以汉语为母语的英语学习者对英语双及物构式的习得研究

论文摘要

本研究在认知语言学家Goldberg的构式语法理论框架内,探讨以汉语为母语的英语学习者对英语双及物构式的习得。具体来讲,本研究首先在构式语法的理论框架内对双及物构式进行了(跨)语言分析,确定了影响双及物构式二语习得的主要因素,并通过实证研究,考察了以汉语为母语的二语学习者对英语双及物构式的习得情况。本文从构式语法理论关于动词与构式互动的视角出发,通过对双及物动词与构式的匹配特点进行详细的(跨)语言分析,有如下几点发现:1)英语双及物动词的语义类型与构式呈现不同程度的匹配:给予类动词(包括显性给予和隐性给予)与构式含义匹配程度较高,成为双及物句中的典型动词类型;创造类动词和取得类动词与构式含义匹配较弱,成为双及物句中的边缘动词类型。2)英汉两种语言双及物构式含义的概念化方式不同,即英语为右向转移,汉语为左/右向转移,因而它们对(边缘)动词类型分别有不同的选择限制:消耗类动词可以进入汉语双及物句,却不能进入英语;创造类动词可以进入英语双及物句,却不能进入汉语;取得类动词可以同时进入两种语言,但表达截然相反的含义。在(跨)语言分析的基础上,本研究提出了三个具体的研究假设,即上述因素会对二语双及物构式习得产生相应的影响,并设计了两项研究工具来验证这些假设。这两个研究工具分别是可接受性判断任务和翻译句改错任务,共有90名分属不同水平组的英语学习者参加了本项研究。实验结果显示,在习得英语双及物构式时,二语学习者对典型动词类型的习得远好于对边缘动词类型的习得,呈现出“给予类动词>创造类动词,取得类动词”的习得序列;另外,在一语和二语对双及物边缘动词类型出现不同的选择限制时,学习者的构式习得会受到阻碍,即带有一语的痕迹,具体表现为学习者(尤其是低水平学习者)在习得的过程中倾向于接受消耗类双及物句,但拒绝创造类双及物句,且把取得类双及物句倾向于解释为“取得”而不是“给予”。本研究发现了二语学习者习得英语双及物构式的主要影响因素:动词语义类型的典型/边缘地位;英汉语言双及物构式概念化方式的差异及由此产生的对动词类型的不同选择限制。本研究结果证实了Goldberg构式语法理论对双及物构式及其二语习得解释的有效性。

论文目录

• Abstract
• 摘要
• List of Figures
• List of Tables
• List of Abbreviations
• Chapter 1 Introduction
• 1.1 Research Orientation
• 1.2 English Ditransitive Construction: The Target of Research
• 1.3 Rationale
• 1.3.1 Pedagogical Significance: Towards the Learning Task of the English DC
• 1.3.2 Theoretical Significance: Approaching the Construction Grammar Perspective
• 1.4 Key Research Questions
• 1.5 Organization of the Thesis
• Chapter 2 Literature Review
• 2.1 Theoretical Researches on English Ditransitive Construction
• 2.1.1 Transformational Approach
• 2.1.2 Lexicosemantic Approach
• 2.1.2.1 The Basic Assumptions of the Lexicosemantic Approach
• 2.1.2.2 Pinker’s Broad& Narrow Range Rules on Ditransitive Construction
• 2.1.3 Constructional Approach
• 2.2 Empirical Researches on English Ditransitive Construction
• 2.3 Summary
• Chapter 3 Theoretical Framework
• 3.1 The Theory of Construction Grammar
• 3.1.1 Construction: What It Is
• 3.1.2 Bas ic Tenets of CG
• 3.1.3 The Interaction Between Verbs and Constructions
• 3.2 The Ditransitive Construction: A CG Approach
• 3.2.1 Construction al Representation of DC
• 3.2.2 Verb Types: Semantic Hierarchy
• 3.2.2.1 Goldberg: Polysemy of Ditransitive Construction
• 3.2.2.2 Xu Shenghuan: Three Types of Verbs
• 3.2.2.3 Summary: A Hierarchy of Verbal Semantic Types
• 3.2.3 Verb Types: Cross-linguistic Difference
• 3.2.3.1 The Divergence of Constructional Meaning in English and Chinese
• 3.2.3.2 Occurrence Restrictions of Verbs Across Languages
• 3.2.3.3 Summary: Cross-linguistic Difference on Occurrence of Verb Types
• 3.3 A CG Account Towards L2 Acquisition of DC
• 3.3.1 L2 Acquisition of English DC: Implications from the Two Factors
• 3.3.2 Research Hypotheses
• 3.3.3 Variables Involved in the Hypothes es Testing
• 3.4 Summary
• Chapter 4 Research Design, Instrumentation, Data Collection and Data Analysis
• 4.1 Research Design
• 4.2 Subjects
• 4.3 Instruments
• 4.3.1 Acceptability Judgment Task (AJT
• 4.3.2 Error Correction Task (ECT
• 4.4 Data Collection
• 4.5 Data Scoring
• 4.5.1 Scoring of AJT Data
• 4.5.2 Scoring of ECT Data
• 4.6 Data Analysis
• 4.7 Summary
• Chapter 5 Results for Research Hypotheses Testing
• 5.1 Results for Hypothesis 1
• 5.2 Results for Hypothesis 2
• 5.2.1 Testing Hypothesis 2 through Acceptability Judgment Task （AJT） Data
• 5.2.2 Testing Hypothesis 2 through Error Correction Task （ECT） Data
• 5.3 Results for Hypothesis 3
• 5.4 Summary
• Chapter 6 General Discussion
• 6.1 A Summary of the Research Findings
• 6.1.1 A Summary of Major Linguistic Findings
• 6.1.2 A Summary of Major Empirical Find ings
• 6.2 Factors Involved in L2 Acquisition of English DC: to Verify the CG Account
• 6.3 Summary
• Chapter 7 Conclusions
• 7.1 Conclusions
• 7.2 Implications for L2 DC Research and Instruction
• 7.3 Limitations
• 7.4 Suggestions for Further Research
• References
• Appendix I
• Appendix II
• Acknowledgements