中国学习者对英语提升谓词的习得 语义启动和句法启动的综合分析模型PDF电子书下载

Chapter 1 Introduction 1

1.1 Need for investigating L2 acquisition of English raising verbs 1

1.2 Definition of raising predicates 8

1.3 Difficulties encountered in the acquisition of raising predicates by language learners 11

1.4 Key research questions 14

1.5 Contents of the remaining chapters 16

Chapter 2 Conceptualizing the Acquisition of English Predicates—Theoretical Foundations 19

2.1 Introduction 19

2.2 Theoretical foundation for the analysis of raising predicates 21

2.2.1 Justification for adopting a generative approach in the present study 21

2.2.2 Principles on the semantics-syntax interface of the verb 26

Chapter 3 The Linguistic Features of English Raising Predicates 34

3.1 Introduction 34

3.2 The semantics of English raising predicates:Delimitation of the concept 34

3.2.1 seem/appear 35

3.2.2 happen and appear 37

3.2.3 turn out 39

3.3 The syntactic structures of raising verbs 40

3.4 The unique syntactic features of raising verbs 43

3.4.1 Constraints on the subject of raising verbs in non-raising construction 44

3.4 2 Animacy of the subject in the raising construction 45

3.4.3 The morphosyntactic environments of raising verbs 47

3.4 4 The property of the verb in the complement 48

3.5 Differences between raising and control constructions 49

3.6 Formulating the one-clausal-argument linking rules of raising verbs 51

Chapter 4 Cross-linguistic Analysis of English and Chinese Raising Predicates 54

4.1 Introduction 54

4.2 Research on Chinese raising verbs 54

4.2.1 Aspectual verbs 59

4.2.2 Epistemic modal verbs 60

4.2.3 Tough verbs 61

4.2.4 Frequency verbs 62

4.3 A comparison between Chinese and English raising predicates 64

Chapter 5 Theories on Verb Acquisition in L1 and L2 67

5.1 Introduction 67

5.2 Early mapping theories in L1 verb acquisition:Lists of primitive thematic roles 68

5.3 Current theories 70

5.3.1 The Semantic Bootstrapping Hypothesis 71

5.3.2 Syntactic bootstrapping hypothesis 81

5.3.3 A Reconciliation Model 85

5.4 The applicability of L1 theories on L2 acquisition of verbs 94

5.5 Empirical studies on the acquisition of English raising verbs 96

5.5.1 Becker's studies on L1 acquisition of English raising verbs 96

5.5.2 Comments on Becker's studies 101

5.5.3 Callies'(2005)study on German learners of English 102

5.5.4 Comments on Callies' study 104

Chapter 6 An Integrated Parsing Model of L2 English Raising Predicate Acquisition 107

