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2025|PDF|Epub|mobi|kindle电子书版本百度云盘下载

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格式电子书版下载

注意：本站所有压缩包均有解压码： 点击下载压缩包解压工具

Chapter 1　Introduction1

1.1 Research Orientation1

1.2 Middle Construction:Object of Research1

1.2.1 Delimiting the Research Scope1

1.2.2 Major Properties of the Middle Construction3

1.2.3 MC and Its Related Structures in English6

1.3 Research Rationale11

1.4 Key Research Questions17

1.5 Contents of Remaining Chapters18

Chapter 2 Review of the Related Literature:Theoretical Accounts of English Middle Construction20

2.1 Introduction20

2.2 Theoretical Accounts of MC21

2.2.1 The Generative Account21

2.2.2 The Cognitive Account23

2.2.3 Semantics-syntax Interface Account24

2.3 A Critique of the Theoretical Account of English MC40

2.4 Summary44

Chapter 3 Conceptual Framework:A Revised Extended Event Structure Theory45

3.1 Introduction45

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

3.2.1 An Overview48

3.2.2 Extended Event Structure51

3.2.3 Qualia Structure58

3.2.4 Cross-reference of Event Structure to Qualia Structure59

3.3 A Revised Version of Pustejovsky's Extended Event Structure Theory62

3.3.1 Weaknesses of EEST62

3.3.2 A Revision of EEST63

3.4 Summary71

Chapter 4 An Analysis of English MC and Its Related Structures within the Framework of the Revised EEST73

