696 research outputs found
Japanese Ditransitive Verbs and the Hierarchical Lexicon
PACLIC 20 / Wuhan, China / 1-3 November, 200
Zen in the art of insult: notes on the syntax and semantics of abusive speech in Late Middle Chinese
Choice of syntactic structure during language production: The production of unbounded dependencies
During language production, conceptual messages are encoded into a target
language and articulated. Existing models of language production assume several
stages of processing including a conceptual level, a level where lexical selection and
syntactic processing occurs and a level where morphological and phonological
features are added ready for production (e.g. Levelt et al., 1999). Previous research
has considered how lexical and syntactic information could be stored via lemma
(Kempen & Huijbers, 1983), syntactic nodes (Levelt at el., 1999) and combinatorial
nodes (Pickering & Braingan, 1998), but little is understood about how syntactic
structures are selected. This thesis examines how constituent structures are selected
by investigating choice of structure in unbounded dependencies such as Which jug
with the red spots is the nun giving the monk? and how this is affected by factors such
as verb-subcategorisation preferences and global sentence structure complexity.
A series of language production experiments investigate how global
structure complexity and verb-subcategoricatisaion preferences affect choice of
syntactic structure at the clause level in unbounded dependencies. A picture
description task reveals an unusual preference for the dispreferred passive voice
structure as a result of global structural complexity. Sentence recall experiments
demonstrate that both global structural complexity and verb-subcategorisation
preferences can affect choice of structure and that competition between these factors
decides the final structure. Finally, syntactic priming experiments show that
processing mechanisms are shared between simple matrix clause structures and
unbounded dependency clause structures, but that the influence of these shared
mechanisms vary between the different structure types. This could be attributed to a
modal of processing where choice of structure is decided by competition between
structure representations which are influenced by different factors in different
global syntactic conditions.
The results suggest that choice of syntactic structure is decided through
competition between possible structures. These possible structures may receive further activation or inhibition from other factors such as global structural
complexity or verb-subcategorisation preferences and thematic fit. Global structural
complexity may influence structure preferences through increased processing load
or through attempts to integrate the clause structure with another global structure.
Thematic role arguments may influence structure through a preference that
syntactic roles fit with specified thematic roles. (e.g. experiencer as subject). This
model assumes parallel processing of possible structures and individual structures
within a complex larger structure. It also assumes an incremental model of
processing which attempts to integrate structures as soon as possible
Dative constructions in Romance and beyond
This book offers a comprehensive account of dative structures across languages โwith an important, though not exclusive, focus on the Romance family. As is well-known, datives play a central role in a variety of structures, ranging from ditransitive constructions to cliticization of indirect objects and differentially marked direct objects, and including also psychological predicates, possessor or causative constructions, among many others. As interest in all these topics has increased significantly over the past three decades, this volume provides an overdue update on the state of the art. Accordingly, the chapters in this volume account for both widely discussed patterns of dative constructions as well as those that are relatively unknown
Dative constructions in Romance and beyond
This book offers a comprehensive account of dative structures across languages โwith an important, though not exclusive, focus on the Romance family. As is well-known, datives play a central role in a variety of structures, ranging from ditransitive constructions to cliticization of indirect objects and differentially marked direct objects, and including also psychological predicates, possessor or causative constructions, among many others. As interest in all these topics has increased significantly over the past three decades, this volume provides an overdue update on the state of the art. Accordingly, the chapters in this volume account for both widely discussed patterns of dative constructions as well as those that are relatively unknown
๊ตฌ๋์ฌ์ ๊ตฌ๋ฌธ๋ฌธ๋ฒ๊ธฐ๋ฐ ๊ต์๊ฐ ํ๊ตญ์ธ ๊ณ ๋ฑํ์์ ์ฌ์ญ์ด๋๊ตฌ๋ฌธ๊ณผ ๊ฒฐ๊ณผ๊ตฌ๋ฌธ์ ์ต๋์ ๋ฏธ์น๋ ์ํฅ
ํ์๋
ผ๋ฌธ (์์ฌ) -- ์์ธ๋ํ๊ต ๋ํ์ : ์ฌ๋ฒ๋ํ ์ธ๊ตญ์ด๊ต์ก๊ณผ(์์ด์ ๊ณต), 2021. 2. ๊น๊ธฐํ.The present study explored the effects of instruction of verb-particle construction (VPC) based on construction grammar on the learning of the prototypical caused-motion construction (CMC) and transitive resultative construction (TRC) by Korean high school students. According to Celce-Murcia and Larson-Freeman (1999), VPC can be divided into three categories based on its semantics: literal VPC, aspectual VPC, and idiomatic VPC. Goldberg (2015) regards VPC as one of the important constructions in English and contends that it inherits functional and formal properties from CMC and TRC, bearing semantic and syntactic resemblances. That is to say, literal VPC is a type of CMC and aspectual VPC is a form of TRC. The current study investigated effects of learning literal VPC (i.e., a subtype of CMC) on the acquisition of the prototypical CMC and those of learning aspectual VPC (i.e., a subtype of TRC) on the acquisition of the prototypical TRC.
