Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/51157
|
| Title: | 比較HAPPEN與其同義字: 以母語及學習者語料庫為基礎的非賓格存現動詞之研究
Comparing unaccusative HAPPEN and its synonyms: a study of existence/appearance verbs based on native speaker and learner corpora |
| Authors: | 王亮鈞
Wang, Liang Chun |
| Contributors: | 鍾曉芳
Chung, Siaw Fong
王亮鈞
Wang, Liang Chun |
| Keywords: | 第二語言習得
BNC英文母語語料庫
HAPPEN
學習者語料庫
非賓存現動詞
Second Language Acquisition
BNC
HAPPEN
Learner Corpora
Unaccusative Existence/appearance Verbs |
| Date: | 2010 |
| Issue Date: | 2011-10-05 14:25:22 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 本研究，基於分辨非賓存現動詞及瞭解二語學習者如何讓習得此類動詞之需求，旨在分析一個高頻率之非賓格存現動詞 HAPPEN與其三個同義字(OCCUR，APPEAR，與EXIST)和中文同義字「發生」從語言使用者角度作比較。採用了母語語料庫 (英文採用英國國家語料庫 BNC；中文採用十億詞語料庫 GW 2.0)及學習者語料庫(含語言訓練與測驗中心學習者語料庫the LTTC，國際英語學習者語料庫the ICLE，及政治大學外語學習者語料庫the NCCU)作為第一部分的語料庫分析。此外，為了探索二語英文錯誤及母語中文遷移的關係，我們也進行了以語料庫為基礎的心理語言學實驗(兩個關於中英文HAPPEN句子結構的接受度判斷測驗)。
本研究結果發現，其一，就語料庫中的文法形式(Grammatical form)來分析HAPPEN、OCCUR、APPEAR與EXIST，英文母語語料庫中的高頻文法形式(例如：happened或happen)與學習者語料庫中有相同的現象。然而大部份的高頻文法形式都是二語學習者經常誤用之處，且容易與兩個常見非賓動詞錯誤—過度被動化錯誤(Overpassivization)和及物化錯誤(Transitivization)—共現(Collocated)。其二，從語料庫錯誤分析各種錯誤類型得知， HAPPEN與OCCUR較常出現過度被動化錯誤；APPEAR與 EXIST較常有及物化錯誤。此結果顯示每個非賓存現動詞可能會犯不同錯誤，也因此造成其錯誤的原因有所不同。其三，從分析心理語言實驗結果得知，我們發現母語中文文法句型(L1 Chinese grammatical patterns)，例如：「V-了」－「出現了」；抑或是「V+N」－「發生車禍」、「發生戰爭」、「存在缺失」，都影響了二語學習者對英文非賓動詞之文法形式的正確判定。由此揭示了母語中文大多都對二語英文非賓動詞習得有所干擾。
基於所得結果，我們提出「完成體」(Perfectivity)及「及物性」(Transitivity)之不同來探討中英文間存現動詞用法之異同，並試著解釋造成二語非賓動詞學習複雜化的原因。
此研究克服了過去文獻中比較非賓存現動詞之困難也透過語料庫結合心理實驗研究法提供對非賓動詞習得之解釋方法。這些發現可進一步作為詮釋非賓動詞的假說，並將其應用於語言教材設計或被視為未來跨語言分析研究之基石。
Owing to the necessity to identify unaccusative existence/appearance verbs and realize how they are acquired by L2 learners, this present thesis aims to analyze a highly frequent English unaccusative verb HAPPEN and compare it with its three other synonyms (OCCUR, APPEAR, and EXIST), as well as its Chinese counterpart發生 fāshēn ‘happen.’ Native speaker corpora (the British National Corpus (BNC) for English and Chinese Gigaword 2 Corpus (GW 2.0) for the Chinese), and L2 learner corpora (the Language Training and Testing Learner Corpus (the LTTC), International Corpus of Learner English 2.0 (the ICLE), and the National Chengchi University Foreign Language Learner Corpus (the NCCU)) are utilized to analyze the unaccusative verbs in the first main section. In addition, in order to discover the relationship between L2 English errors and L1 Chinese transfer, psycholinguistic experiments (two acceptability judgments tasks with comparable Chinese and English HAPPEN sentence constructions) based on the corpora data were conducted in this thesis.
