【网学提醒】：本文主要为网上学习者提供中学生对英语名词前心理形容词的二语习得研究，希望对需要中学生对英语名词前心理形容词的二语习得研究网友有所帮助，学习一下吧!
资料包括： 论文(66页18528字)
说明：摘要：本学位论文以“语义突显层级模式理论”为基础，主要研究的是中国学生对英语前置心理形容词的二语习得问题。本论文中的心理形容词是描述人的心理感受并承担定语，出现在句中的主语和宾语部分。心理形容词派生于心理动词，分别在其词尾加-ing 和-ed, 即有VingAs和V-edAs两种形式。两种形式均可与有生名词搭配。
选择英语前置心理形容词进行研究的必要性在于英语心理形容词和心理动词对中学生来说难以习得。因此，错误频繁地出现在他们的作业，考卷和表达中。再者，在TESOL领域，英语心理形容词也被视作是英语语法的一部分。
Zhang(2003)提出了并在大学生中验证了“语义突显层级模式理论”，该理论指出英语心理谓词（包括心理形容词）的二语习得是对与句法相关的语义成份“使意”在自然语言中实际表征突显性的反映。本论文以此为理论指导，是在中学生中对“语义突显层级模式理论”的进一步验证，主要考查在语境因素中心理形容词做前置定语的习得过程和结果，以及中学生是否将有生性作为一种学习策略用于他们对名词前置定语的心理形容词习得。
以前的研究一致地认为学习者对VedAs 的习得优于VingAs，本研究实际也是想发现在心理形容词与名词搭配时是否会有相类似的倾向。为此，我们提出了四个假设。继而，我们在省重点中学西安市第85中学40名高二学生中进行了实验研究。结果表明受试者接受VingAs与无生名词的搭配，VedAs与有生名词的搭配，而拒绝VingAs与有生名词的搭配。多选题结果表明学生对VingAs与无生名词的搭配明显好于对VedAs与有生名词的搭配，后者又明显地好于VingAs与有生名词的搭配。因此我们不能说中学生对VingAs的习得要难于对VedAs的习得。事实上，VingAs与有生和无生名词的搭配均正确，因为VingAs与名词的组合遵循“一对二” 的对应原则。同时，VedAs与名词的搭配在主语位置的习得优于在宾语位置的习得，而VingAs与名词的搭配在主语与宾语位置上没有差异，但总体上两类形容词在主语与宾语位置的习得是没有差异的。最后，我们得出了“有生性可以作为一种学习策略用于教学中”的结论。这一点早在语义突显层级模式理论被预测，并在此得到进一步验证，证明此理论在教学中的有效性。简而言之，中学生对英语前置心理形容词的习得是遵循“一对一”的原则，有生性也是作为一种学习策略来使用的。
关键词：英语前置心理形容词; 二语习得; 语义突显层级模式理论; 有生性;
一对一原则
Abstract：This thesis reports on an investigation into how Chinese-speaking second language (L2) learners of English develop their knowledge of pronominal psych adjectival participles, based on the theory of Semantic Salience Hierarchy Model (SSHM, Zhang, 2003). It studies the L2 acquisition of English psych participles, derived from psych verbs, which describe Experiencer’s emotion. English psych participles in this study act as attributive both in subject and object position in a sentence, and there are two types of psych adjectival participles, one takes –ed and the other takes –ing as the affix, i.e, VedAs and VingAs. Both types can be combined with animate nouns.
The necessity of choosing psych adjectival participles as a topic for research is that psych participles as well as psych verbs are very difficult for learners of English to acquire, so errors frequently occur in their works and test papers. In the field of teaching English as TESOL, psych adjectival participles are also identified as an aspect of English grammar.
The present study tackles the learning problems in the framework of Semantic Salience Hierarchy Model (SSHM), established by Zhang (2003). SSHM states that L2 acquisition of CAUS is a reflection of the salience of the syntactically relevant meaning component in its actual embodiments or representations in natural languages. Our study focuses on the significance of the acquisition process of VingAs and VedAS being combined with nouns in different positions in sentences, and on the prediction that animacy can be used as a learning strategy in EFL.