The participants for the study were divided into two instructional groups: a literal VPC instructional group and an aspectual VPC instructional group. Both groups participated in two lessons and two testing sessions (i.e., a pre-test and a post-test). The pre- and post-tests examined the acquisition of the prototypical CMC and TRC by the participants and two tasks were administered: picture description and English-to-Korean translation. The former tested the participantsโ production of the prototypical CMC and TRC, while the latter examined the participantsโ comprehension of the prototypical CMC and TRC.
Results revealed that learning literal VPC based on the construction grammar framework enhanced the acquisition of the prototypical CMC. The literal VPC group showed greater improvement than the aspectual VPC group in both production and comprehension tasks. As for the acquisition of the prototypical TRC, the aspectual VPC group experienced an enhancement in the acquisition of TRC. Meanwhile, learning literal VPC also facilitated the acquisition of the prototypical TRC, suggesting that CMC and TRC are two instance constructions of one category and that constructions do not exist independently but are connected to one another in a hierarchical network. Improvements in the acquisition of the prototypical TRC were more conspicuous than the learning of the prototypical CMC in both groups.
These findings showed that the construction grammar-based instruction of VPC promotes the acquisition of the linguistically related constructions (i.e., prototypical CMC and TRC), offering pedagogical implications on English education in Korea and teaching and learning VPC in EFL settings.๋ณธ ์ฐ๊ตฌ๋ ๊ตฌ๋ฌธ๋ฌธ๋ฒ์ ๊ธฐ๋ฐํ ๊ตฌ๋์ฌ์ ํ์ต์ด ํ๊ตญ ๊ณ ๋ฑํ๊ต ์์ดํ์ต์๋ค์ ์ํ์ ์์ด์ฌ์ญ์ด๋๊ตฌ๋ฌธ๊ณผ ์์ด๊ฒฐ๊ณผ๊ตฌ๋ฌธ์ ํ์ต์ ๋ฏธ์น๋ ์ํฅ์ ์ดํด๋ณด์๋ค.