The results in this thesis showed that, first, the highly frequent grammatical forms of unaccusative verbs (e.g., happened or happen) in the English native speaker corpus share some similarities with those of L2 learner corpora. However, these grammatical forms were usually misused by L2 learners and were frequently collocated with the two common unaccusative errors (overpassivization, e.g., *What is happened? and trasitivization, e.g., *I happen a car accident.). Second, as for the distributions of unaccusative error types, HAPPEN and OCCUR were found to mainly co-occur with overpassivization errors, whereas APPEAR and EXIST were found to mainly co-occur with transitivization errors. This indicates that each unaccusative verb may have different potential for L2 unaccusative errors, and therefore the causes of these errors with different verbs may vary. Third, from the analysis of psycholinguistic experiments, we discover that the L1 Chinese grammatical patterns, such as the V-le grammatical pattern (e.g., 出現了chūxiànle ‘appear-le’) and the V+N grammatical pattern (e.g., 發生車禍fāshēngchēhuò ‘The car accident happened’, 發生戰爭 fāshēngzhànzhēng ‘The war occurred’, and存在缺失 cúnzàiquēshī ‘The pitfalls existed’) may influence L2 learners’ correct judgment as to the grammatical forms of unaccusative verbs. This reveals that generally L1 Chinese might have some interference with L2 unaccusative acquisition.
Based on the results, we proposed that the perfectivity and transitivity differences between English and Chinese unaccusative existence/appearance verbs could distinguish the uses among the English HAPPEN and the Chinese發生 fāshēn ‘happen’ with their synonyms. These differences could also provide a possible reason for the cause of the problematic L2 unaccusative acquisition.
This thesis overcomes the difficulties of comparing unaccusative existence/appearance verbs in the previous studies and attempts to unravel the enigma of acquiring this verb type from the integrated corpus-based and empirical findings. These findings in turn serve as the suggested assumptions to interpret unaccusative verbs, which can be applied to the design of language teaching materials or can be viewed as the basis of cross-language analysis in the future studies. |
| Reference: | Anthony, L. (2005). AntConc: A learner and classroom friendly, multi-platform corpus analysis toolkit. Proceedings of IWLeL 2004: An Interactive Workshop on Language e-Learning, 7-13.
Balcon, P. (1997). Why is this happened? Passive morphology and unaccusativity. Second Language Research, 13 (1), 1-9.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1999). From morpheme studies to temporal semantics: Tense-aspect research in SLA: The state of the art. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 341-382.
Burzio, L. (1981). Intransitive verbs and Italian auxiliaries. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
Burzio, L. (1986). Italian syntax: A government-binding approach. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.
Cai, Y. (1998). A lexico-semantic perspective on learnability of English unaccusativity. Unpublished PHD dissertation, Gangdong University of Foreign Studies.
Cheung, H., Chung, S-F, & Skoufaki, S. (2010). Indexing second language vocabulary in the intermediate GEPT. In the Proceedings of the Twelfth Academic Forum on English Language Testing in Asia (Language Testing in Asia: Continuity, Innovation and Synergy). (pp.118-136). Taipei, Taiwan.
Chung, S. F., & Wu, C. Y. (2009). Effects of topic familiarity on writing performance: A study based on GEPT intermediate test materials. Presented at the 2009 LTTC International Conference, National Taiwan University, Taiwan. May 5-7.
Chung, S. F., Wang, S.-Y., & Tseng, Y.-W. (2010). “The Construction of the NCCU Foreign Language Learner Corpus.” Foreign Language Studies 12, 71-98.
Falk, Y. N. (1984). The English auxiliary system: A lexical-functional analysis. Language, 60(3), 483-509.
Fu, K. (2007). A contrastive study on semantic prosody of HAPPEN. Unpublished master’s thesis, Dalian Maritime University, Dalian, China.
Gabriele, A., Martohardjono, C., & McClure, W. (2005). Evaluating the role of the L1 in L2 acquisition of aspect: A study of Japanese learners of English. In Proceeding s of the 4th International Symposium on Bilingualism, J. Cohen, K. T. McAlister, & K. Rolstad (Eds), (pp. 808-826). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
Gilquin, G., & Gries, S. (2009). Corpora and experimental methods: A state-of-the-art review. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 5(1), 1-26.
