中韩英语学习者对英语中动及其相关结构的习得 基于事件结构理论的解释PDF电子书下载

Chapter 1　Introduction 1

1.1 Research Orientation 1

1.2 Middle Construction:Object of Research 1

1.2.1 Delimiting the Research Scope 1

1.2.2 Major Properties of the Middle Construction 3

1.2.3 MC and Its Related Structures in English 6

1.3 Research Rationale 11

1.4 Key Research Questions 17

1.5 Contents of Remaining Chapters 18

Chapter 2 Review of the Related Literature:Theoretical Accounts of English Middle Construction 20

2.1 Introduction 20

2.2 Theoretical Accounts of MC 21

2.2.1 The Generative Account 21

2.2.2 The Cognitive Account 23

2.2.3 Semantics-syntax Interface Account 24

2.3 A Critique of the Theoretical Account of English MC 40

2.4 Summary 44

Chapter 3 Conceptual Framework:A Revised Extended Event Structure Theory 45

3.1 Introduction 45

3.2 Pustejovsky's Extended Event Structure(1991a,1991b,1996) 48

3.2.1 An Overview 48

3.2.2 Extended Event Structure 51

3.2.3 Qualia Structure 58

3.2.4 Cross-reference of Event Structure to Qualia Structure 59

3.3 A Revised Version of Pustejovsky's Extended Event Structure Theory 62

3.3.1 Weaknesses of EEST 62

3.3.2 A Revision of EEST 63

3.4 Summary 71

Chapter 4 An Analysis of English MC and Its Related Structures within the Framework of the Revised EEST 73

