to understand the referent function of zero articles in a second language without the presence of native L1 semantic interferences. Nevertheless, there are minimum instances in which the variability of election between the article “the” and bare nouns present important differences. This may indicate that although optimum results concerning L2 definiteness and mass nouns were obtained in Table 5, there were several instances in which Spanish L1 interference occur. My second research question stated, “would native Spanish students learning English as an L2 make a semantic difference between the use of the determiners “one” and “a/an” both translated in Spanish with the same word “un”, which means either indefiniteness or quantity?” The hypothesis predicted that participants would base their translations on the individuative indefinite determiner “a/an” rather than the numeral ‘one’ due to the lack of difference in form between the two meanings of the Spanish determiner “un”. Nonetheless, it has also been rejected as the higher percentage of the total results indicated that participants in the test mostly interpreted the different lexical meanings that the indefinite determiner “a/an” and the numeral “one” conveyed. Despite this, looking at individual sentences (Table 6), the referential determiners in three of the sentences provided in the experimental test were interpreted as indefinite ones rather than numeral. For instance, in “mis padres han tenido un ordenador”, we could analyse that the lack of an existing numerical sequence (as in other examples provided, see Table 6), or the appearance of sentences as distractors, might have led them to interpret that 28 referential determiners as indefinites were the best translation for the Spanish determiner “un”. This means that sometimes, the fact that Spanish language only uses the determiner “un” with both the indefinite and the quantity meanings, influences them creating double interpretation whether to use “a/an” or “one”. Finally, the third research question was “would native Spanish students learning English as an L2 consider the referential individuative indefinite articles “some” and “any”, for affirmative and negative sentence respectively, the same way the Spanish understanding of these structures does (“algún/a/os/as” and “ningún/a/os/as”)? It was hypothesized that participants would not be able to interpret “any” functioning as a referential determiner in affirmative contexts, because their L1 uses specific determiners for affirmative (“algún/a/os/as”) and negative (“ningún/a/os/as”) sentences when referring to these type of noun phrases. As observed in Table 7, participants have mainly interpreted the use of “any” in the translation of L1 affirmative contexts (in both affirmative and question sentences), so the third hypothesis is also rejected. Apart from the fact that “any” was not always the determiner required, they have acknowledged that the corresponding meaning of this word does not always relate to the Spanish negative referent “ningún/a/os/as”. All the hypotheses proposed for this dissertation have been rejected. We encounter that the participants had the ability of interpreting and understanding the lexical meaning of English determiners functioning as referents with little interferences from their native Spanish language. 6. CONCLUSION This dissertation focused on different interpretations of Spanish and English referential determiners. After reviewing cognitive-based theories which explain the main characteristics of certain determiners -mainly articlesfunctioning as referents, a study base on the translation of L1 determiners into a foreign language -Englishhas experimented an L2 understanding of determiners as referents. The usage of a multiplechoice test as a translation technique has allowed us to reach a conclusion about the interpretation and the acknowledgement of English and Spanish referential systems. Although, the results were expected to cover higher interferences from the L1 into the L2, there are not many evidence that Spanish participants could not differ these determiners between both systems. The function of distractors in the test has not totally accomplished 29 their function of misleading their focus on determiners. The English level of participants was influential in the results obtained, as they proceed on the basis of an intermediate level. There has not been any noticeable interference from the native Spanish language regarding the interpretation of meaning in generic definiteness, indefinite articles and numeral determiners and the indefinites “some” and “any”. Participants have acknowledged in a positive way that the interpretation of a second language has to be differentiated from their native language. Then, we conclude that each language performs different interpretation withing their corresponding linguistic structures that may affect the understanding of semantic constructions. It has been observed by the comparison of these two languages that it does not exist a single way of interpreting these elements of communication. For instance, one language uses fixed definite determiners and the other omits them conforming bare nouns. There exist variations in the usage of determiners that come along with nouns. Sometimes they change the structure together with the interpretation of meaning, and sometimes they ground meaning to different contexts. On the one hand, regarding Spanish generic definite determiners, there is no need to revise the usage of the determiners “el/la/los/las”, as they are always applied in the semantic rendering of nominal