Celce-Murcia์ Larson-Freeman(1999)์ ๋ฐ๋ฅด๋ฉด ๊ตฌ๋์ฌ๋ ์๋ฏธ์ ์ผ๋ก ๋ฐฉํฅ์ด๋ ์ฅ์์ ์ด๋์ ๋ํ๋ด๋ ์ง์ ๊ตฌ๋์ฌ์, ์ํ์ ๋ณํ๋ฅผ ๋ํ๋ด๋ ์๊ตฌ๋์ฌ, ๊ทธ๋ฆฌ๊ณ ๊ด์ฉ์ ์ธ ํํ์ ๋ํ๋ด๋ ๊ด์ฉ๊ตฌ๋์ฌ๋ก ๋๋ ์ ์๋ค. Goldberg(2015)๋ ์ด๋ฌํ ๊ตฌ๋์ฌ๋ฅผ ํ๋์ ๊ตฌ๋ฌธ(Construction)์ผ๋ก ๊ฐ์ฃผํ๊ณ , ํํ์ ๊ธฐ๋ฅ์์ ์์ง์์์ ๋ฐํ์ผ๋ก ์ง์ ๊ตฌ๋์ฌ๋ฅผ ์ฌ์ญ์ด๋๊ตฌ๋ฌธ์ ํ ์ข
๋ฅ, ์๊ตฌ๋์ฌ๋ ๊ฒฐ๊ณผ๊ตฌ๋ฌธ์ ํ ํํ๋ก ์ ์ํ๋ค. ๋ฐ๋ผ์ ์ง์ ๊ตฌ๋์ฌ๋ ์๊ตฌ๋์ฌ์ ํ์ต์ด ๊ฐ๊ฐ์ ์ํ๊ตฌ๋ฌธ, ์ฆ, ์ํ์ ์ฌ์ญ์ด๋๊ตฌ๋ฌธ๊ณผ ๊ฒฐ๊ณผ๊ตฌ๋ฌธ์ ์ต๋์ ๋ฏธ์น๋ ์ํฅ์ ํ์
ํ๊ธฐ ์ํด ํ์๋ค์ ๋ ์ง๋จ์ผ๋ก ๋๋์๋ค. ํ ๊ทธ๋ฃน์๊ฒ๋ ๊ตฌ๋ฌธ๋ฌธ๋ฒ์ ๊ธฐ๋ฐํ์ฌ ์ง์ ๊ตฌ๋์ฌ๋ฅผ ๊ต์ํ๊ณ , ๋ค๋ฅธ ๊ทธ๋ฃน์๊ฒ๋ ๊ตฌ๋ฌธ๋ฌธ๋ฒ์ ๊ธฐ๋ฐํ ์๊ตฌ๋์ฌ๋ฅผ ๊ต์ํ์๋ค. ๋ชจ๋ ๊ต์ ์ง๋จ์ 2์ฐจ์์ ์์
๊ณผ 2๋ฒ์ ํ๊ฐ(์ฌ์ , ์ฌํ)์ ์ฐธ์ฌํ์๋ค. ๊ฐ ํ๊ฐ๋ ์ํ์ ์ฌ์ญ์ด๋๊ตฌ๋ฌธ๊ณผ ๊ฒฐ๊ณผ๊ตฌ๋ฌธ์ ์ต๋์ ๊ฒ์ฌํ์์ผ๋ฉฐ ํ์๋ค์ ๋ ๊ฐ์ง์ ๊ณผ์
์ ์ํํ์๋ค: ๊ทธ๋ฆผ ๋ฌ์ฌ ๊ณผ์
, ๋ฌธ์ฅ ํด์ ๊ณผ์
. ์ฒซ ๊ณผ์
์ ํ์๋ค์ ๊ตฌ๋ฌธ ์ฌ์ฉ์ ๊ฒ์ฌํ์๊ณ , ๋๋ฒ์งธ ๊ณผ์
์ ํ์๋ค์ ๊ตฌ๋ฌธ ์ดํด๋ฅผ ํ๊ฐํ์๋ค.
์คํ๊ฒฐ๊ณผ, ๊ตฌ๋ฌธ๋ฌธ๋ฒ์ ๊ธฐ๋ฐํ ๊ตฌ๋์ฌ์ ํ์ต์ผ๋ก ์ธํ ๊ต์ํ์ง ์์ ์ํ์ ์ฌ์ญ์ด๋๊ตฌ๋ฌธ๊ณผ ๊ฒฐ๊ณผ๊ตฌ๋ฌธ์ ์ต๋๊ณผ ๊ด๋ จํ์ฌ ์ ์๋ฏธํ ํ์๋ค์ด ๋ฐ๊ฒฌ๋์๋ค. ์ฒซ์งธ, ์ง์ ๊ตฌ๋์ฌ์ ํ์ต์ด ์ํ์ ์ฌ์ญ์ด๋๊ตฌ๋ฌธ์ ์ต๋์ ํฅ์์์ผฐ๋ค. ์ง์ ๊ตฌ๋์ฌ ๊ต์๊ทธ๋ฃน์ ์๊ตฌ๋์ฌ ๊ต์๊ทธ๋ฃน๋ณด๋ค ์ํ์ ์ฌ์ญ์ด๋๊ตฌ๋ฌธ ์ต๋์ ๋์ฑ ํฐ ํฅ์์ ๋ณด์์ผ๋ฉฐ ๊ณผ์
์ ์ข
๋ฅ์ ๊ด๊ณ์์ด ํฐ ํฅ์์ ๋ณด์๋ค. ๋์งธ, ์๊ตฌ๋์ฌ ๊ต์๊ทธ๋ฃน์ ์ํ์ ๊ฒฐ๊ณผ๊ตฌ๋ฌธ ์ต๋์ ๋์ฑ ํฐ ํฅ์์ ๋ณด์๋ค. ์๊ตฌ๋์ฌ ๊ต์๊ทธ๋ฃน์ ํ์๋ค์ ๋ ๊ฐ์ง ๊ณผ์
๋ชจ๋์์ ์ ์๋ฏธํ ํฅ์์ ๋ณด์๋ค. ์ง์ ๊ตฌ๋์ฌ ๊ต์๊ทธ๋ฃน ์ญ์ ์ํ์ ๊ฒฐ๊ณผ๊ตฌ๋ฌธ์ ์ต๋์ ํฅ์์ ๋ณด์๋๋ฐ ์ด๋ ๊ตฌ๋ฌธ์ด ๊ฐ๊ฐ ๋
๋ฆฝ์ ์ผ๋ก ์กด์ฌํ๋ ๊ฒ์ด ์๋๊ณ ์๊ณ์ ๊ทธ๋ฌผ๋ง์์์ ์๋ก ์ฐ๊ฒฐ๋์ด ์์์ ์์ฌํ๋ค. ๋ํ, ๋ ๊ทธ๋ฃน ๋ชจ๋ ์ํ์ ๊ฒฐ๊ณผ๊ตฌ๋ฌธ ์ต๋์ ํฅ์์ด ์ํ์ ์ฌ์ญ์ด๋๊ตฌ๋ฌธ ์ต๋์ ํฅ์๋ณด๋ค ๋์ฑ ๋๋๋ฌ์ก๋ค.
