外国语

外国语 ›› 2022, Vol. 45 ›› Issue (5): 75-86.

• 语言研究 • 上一篇    下一篇

中国英语专业学生加工英语中动结构副词修饰语语义的研究

俞珏1, 张辉2   

  1. 1. 安徽师范大学 外国语学院, 安徽 芜湖 241003;
    2. 南京师范大学 外国语学院, 江苏 南京 210097
  • 收稿日期:2021-03-19 出版日期:2022-09-20 发布日期:2022-10-09
  • 通讯作者: 张辉(通讯作者)(1964-),男,江苏沛县人,博士,教授。研究方向:认知语言学,神经语言学。
  • 作者简介:俞珏(1981-),女,安徽庐江人,博士研究生,副教授。研究方向:二语习得,认知语言学。
  • 基金资助:
    国家社科基金重点项目"汉语二语语法加工的神经认知与个体差异研究"（20AYY010）

A Study on the Semantic Processing of Adverbial Modifiers in the English Middle Construction by Chinese English Majors

YU Jue1, ZHANG Hui2   

  1. 1. School of Foreign Studies, Anhui Normal University, Wuhu 241003, China;
    2. School of Foreign Languages and Culture, Nanjing Normal University, Nanjing 210097, China
  • Received:2021-03-19 Online:2022-09-20 Published:2022-10-09

摘要： 二语加工和习得研究一直受到学界的关注。本文通过行为实验，从二语语义加工的视角出发，以中动结构副词修饰语为研究对象，旨在从整体语义指向加工和语义分类加工两个方面，来研究中国英语专业学生在线加工英语中动结构副词修饰语语义的情况。结果发现，一方面，中国英语专业学生加工中动结构中语义指向正确和错误的副词修饰语时，其正确率和反应时都有显著差异，不同水平的学生加工语义指向不同的副词修饰语的正确率存在显著差异，反应时却无显著差异。另一方面，他们加工中动结构中速度类和价值类副词修饰语时，其正确率和反应时都有显著差异，但不同水平的学生加工语义类型不同的副词修饰语的正确率和反应时都没有显著差异。研究表明，二语加工和习得是一个动态的、复杂的和非线性的过程，母语与二语存在动态竞争关系，并伴随着吸态到斥态的突变。本文认为，二语中动结构副词修饰语语义的加工情况体现了动态性和复杂性，可以运用动态系统理论来架构二语加工和二语习得的桥梁。

关键词: 中动结构, 副词修饰语, 语义加工, 中国英语专业学生, 动态系统理论

Abstract: The study of second language processing and acquisition has always caused concern among researchers.From the perspective of second language semantic processing, this paper carries out an experimental study to investigate the online semantic processing of adverbial modifiers in the middle constructions by Chinese English majors from two aspects, namely the semantic constraint processing and the semantic types processing.The results show that, on the one hand, when Chinese English majors process adverbial modifiers with correct wrong or semantic constraints in the middle constructions, there are significant differences in the accuracy and reaction time.There are significant differences in the accuracy of processing adverbial modifiers with different semantic constraints among students of different English proficiency, but there is no significant difference in the reaction time.On the other hand, when they process adverbial modifier types of speed and value in the middle constructions, there are significant differences in their accuracy and reaction time, but there is no significant difference in their accuracy and reaction time when they process adverbial modifiers of different semantic types among students of different English proficiency.The study shows that second language processing and acquisition is a dynamic, complex and non-linear process.There is a dynamic competitive relationship between first and second language, which is accompanied by a mutation from attractor states to repeller states.This paper advocates that the semantic processing of adverbial modifiers in English middle constructions is a dynamic and complex process, attempting to apply Dynamic Systems Theory to the construction of a bridge between second language processing and second language acquisition.

Key words: middle construction, adverbial modifiers, semantic processing, Chinese English majors, Dynamic Systems Theory

中图分类号: 