4.1 Introduction73

4.2 Semantic Constraints upon English MC74

4.2.1 Event Type-related Constraint:Headedness Constraint74

4.2.2 Event Role-related Constraint:Inherent Property Foregrounding Constraint79

4.2.3 Event Modification-related Constraint:Event Focus Agreement Constraint85

4.2.4 Conceptually-related Constraint:Event Autonomy Constraint89

4.2.5 Summary:Constraints upon MC and Other Detransitivized Structures103

4.3 Chinese MC Formation106

4.3.1 Chinese MC:An Overview106

4.3.2 Constraints upon Chinese MC109

4.3.3 MC-related Structures in Korean120

4.4 Canonical Event Structure,Its Extension and MC Formation126

4.5 General Summary129

Chapter 5 L2 Acquisition of English MC and Its Related Structures131

5.1 Introduction131

5.2 Transitivity Errors Committed by L2 Learners of English135

5.3 Theoretical Accounts of L2 Acquisition of Transitivity136

5.3.1 Theoretical Accounts of L2 Acquisition of Causative Alternation136

5.3.2 Theoretical Accounts of L2 Passivization of Unaccusatives147

5.4 A Critique of Current Accounts of L2 Acquisition of Causative Alternation and Passivization of Unaccusativity152

5.5 Zoom Lens Hypothesis and Its Implication for the Present Study157

5.6 L2 Acquisition of English Detransitivization:A Theoretical Framework and Research Hypotheses160

5.6.1 A Theoretical Framework for L2 Acquisition of English Detransitivization160

5.6.2 Route of L2 Acquisition of English MC and Its Related Structures and Research Hypotheses162

5.7 Summary177

Chapter 6 Research Design,Instrumentation,Data Collection and Data Analysis178

6.1 Research Design178

6.2 Participants180

6.3 Instrumentation184

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 Assignment201

6.5 Data Collection Procedures202

6.6 Data Coding and Scoring206

6.6.1 Coding and Scoring GTT Data206

6.6.2 Scoring of AJT Data208

6.6.3 Scoring of FCT Data209

6.6.4 Coding and Scoring of ECT Data209

6.6.5 Coding of FIT Data210

6.7 Data Analysis211

6.8 Summary212

Chapter 7 Results for Research Hypotheses Testing213

7.1 Results for Hypothesis 1214

7.1.1 Testing Hypothesis 1 through GTT214

7.1.2 Testing Hypothesis 1 through FCT215

7.1.3 Testing Hypothesis 1 through AJT218

7.1.4 Testing Hypothesis 1 through the FIT224

7.2 Results for Hypothesis 2230

7.2.1 Testing Hypothesis 2 through FCT231

7.2 2 Testing Hypothesis 2 through AJT233

7.3 Results for Hypothesis 3237

7.3.1 Testing Hypothesis 3 through AJT237

7.3.2 Testing Hypothesis 3 through GTT244

7.4 Results for Hypothesis 4245

7.4.1 Testing Hypothesis 4 through AJT245

7.4.2 Testing Hypothesis 4 through FIT260

7.5 Results for Hypothesis 5265

7.6 Results for Hypothesis 6270

7.6.1 Testing Hypothesis 6 through FCT271

7.6.2 Testing Hypothesis 6 through FIT278

7.7 Results for Hypothesis 7284

7.8 Summary287

Chapter 8 General Discussion290

8.1 Major Findings290

8.1.1 Linguistic Findings291

8.1.2 Empirical Findings291

8.1.3 Developmental Route of L2 Acquisition of English MCs and Its Related Structures294

8.2 An Overall Assessment of the Adopted Theoretical Framework296

8.2.1　An Assessment of Default Event Template Hypothesis297

8.2.2 An Assessment of the Event Structure Approach299

8.2.3 An Assessment of the Modular View of L1 Transfer311

8.2.4 Summary312

8.3 L1-mediated Default Event Template Hypothesis314

8.3.1 Introduction314

8.3.2 Agency Extension and Degree of Acceptance of MC and AC316

8.3.3 Language Distance and Transfer of L1 Morphology317

8.3.4 Interaction between Universal Language Properties and Specific Language Constraints318

8.3.5 Summary326

8.4 An Alternative Account328

8.5 General Summary:A Unified Account of L2 Acquisition of Detransitivization331

Chapter 9 Conclusions,Pedagogical Implications,Limitations,and Suggestions for Further Research334

9.1 Conclusions334

9.1.1 Summary of the Present Study334

9.1.2 Conclusions337

9.2 Implications for L2 Instruction340

9.3 Limitations and Suggestions for Further Research341

References344

Appendix Descriptive Statistic Data for the Figures364

1.1 Classification of Middle Constructions6

4.1 Event Focus Agreement in Detransitivized Structures80

5.1 Predictions of Class-based Transfer for Korean ESL Learners145

6.1 Relevant Variables and Their Respective Operational Definitions Contained in the Seven Research Hypotheses179

6.2 Grouping of Participants Based on Years of L2 English Learning and Scores on English Proficiency Test182

6.3 A Summary of the Factors under Investigation in Acceptability Judgment Task189

6.4 A Summary of the Forced-Choice Task193

6.5 A summary of the Guided Translation Task196

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 Groups216

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 Groups220

7.6 Paired Sample T-test of Mean Scores between Three Pairs of MC Types for Four Participant Groups221

7.7 Number of Participants Interviewed in Each Group224

7.8 Low-level Chinese Learners'Responses to the Question about the Addition of for-sb Phrase in MC225

7.9 Advanced Learners'Responses to the Question about the Addition of for-sb Phrase in MC227

7.10 Native Speakers'Responses to the Question about the Addition of for-sb Phrase in MC228

7.11 Means and Standard Deviations of the Performance on INAU-INNONAU,ACAU1-ACNONAU1,ACAU2-ACNONAU2 by Two Low-level Learners232

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 Learners235

7.14 Pairwise Comparisons of the Mean Sores on ACT,ACC,PSYOBJ,and INSTRU by Korean Participants236

7.15 Tukey Test for Judgment of MCs in AJT by Four Participant Groups240

7.16 Mean Differences of L2 Learners'Performance on Righted-headed Verbs241

7.17 Mean Proportions and Standard Deviations of Three L2 Participant Groups'Performance on GTT244

7.18 LSD Test for Use of MCs in GTT by Three L2 Participant Groups244

7.19 Means and Standard Deviations of the AJT Performance on Seven Subtypes of MC by Five Participant Groups249

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 Groups250

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 Levels255

7.24 Acceptability Ranking Order Demonstrated by Five Participant Groups257

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 AJT261

7-27 Advanced Learners'Responses to the Question about the Basis of Their Judgment in AJT262

7.28 Native Speakers'Responses to the Question about the Basis of Their Judgment in AJT264

7.29 Means and Standard Deviations of Performance on Antipassives by Chinese Learners and Native Speakers268

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 Groups270

7.32 Means and Standard Deviation Obtained by Five Participant Groups for Their Performance on MCAU and MCNONAU273

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 Detransitization274

7.35 Results for Paired Sample T-tests of Participants'Performance in Two Different Conditions274

7.36 Summary of Five Participant Groups'Sensitivity to Change of Event Autonomy Caused by Argument Type and Context276

7.37 Low-level Learners'Responses to the Question about the Semantic Difference between MC and Passive279

7.38 Advanced Learners'Responses to the Question about the Semantic Difference between MC and Passive279

7.39 Advanced Learners'Responses to the Question about the Contextual Influence in FCT280

7.40 Native Speakers'Responses to the Question about the Semantic Difference between MC and Passive280

7.41 Native Speakers'Responses to the Question about the Contextual Influence in FCT282

7.42 Means and Standard Deviations for MC with Agent-focused Adverbial Modification by Four Participant Groups285

7.43 Pairwise Comparisons of the Performance on MC with Agent-focused Adverbials by Four Participant Groups285

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 continuum96

6.1 The interface demo of the computerized test program204

7.1 Mean scores obtained by Korean learners on K1HDLS,K2HDLS,PSYOBJ,INSTRU,ACT and ACC235

7.2 Mean scores on five types of illicit MCs formed with right-headed verbs by Chinese L2 learners and the native speakers239

7.3 Mean scores on five types of illicit MC formed with right-headed verbs by Korean EFL learners and native speakers of English243

7.4 Mean scores obtained by three Chinese pariticipant groups in their performance on GRADV and UNGRADV286