์ด์์ ๋ฐ๊ฒฌ์ ๊ทผ๊ฑฐํ์ฌ, ๋ณธ ๋
ผ๋ฌธ์ ๊ตฌ๋ฌธ๋ฌธ๋ฒ์ ๊ธฐ๋ฐํ ๊ตฌ๋์ฌ์ ํ์ต์ด ์ธ์ด์ ๊ด๋ จ๋๊ฐ ๊น์ ๋ค๋ฅธ ๋
ผํญ๊ตฌ์กฐ๊ตฌ๋ฌธ(์ฆ, ์ํ์ ์ฌ์ญ์ด๋๊ตฌ๋ฌธ๊ณผ ๊ฒฐ๊ณผ๊ตฌ๋ฌธ)์ ์ต๋์ ๊ธ์ ์ ์ธ ์ํฅ์ ๋ฏธ์นจ์ ๋ฐํ๋ฉฐ, ๊ตฌ๋ฌธ๋ฌธ๋ฒ์ ์ ๊ทผ์ด ์ฒด๊ณ์ ์ธ ์ธ์ด์ ์ต๋๊ณผ ๋๋ถ์ด ์์ด์ ์์ฐ์ฑ ํฅ์์ ํจ๊ณผ์ ์ผ ์ ์๋ค๋ ๊ฐ๋ฅ์ฑ์ ์์ฌํ์๋ค.ABSTRACT i
TABLE OF CONTENTS iii
LIST OF TABLES vi
LIST OF FIGURES vii
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 1
1.1. Statement of the Problem and Purposes of the Study 1
1.2. Organization of the Thesis 8
CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 9
2.1. Construction Grammar as a Theoretical Background 9
2.1.1. Construction Grammar 9
2.1.2. Caused-Motion Construction 14
2.1.3. Transitive Resultative Construction 17
2.1.4. Construction Learning 18
2.1.4.1. Construction Learning in the First Language 18
2.1.4.2. Construction Learning in English as a Foreign Language Context 21
2.2.Verb-Particle Construction 24
2.2.1.The Semantic Features of VPC 24
2.2.2. The Default Structure of VPC 27
2.2.3. The Relationship with CMC and TRC 29
CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY 35
3.1. Participants 35
3.2. Target Form 36
3.3. Procedure 40
3.4. Instruction 41
3.4.1. Literal VPC Instruction 42
3.4.2. Aspectual VPC Instruction 45
3.5. Test 48
3.5.1. Picture Description 49
3.5.2. English-to-Korean Translation 50
3.6. Analysis 50
CHAPTER 4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 52
4.1. Learning the Prototypicla CMC 52
4.1.1. Picture Description Task 52
4.1.1.1.Results of between-group analysis 54
4.1.1.2. Results of between-level analysis 56
4.1.2. English-to-Korean Transalation Task 58
4.1.2.1. Results of between-group analysis 60
4.1.2.2. Results of between-level analysis 61
4.1.3. Discussion 64
4.2. Learning the Prototypicla TRC 67
4.2.1. Picture Description Task 67
4.2.1.1. Results of between-group analysis 69
4.2.1.2. Results of between-level analysis 69
4.2.2. English-to-Korean Translation 70
4.2.2.1. Results of between-group analysis 72
4.2.2.2. Results of between-level analysis 69
4.2.3. Discussion 74
CHAPTER 5. CONCLUSION 78
5.1. Major Findings and Pedagogical Implications 78
5.2. Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research 80
REFERENCES 82
APPENDICES 93
ABSTRACT IN KOREAN 110Maste
- โฆ