phrases. Then, noun phrases indicating indefiniteness with the article “un” do not differ from the numeral determiner “un” in terms of wordformation, but on meaning. This means that even if the interpretation of the word differs in different contexts, the semantic structure will never change. The third referential determiners analysed were “algún/a/os/as” and “ningún/a/os/as” whose meaning denotes affirmative and negative connotations, respectively. We conclude that the Spanish language referential system does not offer many complications in the understanding of these determiners as referents. However, their representation in the English referential system observes several variations. On the other hand, as it has been analysed, the English referential system differs between the use of “the” and bare noun phrases or zero article; it also applies separate words to convey different meanings in the understanding of the indefinite determiner, including “a/an” and the numeral “one”; and the indefinite determiner “any” can also appear in affirmative contexts the same way the determiner “some” does. All these variations were included as part of the written test to be done by participants. Although the three predicted hypotheses came to result rejected, the percentages obtained lead to 30 the conclusion that the L1 structures made little interferences, as they do not show a high variability between the gathered results of the translated sentences elected by participants and those interpretations which the participants were expected to choose in the hypotheses. Finally, every communicative element involved in the production of a language in the everyday life is essential and the semantic function of determiners helps it to be produced in an optimum manner. This dissertation together with many others exiting studies have dealt with a semantic and pragmatic perspective of linguistics showing the importance of the semantic knowledge of a language when learning it as an L2. 31 7. BIBLIOGRAPHY Al-Saaidi, S. (2011). English definite article ''the '' in term of definiteness with reference to literary works: A linguistic study. Journal of Kerbala University. 9(3), 1-17. Antonelli, A & May, R. (2012). Quantifiers and determiners. The Routledge Companion to philosophy of language, ed. Gillian Russell and Delia Graff Fara. New York: Routledge, 342-354. Retrieved from: https://www.academia.edu/2664556/Quantifiers_and_Determiners?source=swp_ share Artar, P. (2017). The Role of Translation in Foreign-Language Teaching. (Doctoral thesis). Tarragona: Universitat Rovira I Virgili. Doctorado en Estudios Interculturales. Dayal, V. (2006) Semantic Variation and Pleonastic Determiners: The case of the plural definite generic. In: Proceedings of Asian GLOW. García, J. (1989). El sentido en la función referencial de frases sustantivas del español. Nueva Revista De Filología Hispánica, 37(1), 19-26. Ferreira, N. (2011). Translation as a Teaching Tool to Bridge L1 and L2 for Adult Learners at Elementary Levels1. Brasil. Cadernos de traduçao 1(27). 179-202 Retrieved from: https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=4925268 32 Ghilzai, S. (2014). The Role of L1 transfer in the Processing of L2 English Possessive Constructions: Evidence from German. European Academic Research 2(6). 74547481. Giovanelli, M., & Harrison, C. (2018). Cognitive Grammar in Stylistics: A Practical Guide. London: Bloomsbury Academic. González, J. (2016). Generic Reference: A Comparison between English and Catalan Languages. Universidad de Barcelona, Barcelona. Degree dissertation Hambleton, R.K. (1993). Translating achievement tests for use in cross-national studies. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 9(1), 57-68. Ibarretxe, I. (2013). La Lingüística Cognitiva y su lugar en la Historia de la Lingüistica. Universidad de Zaragoza. RESLA 26, 245-266. Ionin, T., Montrul, S., Kim, J. & Philippov, V. (2011) Genericity Distinctions and the Interpretation of Determiners in Second Language Acquisition. Language Acquisition, 18(4), 242-280, doi:10.1080/10489223.2011.610264. Kachru, Y. (2003). On definite reference in world Englishes. World Englishes, 22(4), 497-510. Retrieved from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1467-971X.2003.00315.x Langacker, R. (2008). Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. Oxford University Press, USA 33 Leonetti, M. (2016). Determinantes y artículos. En J. Gutiérrez Rexach (ed.), Enciclopedia Lingüística Hispánica 1, 532-543. Londres: Routledge. Marsh, E.J., Roediger, H.L., Bjork, R.A. et al. (2007). The memorial consequences of multiple-choice testing. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 14(2), 194–199. Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194051 Montero, S. (2017). Aproximación cognitiva a los valores cuantificador y referencial de los artículos el/la/los/las, un/a/os/as y o en relación con el nombre. PhD dissertation, Universidad de Granada, Spain. Munday, J. (2009). The Routledge Companion to Translation Studies. London and New York: Routledge Taylor and Francis group. Newmark, P. (1988). A Textbook of Translation. Hertfordshire, Prentice Hall International. Prado, Mª E. (1997). Los Determinantes como elementos referenciales. Contextos. Universidad de León. León. 33-47 Qadoury, A. (2011). Pragmatic transfer in Iraqi EFL learners’ refusals. Al-Mustansiriya University. International Journal of English Linguistic. 1(2), 166-185. Radden, G., & Dirven, R. (2007). Cognitive English Grammar (Cognitive Linguistics in Practice) (2.a ed.). