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|Epub|txt|kindle电子书版本网盘下载

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 Need for investigating L2 acquisition of English raising verbs1

1.2 Definition of raising predicates8

1.3 Difficulties encountered in the acquisition of raising predicates by language learners11

1.4 Key research questions14

1.5 Contents of the remaining chapters16

Chapter 2 Conceptualizing the Acquisition of English Predicates—Theoretical Foundations19

2.1 Introduction19

2.2 Theoretical foundation for the analysis of raising predicates21

2.2.1 Justification for adopting a generative approach in the present study21

2.2.2 Principles on the semantics-syntax interface of the verb26

Chapter 3 The Linguistic Features of English Raising Predicates34

3.1 Introduction34

3.2 The semantics of English raising predicates:Delimitation of the concept34

3.2.1 seem/appear35

3.2.2 happen and appear37

3.2.3 turn out39

3.3 The syntactic structures of raising verbs40

3.4 The unique syntactic features of raising verbs43

3.4.1 Constraints on the subject of raising verbs in non-raising construction44

3.4 2 Animacy of the subject in the raising construction45

3.4.3 The morphosyntactic environments of raising verbs47

3.4 4 The property of the verb in the complement48

3.5 Differences between raising and control constructions49

3.6 Formulating the one-clausal-argument linking rules of raising verbs51

Chapter 4 Cross-linguistic Analysis of English and Chinese Raising Predicates54

4.1 Introduction54

4.2 Research on Chinese raising verbs54

4.2.1 Aspectual verbs59

4.2.2 Epistemic modal verbs60

4.2.3 Tough verbs61

4.2.4 Frequency verbs62

4.3 A comparison between Chinese and English raising predicates64

Chapter 5 Theories on Verb Acquisition in L1 and L267

5.1 Introduction67

5.2 Early mapping theories in L1 verb acquisition:Lists of primitive thematic roles68

5.3 Current theories70

5.3.1 The Semantic Bootstrapping Hypothesis71

5.3.2 Syntactic bootstrapping hypothesis81

5.3.3 A Reconciliation Model85

5.4 The applicability of L1 theories on L2 acquisition of verbs94

5.5 Empirical studies on the acquisition of English raising verbs96

5.5.1 Becker's studies on L1 acquisition of English raising verbs96

5.5.2 Comments on Becker's studies101

5.5.3 Callies'(2005)study on German learners of English102

5.5.4 Comments on Callies' study104

Chapter 6 An Integrated Parsing Model of L2 English Raising Predicate Acquisition107