6.1 Introduction 107

6.2 The linguistic aspects of raising verbs—A summary 107

6.3 An Integrated Parsing Model of English raising predicate acquisition 109

6.4 The central issue of the research 115

6.5 Variables influencing the acquisition of English raising verbs by Chinese EFL learners 117

6.5.1 L1 influence 119

6.5.2 A movement 121

6.5.3 Animacy of the subject and eventivity of the embedded verb 122

6.6 Research hypotheses 124

Chapter 7 Research Design,Instrumentation,Data Collection and Data Analysis 127

7.1 Introduction 127

7.2 Investigative approach 128

7.3 Participants 129

7.4 Instrumentation 133

7.4.1 Test words 134

7.4.2 Grammaticality judgment task(GJT) 134

7.4.3 Guided writing task(GWT) 144

7.4.4 Think-aloud task(TAT) 147

7.5 Data-collection procedures 148

7.5.1 Administration of GWT 149

7.5.2 Administration of TAT 150

7.5.3 Administration of GJT 151

7.6 Data analysis 152

7.6.1 Coding and scoring GWT data 152

7.6.2 Scoring GJT data 154

7.6.3 Statistical analysis of GWT and GJT data 156

7.6.4 Coding of TAT data 157

7.7 Learners' sensitivity to the syntactic features of control verbs 165

Chapter 8 Results of Research Hypothesis Testing 168

8.1 Introduction 168

8.2 Results for Hypothesis 1 170

8.2.1 Testing Hypothesis 1 through GJT 170

8.2.2 Testing Hypothesis 1 through GWT 172

8.3 Results for Hypothesis 2 174

8.3.1 Testing Hypothesis 2 through GJT 174

8.3.2 Testing Hypothesis 2 through GWT 176

8.4 Results for Hypothesis 3 178

8.4.1 Testing Hypothesis 3 through GJT 179

8.4.2 Testing Hypothesis 3 through GWT 182

8.5 Results for Hypothesis 4 184

8.5.1 Testing Hypothesis 3 through GJT 184

8.5.2 Testing Hypothesis 4 through GWT 186

8.6 Results for Hypothesis 5 187

8.6.1 Testing Hypothesis 5 through GJT 188

8.6.2 Testing Hypothesis 5 through GWT 190

8.7 Acquisition of syntactic features not included in the testing of research hypothesis 193

8.8 Route of English raising predicate acquisition by Chinese EFL learners—A summary 196

8.8.1 A description of the route of acquisition revealed by participants' performance on GJT 199

8.8.2 A description of the route of acquisition revealed by participants' performance on GWT 201

8.8.3 Features of raising verb acquisition revealed by both GJT and GWT 202

Chapter 9 Results of Online Parsing Processes of Raising Constructions 204

9.1 Introduction 204

9.2 Distribution of cue types adopted by five participant groups 205

9.3 Distribution of cue types under five test focuses 206

9.4 The relationship between the use of cue type and the correctness rate of performance 209

9.4.1 The correctness rates of participants' performance on TAT:Effect of test focus and proficiency 210

9.4.2 Frequency of cue type use that led to correct responses 212

9.4.3 Characteristics of cue type use leading to correct responses 215

9.4.4 Specific features of cue type use by 5 participant groups 219

9.5 The sequence of cue use in the on-line parsing process—A summary 225

Chapter 10 General Discussion 229

10.1 Overview 229

10.2 Summary of the major findings 229

10.3 The role of UG in the L2 acquisition of English raising predicates 238

10.3.1 The role of UG principles via the positive L1 transfer 239

10.3.2 The role of UG principles via the negative L1 transfer 242

10.4 The gap between knowledge and production 245

10.5 Chunking strategy,overgeneralization,and fossilization 250

10.6 Summary of the chapter 258

Chapter 11 Conclusions,Implications,Limitations and Recommendations for Future Research 260

11.1 Conclusions:A modified Integrated Parsing Model for the acquisition of English raising predicates by Chinese EFL learners 260