We did an experiment to test four hypotheses following Zhang (2003). 40 students from Xi’an No.85 Middle School participated in our investigation. L2 acquisition of prenominal psych adjectives by Chinese middle school students is a process of the recognition of zero CAUS and developing sensitivity to the one-to-two correspondence in VingAs. In this study, we are aware that students correctly accepted the combination of VedAs with animate nouns, but clearly rejected its combination with inanimate nouns. However, they only correctly accepted the combinations of VingAs with inanimate nouns, but incorrectly rejected those with animate nouns. On the other hand, MCT data results just disapproved the hypothesis that students are more accurate with VedAs than with VingAs. Therefore, we can not say that students are more accurate with VedAs than with VingAs.
Our prediction that Chinese learners of English will be more accurate with VingAs in combination with inanimate nouns than with animate nouns found robust evidence for animacy as a learning strategy in EFL. Our results provided further detailed evidence for SSHM (Zhang, 2003). We also found that there was no significant effect for students’ judgment or choice of prenominal modifying psych adjectives in either subject or object position for either VedAs or VingAs. In short, middle school students acquire pronominal psych adjectives by following the One-to-One principle, using animacy as a learning strategy.
Key Words: psych adjectival participles, SLA, Semantic Salience Hierarchy Model animacy, one-one principle
Chapter 1 Introduction
1.1 Research Orientation
This study presents the L2 acquisition of English Prenominal Psych Adjectival Participles by middle school students. This is an attempt to investigate the learners’ internal representation of knowledge of English psych participles in the framework of Zhang’s Semantic Salience Hierarchy Model and Wang’s Conflation Classes of Prenominal Adjectival Participles, which is to discover what second language learners know about the lexicon of the second language. How the learners learn and why they learn it in this way.
目录：Chapter 1 Introduction ---------------------------------------------------------------1
1.1 Research Orientation ----------------------------------------------------------------------1
1.2 Psych Participles: the Target of Research----------------------------------------------1
1.3 Analyses of Prenominal Adjectival Participles----------------------------------------2
1.4 Rational for the Study---------------------------------------------------------------------2
1.5 Key Research Questions------------------------------------------------------------------3
1.6 Organization of the Thesis----------------------------------------------------------------4
Chapter 2 Literature Review---------------------------------------------------------5
2.0 Introduction---------------------------------------------------------------------------------5
2.1 Linguistic Analyses of Psych Participles-----------------------------------------------5
2.1.1 Psych Adjectives: the Flip Phenomenon-----------------------------------------5
2.1.2 The Derivation of Psych Participles----------------------------------------------5
2.1.2.1 Roberts’ Ergrative Account------------------------------------------------------6
2.1.2.2 Chen’s Account of Causative VingAs and Non-Causative VedAs---------7
2.1.2.3 Psych Adjectives and Double Morphology of VingAs-----------------------8
2.2 L2 Acquisition of Psych Predictes-------------------------------------------------------9
2.3 L2 Acquisition of conflation Class Prenominal Adjectival Participles------------11
2.3.1 Semantic Properties and Syntactic Representation of Verb Class-----------11
2.3.2 Syntactic Positions and the Attributive Filter----------------------------------11
2.3.3 Learning Prenominal Adjectival participles------------------------------------12
2.4 Summary-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------13
Chapter 3 The Acquisition of Prenominal Psych Adjectives-----------14
3.0 Introduction---------------------------------------------------------------------------------14
3.1 SSHM: the Semantic Salience Hierarchy Model------------------------------------14
3.2 Central issue of Research----------------------------------------------------------------15
3.2.1 L1 Influence: The Role of Latent CAUS Construction-----------------------16
3.2.2 The Role of an Extra-Linguistic Factor: Animacy----------------------------17
3.3 Research Hypotheses--------------------------------------------------------------------18
Chapter 4 The Empirical Study------------------------------------------------19
4.1 Participants--------------------------------------------------------------------------------19
4.2 Instrumentation---------------------------------------------------------------------------19