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 34 Salmon-Alt, S. & Romary, L. (2001) Reference resolution within the framework of cognitive grammar. In : Proceedings of the International colloquium on cognitive science. San Sebastián, Spain. Santiago, G. (2017). El artículo en español: problemas de conceptualización y valores esenciales. Universidad de Ljubljana. Verba Hispanica XXIV, 24(1), 125-145. Snape, N. (2006). The acquisition of the English determiner phrase by Japanese and Spanish learners of English. PhD dissertation, University of Essex, England. Snape, N., García Mª.P., & Gürel, A. (2013). L1 transfer in article selection for generic reference by Spanish, Turkish and Japanese L2 learners. International Journal of English Studies, 13(1), 1-28. 35 APPENDIX 1. Generic reference -Las manzanas son dulces. a. The Apples are sweet. b. Apples are sweet. c. Some apples are sweet d. These apples are sweet. -Los amigos siempre están ahí. a. Those friends are always there. b. The friends are always there. c. Friends are always there. d. A friend is always there. -Mi hermana teme a las arañas a. My sister fears of the spiders. b. My sister fears of some spiders. c. My sister fears spiders. d. My sister fears of a spider. -La Universidad ofrece cursos online. a. University offers online courses. b. The university offers online courses. c. A university offers online courses. d. Universities offer online courses. -Mi madre dice que hay que disfrutar de la vida. a. My mum says that we have to enjoy lives. b. My mum says that we have to enjoy the life. c. My mum says that we have to enjoy life.d. My mum says that we have to enjoy a life. -El oro es muy valioso. a. Gold is quite valuable. b. The gold is quite valuable. c. A gold is quite valuable. d. Some gold is quite valuable. -El agua es importante para vivir. a. The water is important for living. b. A water is important for living. c. Some water is important for living. d. Water is important for living. -La felicidad no se compra con dinero. a. Some happiness cannot be bought b. Happiness cannot be bought. c. The happiness cannot be bought. d. A happiness cannot be bought. -El dinero se consigue con esfuerzo. a. Money comes with effort. b. The money comes with effort. c. Some money comes with effort. d. A money comes with effort. -La gente debería tener personalidad. a. Some people should have their personality. b. The people should have their personality. c. People should have their personality. d. A people should have their personality. 2. Indefinite article vs indefinite quantifier -Tengo un plátano, pero mañana traeré dos. a. I have a banana, but tomorrow I will bring two. b. I have the banana, but tomorrow I will bring two. c. I have one banana, but tomorrow I will bring two d. I have some banana, but tomorrow I will bring two. -Tengo una llave porque perdí las otras. a. I have a key because I lost the others. b. I have one key because I lost the others. c. I have the key because I lost the others. d. I have key because I lost the others. -Me ordenó abrir solo una puerta. a. He ordered me to open just one door. b. He ordered me to open just some door. 36 c. He ordered me to open just a door. d. He ordered me to open just the door. -Tengo que comprar un lápiz y dos bolígrafos. a. I have to buy some pencil and two pens. b. I have to buy the pencil and two pens. c. I have to buy a pencil and two pens. d. I have to buy one pencil and two pens. -Sólo guardo una botella de vino en casa. a. I only have one bottle of wine at home. b. I only have bottle of wine at home. c. I only have a bottle of wine at home. d. I only have the bottle of wine at home. -Mis padres han tenido un ordenador. a. My parents have had a computer. b. My parents have had one computer. c. My parents have had computer. d. My parents just had some computer. -Hemos perdido una hora y nos quedan tres para acabarlo. a. We have lost an hour and we have three hours left to finish it. b. We have lost the hour and we have three hours left to finish it. c. We have lost one hour and we have three hours left to finish it. d. We have lost hour and we have three hours left to finish it. -No sabemos si adoptar un gato o dos. a. We do not know whether to adopt a cat or two. b. We do not know whether to adopt some cat or two. c. We do not know whether to adopt the cat or two. d. We do not know whether to adopt one cat or two. -Un niño tiene varicela en el colegio. a. A child has chickenpox at school. b. One child has chickenpox at school. c. The child has chickenpox at school. d. Some child has chickenpox at school. -Es más fácil convencer a un hombre que a quince. a. It is easier to persuade one man than fifteen. b. It is easier to convince a man than fifteen. c. It is easy to convince the man than fifteen. d. It is easier to convince some man than fifteen. 3. Differences between some and any in affirmative sentences. -¿Hay alguna manzana? a. Is there any apple? b. Is there some apple? c. Are there apples? d. Are there the apples? -¿Tienes alguna duda? a. Do you have some doubts? b. Do you have doubts? c. Do you have any doubts? d. Do you have no doubts? -¿Me das algún tenedor del cajón? a. Can I have some fork from the drawer? b. Can I have fork from the drawer? c. Can I have any fork from the drawer? d. Can I have a fork from the drawer? -¿Te han dado algún consejo para el examen? a. Were you given any advice for the exam? b. Were you given you advice for the exam? c. Were you given you some advice for the exam? d. Have they given you the advice for the exam? -¿Puedo comer alguna fruta? a. Can I eat some fruit? b. Can I eat any fruit? c. Can I eat the fruit? d. Can I eat fruit?