11.2 Implications 264

11.2.1 Theoretical implications 264

11.2.2 Pedagogical implications 266

11.3 Limitations of the present research and suggestions for further research 267

References 268

Appendix 1 Cloze Tests 289

Appendix 2 GJT Test Sentences 292

Appendix 3 Grammatical Judgment Task(Form A) 298

Appendix 4 GWT Test Sentences 303

Appendix 5 Guided Writing Task(Form A) 306

Appendix 6 Think-aloud Task(Form A) 309

Appendix 7 Analysis of Think-aloud Data 312

Appendix 8 Information on the Correct Response in TAT 317

1.1 Studies on the mapping problems of some non-canonical verbs in SLA 5

5.1 Canonical syntax-semantics pairings that can be used in Semantic Bootstrapping(Adapted from Pinker,1984:41) 74

7.1 Background information of participants 130

7.2 Mean scores and standard deviations of the doze tests 132

7.3 One-way ANOVA results on the cloze scores of the five participant groups 132

7.4 Scheffe test for proficiency levels of five participant groups 132

7.5 Test words used in the investigation 134

7.6 Structure types of raising predicates for test 138

7.7 Structure types of control verbs for test 141

7.8 Relationship between accuracy rate and percentage of correctness 156

7.9 Interrater reliability 164

7.10 Results of paired-sample t test for GJT data 166

7.11 Results of paired-sample t test for GWT data 167

8.1 GJT focus means and standard deviation of elementary group 171

8.2 Elementary group mean differences on GJT focus 171

8.3 GWT focus means and standard deviation of elementary group 173

8.4 Results of two-way ANOVA on focus and proficiency,GJT 175

8.5 Comparison of elementary and low-level participants'performance on each test focus,results of t-tests,GJT 176

8.6 Results of two-way ANOVA on focus and proficiency,GWT 177

8.7 Comparison of means and standard deviations obtained by two participant groups for five test focuses,GWT 178

8.8 Results of two-way ANOVA on focus and proficiency,GJT 179

8.9 GJT means and the results of independent-samples t test 180

8.10 Results of two-way ANOVA on focus and proficiency,GWT 182

8.11 GWT means and the results of independent-samples t test 182

8.12 Results of two-way ANOVA on focus and proficiency,GJT 184

8.13 GJT means and the results of independent-samples t test 185

8.14 Results of two-way ANOVA on focus and proficiency,GWT 186

8.15 GWT means and the results of independent-samples t test 187

8.16 Results of two-way ANOVA on focus and proficiency,GJT 188

8.17 Results of one-way ANOVA on each of five test focuses,GJT 189

8.18 Post hoc(Scheffe)test for three participant groups' performance on Focuses 6 and 7,GJT 190

8.19 Results of two-way ANOVA on focus and proficiency,GWT 191

8.20 Results of one-way ANOVA on each of five test focuses,GWT 191

8.21 Post hoc(Scheffe)test for three participant groups'performance on Focuses 1,2＆3,GWT 192

8.22 Results of two-way ANOVA on focus and proficiency,GJT 194

8.23 Results of one-way ANOVA on each of two test focuses,GJT 194

8.24 Post hoc(Scheffe)test for six participant groups'performance on Focuses 2＆3,GJT 195

8,26 Summary of results for Focuses 2 and 3,GJT 199

9.1 Percentages of cue types used by five participant groups 205

9.2 Distribution of cue type use under each test focus by five participant groups—A summary 208

9.3 Group mean percentages of correct response 210

9.4 Mean differences on focus,TAT 211

9.5 Mean differences on proficiency,TAT 211

9.6 Frequency of cue type use that led to correct responses 213

9.7 Summary of order of cue types used to arrive at correct responses 216

9.8 Frequency/Percentage of two types of cue use by 5 participant groups 218

9.9 Patterns of cue type use by participants when parsing sentence with a missing raising predicate 219

9.10 Sequence of cue types used in the parsing process 222

11.1 Summary of the discrepancies between hypotheses and research findings 260

1 He Kunyu(Senior 2) 312

2 Chen Ru (freshman,Chinese 0701) 313

3 Fan Jiebei(sophomore English major 0603) 314

4 Huang Dandan(senior,English major 0401) 315

5 Christine(native speaker) 316

1 He Kunyu(Senior 2) 317

2 Chen Ru (freshman,Chinese 0701) 318

3 Fan Jiebei(sophomore…English major 0603) 319

4 Huang Dandan(senior,English major 0401) 320

5 Christine(native speaker) 321

5.1 Phrase structure tree of"The boy threw rocks" 75

5.2 Chain of events in the Semantic Bootstrapping Hypothesis(Pinker,1987:412) 78

6.1 An Integrated Parsing Model of English raising predicate acquisition 112

8.1 The developmental route of raising predicate acquisition by Chinese EFL learners as revealed by GJT data 201

9.1 Sequence of parsing sentences with a missing raising predicate 226

11.1 A modified Integrated Parsing Model of raising predicate acquisition 263