Gilquin, G., & Lecoutre, E. (2004). How can causative constructions be predicted? JADT, 7, 496-503.
Granger, S., & Rayson, P. (1998). Automatic profiling of learner texts. In S. Granger (Ed.), Learner English on computer, (pp. 119-131). London and New York: Longman.
Granger, S., Dagneaux, E., Meunier, F, & Paquot, M. (2009). International corpus of learner English. Louvain: UCL.
Hawkins, R. (2001). Second language syntax. Oxford: Blackwell.
Hirakawa, M. (2001). L2 acquisition of Japanese unaccusative verbs. SSLA, 23, 221-245.
Hong, J.-F., & Huang, C.-R. (2006). Using Chinese Gigaword Corpus and Chinese Word Sketch in linguistic research. Presented at the 20th Pacific Asia Conference on Language, Information and Computation (PACLIC-20), Wu-Han: China Huazhong Normal University, November 1-3, 2006.
Hopper, P .J. (1987). Emergent Grammar. Berkeley Linguistic Society, 13, 139-157.
Hopper, P .J. (1998). Emergent Grammar. In M. Tomasello (Ed). The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure (pp. 155-175). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Housen, A. (2002). A corpus-based study of the L2 acquisition of the English verb system. In S. Granger, J. Hung & S. Petch-Tyson (Eds.), Computer learner corpora, second language acquisition and foreign language teaching (pp. 77-116). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Ju, M. K. (2000). Overpassivization errors by second language learners: The effect of conceptualizable agents in discourse. SSLA, 22, 85-111.
Juffs, A. (1998). Some effects of first language argument structure and morphosyntax on second language sentence processing. Second Language Research, 406-424.
Keller, F., & Sorace, A. (2003). Gradient auxiliary selection and impersonal passivization in German: an experimental investigation. Linguistic, 39, 57-108.
Klein, W. (2009). How time is encoded. In W. Klein & P. Li (Eds.), Expression of time (pp. 39-82). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Kondo, K. (2005). Overpassivization in second language acquisition. IRAL, 43(2), 129-161.
Krashen, S. (1977). Some issues relating to the Monitor Model. In H. D. Brown, C. A. Yorio, & R. H. Crymes (Eds), On TESOL (pp. 144-158). Washington, DC: TESOL.
Kuno, S. & Takami, K.-I. (2004). Functional Constraints in Grammar. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Laws, J., & Yuan, B. (2010). Is the core-peripheral distinction for unaccusative verbs cross-linguistically consistent? Chinese Language and Discourse, 1(2), 220-263.
Levin, B., & Rappaport Hovav, M. (1995). Unaccusativity: At the syntax-lexical semantics interface. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Levin, L. (1986). Operations on lexical forms: Unaccusative rules in Germanic languages. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.
Li, S.-M., Lin, S.-C., & Chen, K.-J. (2005). Feature Representations and Logical Compatibility between Temporal Adverbs and Aspects. International Journal of Computational Linguistics and Chinese Language Processing, 10(4), 445-458.
Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. (2006). How language are learned (6th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Liu, F.-h. (2007). Auxiliary selection in Chinese. In A. Raúl (Ed.), Split auxiliary systems: A crosslinguistic perspective (pp. 181-205). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Liu, L. (2000). The acquisition of English unaccusative verbs of existence/appearance by Chinese L2 learners. Unpublished master’s thesis, Guangdong University of Foreign Studies, Guangdoing, China.
Lozano, C. & Mendikoetxea, A. (2008). Postverbal subjects at the interfaces in Spanish and Italian learners of L2 English: A corpus analysis. In G. Gilquin , S. Papp, & M. B. Díez-Bedmar (Eds). Linking up contrastive and corpus learner research (pp. 85-125). Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Montrul, S. (1999). Causative errors with unaccusative verbs in L2 Spanish. Second Langauge Research, 15(2), 191-219.
Nakano, M., Sugino, N., Ohba, H., Yamakawa, K., & Shimizu, Y. (2005). An analysis of grammatical judgment test: Dative constructions, their passive forms, unaccusative and unergative constructions. Proceedings of the 9th conference of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics, 386-394.