4.1 Introduction 73

4.2 Semantic Constraints upon English MC 74

4.2.1 Event Type-related Constraint:Headedness Constraint 74

4.2.2 Event Role-related Constraint:Inherent Property Foregrounding Constraint 79

4.2.3 Event Modification-related Constraint:Event Focus Agreement Constraint 85

4.2.4 Conceptually-related Constraint:Event Autonomy Constraint 89

4.2.5 Summary:Constraints upon MC and Other Detransitivized Structures 103

4.3 Chinese MC Formation 106

4.3.1 Chinese MC:An Overview 106

4.3.2 Constraints upon Chinese MC 109

4.3.3 MC-related Structures in Korean 120

4.4 Canonical Event Structure,Its Extension and MC Formation 126

4.5 General Summary 129

Chapter 5 L2 Acquisition of English MC and Its Related Structures 131

5.1 Introduction 131

5.2 Transitivity Errors Committed by L2 Learners of English 135

5.3 Theoretical Accounts of L2 Acquisition of Transitivity 136

5.3.1 Theoretical Accounts of L2 Acquisition of Causative Alternation 136

5.3.2 Theoretical Accounts of L2 Passivization of Unaccusatives 147

5.4 A Critique of Current Accounts of L2 Acquisition of Causative Alternation and Passivization of Unaccusativity 152

5.5 Zoom Lens Hypothesis and Its Implication for the Present Study 157

5.6 L2 Acquisition of English Detransitivization:A Theoretical Framework and Research Hypotheses 160

5.6.1 A Theoretical Framework for L2 Acquisition of English Detransitivization 160

5.6.2 Route of L2 Acquisition of English MC and Its Related Structures and Research Hypotheses 162

5.7 Summary 177

Chapter 6 Research Design,Instrumentation,Data Collection and Data Analysis 178

6.1 Research Design 178

6.2 Participants 180

6.3 Instrumentation 184

6.3.1 Acceptability Judgment Task(AJT) 185

6.3.2 Forced-Choice Task(FCT) 190

6.3.3 Guided Translation Task(GTT) 194

6.3.4 Error Correction Task(ECT) 197

6.3.5 Follow-up Interview Task(FIT) 199

6.4 Task Assignment 201

6.5 Data Collection Procedures 202

6.6 Data Coding and Scoring 206

6.6.1 Coding and Scoring GTT Data 206

6.6.2 Scoring of AJT Data 208

6.6.3 Scoring of FCT Data 209

6.6.4 Coding and Scoring of ECT Data 209

6.6.5 Coding of FIT Data 210

6.7 Data Analysis 211

6.8 Summary 212

Chapter 7 Results for Research Hypotheses Testing 213

7.1 Results for Hypothesis 1 214

7.1.1 Testing Hypothesis 1 through GTT 214

7.1.2 Testing Hypothesis 1 through FCT 215

7.1.3 Testing Hypothesis 1 through AJT 218

7.1.4 Testing Hypothesis 1 through the FIT 224

7.2 Results for Hypothesis 2 230

7.2.1 Testing Hypothesis 2 through FCT 231

7.2 2 Testing Hypothesis 2 through AJT 233

7.3 Results for Hypothesis 3 237

7.3.1 Testing Hypothesis 3 through AJT 237

7.3.2 Testing Hypothesis 3 through GTT 244

7.4 Results for Hypothesis 4 245

7.4.1 Testing Hypothesis 4 through AJT 245

7.4.2 Testing Hypothesis 4 through FIT 260

7.5 Results for Hypothesis 5 265

7.6 Results for Hypothesis 6 270

7.6.1 Testing Hypothesis 6 through FCT 271

7.6.2 Testing Hypothesis 6 through FIT 278

7.7 Results for Hypothesis 7 284

7.8 Summary 287

Chapter 8 General Discussion 290

8.1 Major Findings 290

8.1.1 Linguistic Findings 291

8.1.2 Empirical Findings 291

8.1.3 Developmental Route of L2 Acquisition of English MCs and Its Related Structures 294

8.2 An Overall Assessment of the Adopted Theoretical Framework 296

8.2.1　An Assessment of Default Event Template Hypothesis 297

8.2.2 An Assessment of the Event Structure Approach 299

8.2.3 An Assessment of the Modular View of L1 Transfer 311

8.2.4 Summary 312

8.3 L1-mediated Default Event Template Hypothesis 314

8.3.1 Introduction 314

8.3.2 Agency Extension and Degree of Acceptance of MC and AC 316

8.3.3 Language Distance and Transfer of L1 Morphology 317

8.3.4 Interaction between Universal Language Properties and Specific Language Constraints 318

8.3.5 Summary 326

8.4 An Alternative Account 328

8.5 General Summary:A Unified Account of L2 Acquisition of Detransitivization 331

Chapter 9 Conclusions,Pedagogical Implications,Limitations,and Suggestions for Further Research 334

9.1 Conclusions 334

9.1.1 Summary of the Present Study 334

9.1.2 Conclusions 337

9.2 Implications for L2 Instruction 340

9.3 Limitations and Suggestions for Further Research 341

References 344

Appendix Descriptive Statistic Data for the Figures 364

1.1 Classification of Middle Constructions 6

4.1 Event Focus Agreement in Detransitivized Structures 80

5.1 Predictions of Class-based Transfer for Korean ESL Learners 145

6.1 Relevant Variables and Their Respective Operational Definitions Contained in the Seven Research Hypotheses 179

6.2 Grouping of Participants Based on Years of L2 English Learning and Scores on English Proficiency Test 182

6.3 A Summary of the Factors under Investigation in Acceptability Judgment Task 189

6.4 A Summary of the Forced-Choice Task 193

6.5 A summary of the Guided Translation Task 196

6.6 A Summary of the Error Correction Task(ECT) 199

7.1 Means and Standard Deviation of Performance on Translation by Three Participant Groups(Use of Passivization) 215

7.2 Pairwise Comparisons of the Mean Differences between Three Participant Groups in Translation Task(LSD)(Use of Passivization) 215

7.3 Means and Standard Deviation of the Performance on FCT by Five Participant Groups 216

7.4 Pairwise Comparisons of the Mean Differences between the Four Participant Groups'Performance on MCs in Context(Tukey HSD) 218

7.5 Means and Standard Deviations of Performance on Three Pairs of MCs by Five Participant Groups 220

7.6 Paired Sample T-test of Mean Scores between Three Pairs of MC Types for Four Participant Groups 221

7.7 Number of Participants Interviewed in Each Group 224

7.8 Low-level Chinese Learners'Responses to the Question about the Addition of for-sb Phrase in MC 225

7.9 Advanced Learners'Responses to the Question about the Addition of for-sb Phrase in MC 227

7.10 Native Speakers'Responses to the Question about the Addition of for-sb Phrase in MC 228

7.11 Means and Standard Deviations of the Performance on INAU-INNONAU,ACAU1-ACNONAU1,ACAU2-ACNONAU2 by Two Low-level Learners 232

7.12 Means and Standard Deviations of the Performance on CA-ACAU2,AN-ACAU2,CA-ACNONAU2,and AN-ACNONAU2 by Korean Learners(N=16) 233