6.1 Introduction107

6.2 The linguistic aspects of raising verbs—A summary107

6.3 An Integrated Parsing Model of English raising predicate acquisition109

6.4 The central issue of the research115

6.5 Variables influencing the acquisition of English raising verbs by Chinese EFL learners117

6.5.1 L1 influence119

6.5.2 A movement121

6.5.3 Animacy of the subject and eventivity of the embedded verb122

6.6 Research hypotheses124

Chapter 7 Research Design,Instrumentation,Data Collection and Data Analysis127

7.1 Introduction127

7.2 Investigative approach128

7.3 Participants129

7.4 Instrumentation133

7.4.1 Test words134

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 procedures148

7.5.1 Administration of GWT149

7.5.2 Administration of TAT150

7.5.3 Administration of GJT151

7.6 Data analysis152

7.6.1 Coding and scoring GWT data152

7.6.2 Scoring GJT data154

7.6.3 Statistical analysis of GWT and GJT data156

7.6.4 Coding of TAT data157

7.7 Learners' sensitivity to the syntactic features of control verbs165

Chapter 8 Results of Research Hypothesis Testing168

8.1 Introduction168

8.2 Results for Hypothesis 1170

8.2.1 Testing Hypothesis 1 through GJT170

8.2.2 Testing Hypothesis 1 through GWT172

8.3 Results for Hypothesis 2174

8.3.1 Testing Hypothesis 2 through GJT174

8.3.2 Testing Hypothesis 2 through GWT176

8.4 Results for Hypothesis 3178

8.4.1 Testing Hypothesis 3 through GJT179

8.4.2 Testing Hypothesis 3 through GWT182

8.5 Results for Hypothesis 4184

8.5.1 Testing Hypothesis 3 through GJT184

8.5.2 Testing Hypothesis 4 through GWT186

8.6 Results for Hypothesis 5187

8.6.1 Testing Hypothesis 5 through GJT188

8.6.2 Testing Hypothesis 5 through GWT190

8.7 Acquisition of syntactic features not included in the testing of research hypothesis193

8.8 Route of English raising predicate acquisition by Chinese EFL learners—A summary196

8.8.1 A description of the route of acquisition revealed by participants' performance on GJT199

8.8.2 A description of the route of acquisition revealed by participants' performance on GWT201

8.8.3 Features of raising verb acquisition revealed by both GJT and GWT202

Chapter 9 Results of Online Parsing Processes of Raising Constructions204

9.1 Introduction204

9.2 Distribution of cue types adopted by five participant groups205

9.3 Distribution of cue types under five test focuses206

9.4 The relationship between the use of cue type and the correctness rate of performance209

9.4.1 The correctness rates of participants' performance on TAT:Effect of test focus and proficiency210

9.4.2 Frequency of cue type use that led to correct responses212

9.4.3 Characteristics of cue type use leading to correct responses215

9.4.4 Specific features of cue type use by 5 participant groups219

9.5 The sequence of cue use in the on-line parsing process—A summary225

Chapter 10 General Discussion229

10.1 Overview229

10.2 Summary of the major findings229

10.3 The role of UG in the L2 acquisition of English raising predicates238

10.3.1 The role of UG principles via the positive L1 transfer239

10.3.2 The role of UG principles via the negative L1 transfer242

10.4 The gap between knowledge and production245

10.5 Chunking strategy,overgeneralization,and fossilization250

10.6 Summary of the chapter258

Chapter 11 Conclusions,Implications,Limitations and Recommendations for Future Research260

11.1 Conclusions:A modified Integrated Parsing Model for the acquisition of English raising predicates by Chinese EFL learners260

11.2 Implications264

11.2.1 Theoretical implications264

11.2.2 Pedagogical implications266

11.3 Limitations of the present research and suggestions for further research267

References268

Appendix 1 Cloze Tests289

Appendix 2 GJT Test Sentences292

Appendix 3 Grammatical Judgment Task(Form A)298

Appendix 4 GWT Test Sentences303

Appendix 5 Guided Writing Task(Form A)306

Appendix 6 Think-aloud Task(Form A)309

Appendix 7 Analysis of Think-aloud Data312

Appendix 8 Information on the Correct Response in TAT317

1.1 Studies on the mapping problems of some non-canonical verbs in SLA5

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

7.1 Background information of participants130

7.2 Mean scores and standard deviations of the doze tests132

7.3 One-way ANOVA results on the cloze scores of the five participant groups132

7.4 Scheffe test for proficiency levels of five participant groups132

7.5 Test words used in the investigation134

7.6 Structure types of raising predicates for test138

7.7 Structure types of control verbs for test141

7.8 Relationship between accuracy rate and percentage of correctness156

7.9 Interrater reliability164

7.10 Results of paired-sample t test for GJT data166

7.11 Results of paired-sample t test for GWT data167

8.1 GJT focus means and standard deviation of elementary group171

8.2 Elementary group mean differences on GJT focus171

8.3 GWT focus means and standard deviation of elementary group173

8.4 Results of two-way ANOVA on focus and proficiency,GJT175

8.5 Comparison of elementary and low-level participants'performance on each test focus,results of t-tests,GJT176

8.6 Results of two-way ANOVA on focus and proficiency,GWT177

8.7 Comparison of means and standard deviations obtained by two participant groups for five test focuses,GWT178

8.8 Results of two-way ANOVA on focus and proficiency,GJT179

8.9 GJT means and the results of independent-samples t test180

8.10 Results of two-way ANOVA on focus and proficiency,GWT182

8.11 GWT means and the results of independent-samples t test182

8.12 Results of two-way ANOVA on focus and proficiency,GJT184

8.13 GJT means and the results of independent-samples t test185

8.14 Results of two-way ANOVA on focus and proficiency,GWT186

8.15 GWT means and the results of independent-samples t test187

8.16 Results of two-way ANOVA on focus and proficiency,GJT188

8.17 Results of one-way ANOVA on each of five test focuses,GJT189

8.18 Post hoc(Scheffe)test for three participant groups' performance on Focuses 6 and 7,GJT190

8.19 Results of two-way ANOVA on focus and proficiency,GWT191

8.20 Results of one-way ANOVA on each of five test focuses,GWT191

8.21 Post hoc(Scheffe)test for three participant groups'performance on Focuses 1,2＆3,GWT192

8.22 Results of two-way ANOVA on focus and proficiency,GJT194

8.23 Results of one-way ANOVA on each of two test focuses,GJT194

8.24 Post hoc(Scheffe)test for six participant groups'performance on Focuses 2＆3,GJT195

8,26 Summary of results for Focuses 2 and 3,GJT199

9.1 Percentages of cue types used by five participant groups205

9.2 Distribution of cue type use under each test focus by five participant groups—A summary208

9.3 Group mean percentages of correct response210

9.4 Mean differences on focus,TAT211

9.5 Mean differences on proficiency,TAT211

9.6 Frequency of cue type use that led to correct responses213

9.7 Summary of order of cue types used to arrive at correct responses216

9.8 Frequency/Percentage of two types of cue use by 5 participant groups218

9.9 Patterns of cue type use by participants when parsing sentence with a missing raising predicate219

9.10 Sequence of cue types used in the parsing process222

11.1 Summary of the discrepancies between hypotheses and research findings260

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 acquisition112

8.1 The developmental route of raising predicate acquisition by Chinese EFL learners as revealed by GJT data201

9.1 Sequence of parsing sentences with a missing raising predicate226

11.1 A modified Integrated Parsing Model of raising predicate acquisition263