4.2.1 Psych Participles Token-----------------------------------------------------------19
4.2.2 Grammaticality Judgment Task (GJT) -----------------------------------------19
4.2.3 Multiple Choice Task (MCT) ---------------------------------------------------21
4.3 Procedures---------------------------------------------------------------------------------21
4.4 Data Analyses-----------------------------------------------------------------------------21
4.4.1 Collecting and Scoring of GJT Data--------------------------------------------21
4.4.2 Collecting and Scoring of MCT Data-------------------------------------------22
Chapter 5 Results--------------------------------------------------------------23
5.0 Introduction---------------------------------------------------------------------------------23
5.1 Results for Hypothesis 1-----------------------------------------------------------------23
5.2 Results for Hypothesis 2 and 3 (GJT) -------------------------------------------------24
5.2.1 MCT Data---------------------------------------------------------------------------25
5.3 Results for Hypothesis 4-----------------------------------------------------------------25
5.3.1 MCT Data---------------------------------------------------------------------------27
Chapter 6 Discussion-------------------------------------------------------------------29
6.0 Introduction----------------------------------------------------------------------------------29
6.1 Summary of the Findings----------------------------------------------------------------29
6.2 The One-to-One Principle---------------------------------------------------------------30
6.3 Animacy as a Learning Strategy--------------------------------------------------------30
Chapter 7 Conclusions, Suggestions & Implication-----------------------32
7.1 Conclusions-------------------------------------------------------------------------------32
7.2 Suggestions for Further Research------------------------------------------------------32
7.3 Implications for EFT---------------------------------------------------------------------33
Appendix A-------------------------------------------------------------------------------34
Appendix B-----------------------------------------------------------------------------38
References------------------------------------------------------------------------------41
攻读学位期间的研究成果-----------------------------------------------------------44
参考文献：Andersen, R. 1984. The One to One Principle of interlanguage construction Language Learning 34: 77-95.
Baker, M. 1997. Thematic Roles and Syntactic Structure. In L. Hageman (Ed) Elements of Grammar. Nethelands: Kluwer Academic Publishers
Bellettie, A. & Roberts, I. 1988. Psych verbs and theta-theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 6, 291-352
Bolinger, D. 1967. Adjetives in English: attribution and prediction. Lingua, 18, 1-34
Borer, H.1984. The Projectionprinciple and rules of morphology. In C. Jones &P. sells (Eds), Proceedinds of NFLS 14. University of Massachuetts, Amherst
Bouchard, d. 1995. The Semantics of Syntax: A minimalist approach to Grammar. Chicago: Chicago University Press
Bowerman, M. 1974. Learning the structure of causative verbs: a study in the relationship of cognitive, semantic and syntactic development. Paper and Reports on Child language Development, 8, 142-178
Bowerman, M. 1981. the child’s expression of meaning: expanding relationships among lexicon, syntax, and morpgology. In H. Winits (ED). Native Language ans foreign Language Acquisition. New York: New York Academy of Sciences.
Bowerman, M. 1990. mapping thematic roles onto syntactic functions: Are children helped by innate “linking rules”? Linguistics, 28, 1253-1289
Burt, M, Dulay, H., & krashen, S. 1982. language Two. NY: Oxford University Press
Carlson, G. 1980. Reference to Kinds of English .Ph.D. dissertation. University of Massachuetts, Amherst
Carlson, G. 1989. On the semantic composition of English generic sentences. In G. Chierchia, B.H. Partee, & B. Turner (Eds), Properties, Types and Meaning, II. Dordrecht. The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic
Chen D. 1996. L2 acquisition of English psych verbs by native speakers of Chinese and French. Ph. D. dissertation, McGill Univeristy, Montreal
Cowper, E. 1995. English participle constructions. Cadanian Journal of Linguistics 40,1-26
Eubank, L., & Juffs, A 1995. Morphosyntax and argument structure in L2 acquisition: A brief overview of research. GLOL, International, 1( 9/10). 3-8
Grimshaw, J. 1994. Lexical reconciliation. Lingua, 92, 411-430
Juffs, A. 1996a. Learnability and lexicon: Theories and second language acquisition research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Juffs, A. 1996b. Semantic –syntax correspondences in second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 12, 177-221.