Odlin, T. (1989). Language transfer: Cross-linguistic influence in language learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Oshita, H. (2000). What is happened may not be what appears to be happening: a corpus study of “passive” unaccusatives in L2 English. Second language Research, 16 (4), 293-324.
Oshita, H. (2001). The unaccusative trap in second language acquisition. SSLA, 23, 279-304.
Park, K. S., & Lakshmanan, U. (2007). The unaccusative-unergative distinction in resultatives: Evidence from Korean L2 learners of English. In Proceedings of the 2nd Conference on Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition North America (GALANA), A. Belikova, L. Meroni, & M. Umeda (Eds), (pp. 328-338). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
Pavlenko, A., & Jarvis, S. (2002). Bidirectional transfer. Applied Linguistics, 23(2), 190-214.
Perlmutter, D. (1978). Impersonal passives and the Unaccusative Hypotheis. Berkeley Linguistic Society, 4, 157-189.
Shan, C.-K., & Yuan, B. (2008). “What is happened” in L2 English does not happen in L2 Chinese. EUROSLA Yearbook 8, 164-190.
Shei, C.-C. (2005). Fixedness in genre-specific language and intercultural differences: Comparing English and Chinese fire news corpora. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 10(2), 199-225.
Sinclair, J. M. (1991). Words and phrases: Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. Oxford: OUP.
Sorace, A. (2000). Gradients in auxiliary selection with intransitive verbs. Language, 76, 859–890
Tao, H. (2003). Toward an emergent view of lexical semantics. Language And Linguistics, 4(4), 837-856.
Wang, L.-C, & Chung, S.-F. (2009). *What is Happened?: A corpus-based analysis of L2 English. In Proceedings of the 2009 International Asian Conference on Education (ACE). (pp. 850-858). Osaka, Japan.
Wang, L-C, & Chung, S-F. (2010). A Comparison of HAPPEN and its Synonyms based on Native Speaker and Learner Corpora. Presented at the Sixteenth Conference of the International Association for World Englishes, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, BC, Canada, July 25-27, 2010.
Wang, Y.-J. (2008). A corpus-based contrastive study on English and Chinese semantic prime happen and 發生 fāshēng ‘happen’in natural semantic metalanguage. Unpublished master’s thesis, Jinan University, Guangzhou, China.
Wu, X.-D. & Liu, L. (2002). Chinese students` acquisition of the existence/appearance verbs in English. Foreign Languages In Fujian, 2, 25-39.
Yip, V. (1990). Interlanguage ergative constructions and learnability. CUHK papers in Linguistics, 2, 45-68.
Yip, V. (1995). Interlanguage and learnability: From Chinese to English. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Yu, J. (2002). A unified account of overpassivization of English unaccusative verbs in SLA. Unpublished master’s thesis, Guangdong University of Foreign Studies, Guangdoing, China.
Yuan, B. (1999). Acquiring the unaccusative/unergative distinction in a second language: Evidence from English-speaking learners of L2 Chinese. Linguistics, 37, 275-296.
Zhang, D.-Q. (2006). Existential constructions: relational construal at the syntax-semantics interface. Foreign Languages Research, 4, 11-17.
Zhang, J.-D., & Liu, P. (2007). A corpus-based study of the differences between the three synonyms: happen, occur & “fāshēng”(发生). Foreign Languages Research, 5, 19-22.
Zobl, H. (1989). Canonical typological structures and ergativity in English L2 acquisition. In S. Gass & J. Schachter (Eds.), Linguistic perspectives on second language acquisition (pp. 203-221). New York: Cambridge University Press.
唐玉柱（2005）。存現動詞的非賓格性假設。重慶大學學報，11(3)，5-9。
陳翠竹（2006）。關於存現動詞與非賓動詞的探討。湖南科技學院學報，27(6)，185-187。
黃瓊之（2004）。漢語語法時貌和詞彙時貌的習得。國科會。 |
| Description: | 碩士
國立政治大學
英國語文學研究所
97551021
99 |
| Source URI: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0097551021 |
| Data Type: | thesis |
| Appears in Collections: | [英國語文學系] 學位論文
|
Files in This Item:
| File |
Size | Format | |
|---|
| 102101.pdf | 1682Kb | Adobe PDF2 | 1228 | View/Open |
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