  • H03
[1] Balcom, P.These constructions don't acquire easily:Middle construction and multicompetence[J].The Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1999, 2(1):5-20.
[2] de Bot, K., Lowie, W.& M.Verspoor.A Dynamic Systems Theory approach to second language acquisition[J].Bilingualism, 2007, 10(1):7-21.
[3] Dixon, R.M.W.A Semantic Approach to English Grammar[M].Oxford:Oxford University Press, 2005.
[4] Ellis, N.C.Constructions, chunking and connectionism:The emergence of second language structure[C]//Doughty, C.J.& M.H.Long.The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition.Oxford:Blackwell, 2003.63-103.
[5] Ellis, N.C.Cognitive perspectives on SLA:The associative-cognitive CREED[J].AILA Review, 2006, 19(1):100-121.
[6] Fagan, S.The Middle English[J].Linguitic Inquiry, 1988, (1):181-203.
[7] Fellbaum, C.On the Middle Construction in English[M].Bloomington:Indiana University Linguistic Club, 1986.
[8] Goldberg, A.E.& F.Ackerman.The pragmatics of obligatory adjuncts[J].Language, 2001, (4):798-814.
[9] Goldwater, M.B.& A.B.Markman.Constructional sources of implicit agents in sentence comprehension[J].Cognitive Linguistics, 2009, (4):675-702.
[10] Hundt, M.English Mediopassive Constructions:A Cognitive, Corpus-based Study of Their Origin, Spread, and Current Status[M].Amsterdam:Rodopi, 2007.
[11] Iwata, S.On the status of an implicit argument in middle[J].Journal of Linguistics, 1999, (3):527-553.
[12] Keyser, S.J.& T.Roeper.On the middle and ergative constructions in English[J].Linguistic Inquiry, 1984, (3):381-416.
[13] Larsen-Freeman, D.Chaos/Complexity science and second language acquisition[J].Applied Linguistics, 1997, (18):141-165.
[14] Larsen-Freeman, D.Second language acquisition and the issue of fossilization:There is no end and there is no state[C]//Han, Z.& T.Odlin.Studies of Fossilization in Second Language Acquisition.Clevedon:Multilingual Matters, 2006a.189-200.
[15] Larsen-Freeman, D.The emergence of complexity, fluency, and accuracy in the oral and written production of five Chinese learners of English[J].Applied Linguistics, 2006b, 27(4):590-619.
[16] Lekakou, M.Middle semantics and its realization in English and Greek[C]//Neeleman, A.& R.Vermeulen.UCL Working Paper in Linguists.London:University College London, 2002.399-416.
[17] Lekakou, M.A comparative view of the requirement for adverbial modification in middles[C]//Benjamin, L.& T.Solstad.Demoting the Agent:Passive, middle and other Voice phenomena.Amsterdam:John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2006.167-196.
[18] Min, J.Y.Korean EFL learners' recognition of English obligatory adjuncts[J].Language Research, 2013, (2):169-203.
[19] Quirk, R.A Grammar of Contemporary English[M].London:Longman, 1972.
[20] Rapoport, T.R.The English middle and agentivity[J].Linguistic Inquiry, 1999, 30(1):147-155.
[21] Simargool, N.Historical development of the English middle construction[D].Madison:University of Wisconsin-Madison, 2005.
[22] Steinbach, M.Middle Voice[M].Amsterdam:John Benjamin's Publishing Company, 2002.
[23] Verspoor.M., Schmid, M.S.& X.Y.Xu.A dynamic usage-based perspective on L2 writing[J].Journal of Second Language Writing, 2012, 21(3):239-263.
[24] 曹宏.中动句对动词形容词的选择限制及其理据[J].语言科学,2004,(1):11-28.
[25] 陈松松.频率对错配构式二语加工的影响:神经认知视角[J].外国语,2021,(2):60-68.
[26] 邓云华,尹灿.英汉中动句修饰语语法等级的比较研究[J].外语学刊,2014,(3):79-83.
[27] 高育松,薛小梅.语义、频率和母语对中韩英语学习者习得英语中动结构的影响调查[J].现代外语,2011,(1):50-57.
[28] 何文忠.中动构句选择限制的认知阐释[J].外语研究,2007,(1):6-11.
[29] 何文忠,王克非.英语中动结构修饰语的语料库研究[J].外语教学与研究,2009,(4):250-257.
[30] 李强.从物性角色看汉语中动句中动词的语义约束[J].外国语,2018,(1):31-42.
[31] 刘丽华,邓云华.英汉中动构式句法语义限制的认知研究[J].中国外语,2014,(5):33-38, 48.
[32] 任庆梅.构式习得认知心理机制诠释研究综述[J].外国语,2007,(6):39-43.
[33] 孙兵,史双义,边胜潮.非英语专业大学生英语中动结构习得研究[J].华南师范大学学报(社会科学版),2011,(2):125-128.
[34] 王初明.语言学习与交互[J].外国语,2008,(6):53-60.
[35] 吴炳章,牛雅禾.中动结构的概念化机制[J].西安外国语大学学报,2017,(2):53-57.
[36] 徐承萍.中国英语学习者中动结构接受度的实证研究[J].中国外语教育,2015,(3):20-28.
[37] 赵晨,钟素琳.中国英语学习者简单被动句中隐性施事的理解机制探究[J].外语教学与研究,2015,(6):874-885.
[38] 张辉,卞京.二语习得和加工假说与模式:主要观点与分歧[J].外语与外语教学,2016,(4):10-20.
[39] 张辉,卞京.二语构式加工的神经认知机制研究——中国英语学习者对英语way构式加工的个案研究[J].外国语,2017,(4):64-72.
[40] 张琴,杨连瑞,高秀雪.从语义-语用和句法界面看英语中动结构及其习得[J].当代外语研究,2013,(10):43-48.
[41] 郑咏滟.动态系统理论框架下的二语词汇深度发展研究[J].中国外语教育,2014,(3):62-73.
[42] 郑咏滟.二语心理词库的动态系统发展与频率效应[J].解放军外国语学院学报,2015,(5):82-90.
[1] 裴霜霜. 时间语义加工中空间图式模拟的神经机制研究——ERPs证据[J]. 外国语, 2022, 45(4): 61-71.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
No Suggested Reading articles found!