Juffs, A. 1998. An overview of the second language acquisition of links between verb semantics and morpho-syntax. In Archbald, J. (ED), Second language acquisition and Linguistic Theory. Malden, MA: Blackwell
Juffs, A. 2001. Discussion: Verb classes, Event structure, and Second language learners’ knowledge of Semantic-syntax Correspondence. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23, 305-313
Lakoff, G. 1970. Irregularities in Syntax. NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston
Levin, B. & M. Rappaport. 1986. The formation of adjectival passives. Linguistic Inquiry, 17, 623-661
Montrul, S. 2001b. First-language-constrained variability in the second language acquisition of argument-structure-changing morphology with causative verbs. Second Language Research, 17, 144-194
Nakajima, H. 1993. Linking and “suppress-a”. In Nakajima, H & Otsu, Y. (Eds). Argument Structure: Its syntax and acquisition. Kaitakusha: Special publication of the English Linguistic Society of Japan
Pesetsky, J. 1995. Zero syntax : Experiences and cascades. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
Pinker, S. 1989. Learnability and cognition: the acquisition of argument structure . Cambridge, MA: MIT
Roberts, I. 1989. Compound Psych-adjectives and the ergative hypothesis. Proceedings of NFLS 20. University of Massachusetts, Amherst
T’sou, B. K. 1980. Participle preposing in English and the problem of hierarchical constraints on linguistic structure. In Working Papers in Linguistics and Language Teaching (No. 3, 1-29). Hong Kong: University of Hong Kong language Centre
Wang, C. 1995. Semantic structure theory and L2 learning of adjectival participles, Ph. D dissertation, The Chinese University of Hong Kong
Wang, C. & T. Lee. 1999. L2 acquisition of conflation classes of prenominal adjectival participles. Language Learning, 49, 1-36
Wasow, T. 1977. Transformations and the lexicon. In P. Culicover, T. Wason & A. Akmajian (Eds), Formal Syntax. New York: Academic Press
White, L. 1995. Psych verbs and the T/SM restriction: what do L2 learners know? In P. Koskinen (ED), Proceedings of the 1995 Annual Conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association: Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics, 615-25
William, E. 1981. Argument structure and morphology. The Linguistic Review, I 81-114
Wen, X. 2004. L2 Acquisition of English Psych Adjectives by Chinese Middle School Students. M. dissertation. ShaanXi Normal University. Shaanxi
Zhang, J. 2001. A comparative study of causative psych verbs in English and Chinese . Wai yu Yanjiu ( Foreign Language Research) 3, 43-57
Zhang, J. 2003. The Acquisition of Psych Predicates By Chinese-speaking Learners of English : A Semantic Hierarchy Model. Ph. D. dissertation, Guangdong University of Foreign Studies. Guangdong.
Zhang, J & Wen, X. 2004. Animacy as a Cognitive Strategy in the Acquisition of Psych Adjectives by Middle School Students. In Singhal, Meena (ed) Proceedings of the First International Online Conference on Second and Foreign Language Teaching and Research-September 25-26
Zhang, J. 2005. The Acquisition of English Causative Color Verbs by Chinese University Students. Foreign Language and Teaching 6, 446-452
张京鱼，张长宗，问小娟，2004. 有生性在中学生英语心理谓语词习得中的作用. <<外语教学与研究, 351-356, 2004, 5
作者点评：L2 acquisition of prenominal psych adjectives by Chinese middle school students is a process of the recognition of zero CAUS and the development of sensitivity to the one-to-two correspondence in VingAs. In this study, we are aware that students correctly accepted the combination of VedAs with animate nouns, but clearly rejected its combination with inanimate nouns. However, they only correctly accepted the combinations of VingAs with inanimate nouns, but incorrectly rejected those with animate nouns. Thus it provided some very weak evidence that students have more difficulty with VingAs than with VedAs. MCT data results just disapproved the hypothesis that students are more accurate with VedAs than with VingAs. That Chinese learners of English will be more accurate with VingAs in combination with inanimate nouns than with animate nouns found robust evidence in our study. Therefore, we claim that animacy is a learning strategy in EFL and will be effective in EFT, which is predicted in SSHM, and our results provided further detailed evidence for SSHM (Zhang, 2003). Furthermore, there was no significant effect for students’ judgment or choice of prenominal modifying psych adjectives in either subject or object position for either VedAs or VingAs. In short, middle school students acquire pronominal psych adjectives by following the One-to-One principle, using animacy as a learning strategy.