7.13 Means and Standard Deviations of the AJT Performance on Five Subtypes of MC by Chinese Low-level Learners 235

7.14 Pairwise Comparisons of the Mean Sores on ACT,ACC,PSYOBJ,and INSTRU by Korean Participants 236

7.15 Tukey Test for Judgment of MCs in AJT by Four Participant Groups 240

7.16 Mean Differences of L2 Learners'Performance on Righted-headed Verbs 241

7.17 Mean Proportions and Standard Deviations of Three L2 Participant Groups'Performance on GTT 244

7.18 LSD Test for Use of MCs in GTT by Three L2 Participant Groups 244

7.19 Means and Standard Deviations of the AJT Performance on Seven Subtypes of MC by Five Participant Groups 249

7.20 Effects of Verb Type on AJT Performance by Five Participant Groups(One-way ANOVA,Repeated Measures) 250

7.21 Pairwise Comparisons of Mean Scores on AJT Performance by Five Participant Groups 250

7.22 Effect of Proficiency on Chinese L2 Learners and the Native Speakers'Performance on Seven Subtypes of MCs(Results of One-way ANOVA) 255

7.23 Pairwise Comparisons of the Mean Scores on ACC,HDLS,INSTRU,LF,and NONAUTO by Native Speakers and Chinese L2 Learners at Three Proficiency Levels 255

7.24 Acceptability Ranking Order Demonstrated by Five Participant Groups 257

7.25 Comparisons of Mean Scores on the Seven Types of MCs by the Korean Learner Group and the Native Speaker Group(Independent Sample T-tests) 259

7.26 Low-level Learners'Responses to the Question about the Basis of Their Judgment in AJT 261

7-27 Advanced Learners'Responses to the Question about the Basis of Their Judgment in AJT 262

7.28 Native Speakers'Responses to the Question about the Basis of Their Judgment in AJT 264

7.29 Means and Standard Deviations of Performance on Antipassives by Chinese Learners and Native Speakers 268

7.30 Performance on Three Subtypes of AP-like Sentences by Four Participant Groups[Results of One-way ANOVA(Repeated Measures)] 269

7.31 Pairwise Comparison of Performance on Three Subtypes of AP-like Sentence by Four Participant Groups 270

7.32 Means and Standard Deviation Obtained by Five Participant Groups for Their Performance on MCAU and MCNONAU 273

7.33 Comparisons of Performance on MCAU and MCNONAU by Five Participant Groups(Results for Paired Sample T-tests) 273

7.34 Influence of the Context and the Argument(s) a Verb Takes upon L2 Detransitization 274

7.35 Results for Paired Sample T-tests of Participants'Performance in Two Different Conditions 274

7.36 Summary of Five Participant Groups'Sensitivity to Change of Event Autonomy Caused by Argument Type and Context 276

7.37 Low-level Learners'Responses to the Question about the Semantic Difference between MC and Passive 279

7.38 Advanced Learners'Responses to the Question about the Semantic Difference between MC and Passive 279

7.39 Advanced Learners'Responses to the Question about the Contextual Influence in FCT 280

7.40 Native Speakers'Responses to the Question about the Semantic Difference between MC and Passive 280

7.41 Native Speakers'Responses to the Question about the Contextual Influence in FCT 282

7.42 Means and Standard Deviations for MC with Agent-focused Adverbial Modification by Four Participant Groups 285

7.43 Pairwise Comparisons of the Performance on MC with Agent-focused Adverbials by Four Participant Groups 285

7.44 Comparisons of the Performance on GRADV and UNGRADV by Three Chinese Participant Groups(Results for Paired Sample T-tests) 287

3.1 Event structure of a lexical item(Pustejovsky,1996:78) 52

3.2 The ergative paradigm(Adapted from Lemmens,1998a:4) 56

3.3 The transitive paradigm(Adapted from Lemmens,1998a:4) 57

3.4 Qualia structure of the nominal"novel"(Adapted from Pustejovsky,1996:78) 59

3.5 Cross-reference of event structure to qualia structure(Adapted from Pustejovsky,1996:80) 60

4.1 Qualia structure of the lexical item"book"(Adapted from Pustejovksy,1996:101) 84

4.2 Event autonomy as a continuum 96

6.1 The interface demo of the computerized test program 204

7.1 Mean scores obtained by Korean learners on K1HDLS,K2HDLS,PSYOBJ,INSTRU,ACT and ACC 235

7.2 Mean scores on five types of illicit MCs formed with right-headed verbs by Chinese L2 learners and the native speakers 239

7.3 Mean scores on five types of illicit MC formed with right-headed verbs by Korean EFL learners and native speakers of English 243

7.4 Mean scores obtained by three Chinese pariticipant groups in their performance on GRADV and UNGRADV 286