696 research outputs found

    Japanese Ditransitive Verbs and the Hierarchical Lexicon

    Get PDF
    PACLIC 20 / Wuhan, China / 1-3 November, 200

    Polysemy and homonymy in Japanese verbal alternations

    Get PDF

    Choice of syntactic structure during language production: The production of unbounded dependencies

    Get PDF
    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

    Polysemy and the applicative verb construction in Chishona

    Get PDF

    Dative constructions in Romance and beyond

    Get PDF
    This book offers a comprehensive account of dative structures across languages โ€“with 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

    Get PDF
    This book offers a comprehensive account of dative structures across languages โ€“with 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

    ๊ตฌ๋™์‚ฌ์˜ ๊ตฌ๋ฌธ๋ฌธ๋ฒ•๊ธฐ๋ฐ˜ ๊ต์ˆ˜๊ฐ€ ํ•œ๊ตญ์ธ ๊ณ ๋“ฑํ•™์ƒ์˜ ์‚ฌ์—ญ์ด๋™๊ตฌ๋ฌธ๊ณผ ๊ฒฐ๊ณผ๊ตฌ๋ฌธ์˜ ์Šต๋“์— ๋ฏธ์น˜๋Š” ์˜ํ–ฅ

    Get PDF
    ํ•™์œ„๋…ผ๋ฌธ (์„์‚ฌ) -- ์„œ์šธ๋Œ€ํ•™๊ต ๋Œ€ํ•™์› : ์‚ฌ๋ฒ”๋Œ€ํ•™ ์™ธ๊ตญ์–ด๊ต์œก๊ณผ(์˜์–ด์ „๊ณต), 2021. 2. ๊น€๊ธฐํƒ.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 ์—ฐ๊ตฌ๋Š” ๊ตฌ๋ฌธ๋ฌธ๋ฒ•์— ๊ธฐ๋ฐ˜ํ•œ ๊ตฌ๋™์‚ฌ์˜ ํ•™์Šต์ด ํ•œ๊ตญ ๊ณ ๋“ฑํ•™๊ต ์˜์–ดํ•™์Šต์ž๋“ค์˜ ์›ํ˜•์˜ ์˜์–ด์‚ฌ์—ญ์ด๋™๊ตฌ๋ฌธ๊ณผ ์˜์–ด๊ฒฐ๊ณผ๊ตฌ๋ฌธ์˜ ํ•™์Šต์— ๋ฏธ์น˜๋Š” ์˜ํ–ฅ์„ ์‚ดํŽด๋ณด์•˜๋‹ค. Celce-Murcia์™€ Larson-Freeman(1999)์— ๋”ฐ๋ฅด๋ฉด ๊ตฌ๋™์‚ฌ๋Š” ์˜๋ฏธ์ ์œผ๋กœ ๋ฐฉํ–ฅ์ด๋‚˜ ์žฅ์†Œ์˜ ์ด๋™์„ ๋‚˜ํƒ€๋‚ด๋Š” ์ง์ ‘๊ตฌ๋™์‚ฌ์™€, ์ƒํƒœ์˜ ๋ณ€ํ™”๋ฅผ ๋‚˜ํƒ€๋‚ด๋Š” ์ƒ๊ตฌ๋™์‚ฌ, ๊ทธ๋ฆฌ๊ณ  ๊ด€์šฉ์ ์ธ ํ‘œํ˜„์„ ๋‚˜ํƒ€๋‚ด๋Š” ๊ด€์šฉ๊ตฌ๋™์‚ฌ๋กœ ๋‚˜๋ˆŒ ์ˆ˜ ์žˆ๋‹ค. Goldberg(2015)๋Š” ์ด๋Ÿฌํ•œ ๊ตฌ๋™์‚ฌ๋ฅผ ํ•˜๋‚˜์˜ ๊ตฌ๋ฌธ(Construction)์œผ๋กœ ๊ฐ„์ฃผํ•˜๊ณ , ํ˜•ํƒœ์™€ ๊ธฐ๋Šฅ์ƒ์˜ ์ž์งˆ์ƒ์†์„ ๋ฐ”ํƒ•์œผ๋กœ ์ง์ ‘๊ตฌ๋™์‚ฌ๋ฅผ ์‚ฌ์—ญ์ด๋™๊ตฌ๋ฌธ์˜ ํ•œ ์ข…๋ฅ˜, ์ƒ๊ตฌ๋™์‚ฌ๋Š” ๊ฒฐ๊ณผ๊ตฌ๋ฌธ์˜ ํ•œ ํ˜•ํƒœ๋กœ ์ •์˜ํ•œ๋‹ค. ๋”ฐ๋ผ์„œ ์ง์ ‘๊ตฌ๋™์‚ฌ๋‚˜ ์ƒ๊ตฌ๋™์‚ฌ์˜ ํ•™์Šต์ด ๊ฐ๊ฐ์˜ ์›ํ˜•๊ตฌ๋ฌธ, ์ฆ‰, ์›ํ˜•์˜ ์‚ฌ์—ญ์ด๋™๊ตฌ๋ฌธ๊ณผ ๊ฒฐ๊ณผ๊ตฌ๋ฌธ์˜ ์Šต๋“์— ๋ฏธ์น˜๋Š” ์˜ํ–ฅ์„ ํŒŒ์•…ํ•˜๊ธฐ ์œ„ํ•ด ํ•™์ƒ๋“ค์„ ๋‘ ์ง‘๋‹จ์œผ๋กœ ๋‚˜๋ˆ„์—ˆ๋‹ค. ํ•œ ๊ทธ๋ฃน์—๊ฒŒ๋Š” ๊ตฌ๋ฌธ๋ฌธ๋ฒ•์— ๊ธฐ๋ฐ˜ํ•˜์—ฌ ์ง์ ‘๊ตฌ๋™์‚ฌ๋ฅผ ๊ต์ˆ˜ํ•˜๊ณ , ๋‹ค๋ฅธ ๊ทธ๋ฃน์—๊ฒŒ๋Š” ๊ตฌ๋ฌธ๋ฌธ๋ฒ•์— ๊ธฐ๋ฐ˜ํ•œ ์ƒ๊ตฌ๋™์‚ฌ๋ฅผ ๊ต์ˆ˜ํ•˜์˜€๋‹ค. ๋ชจ๋“  ๊ต์ˆ˜ ์ง‘๋‹จ์€ 2์ฐจ์‹œ์˜ ์ˆ˜์—…๊ณผ 2๋ฒˆ์˜ ํ‰๊ฐ€(์‚ฌ์ „, ์‚ฌํ›„)์— ์ฐธ์—ฌํ•˜์˜€๋‹ค. ๊ฐ ํ‰๊ฐ€๋Š” ์›ํ˜•์˜ ์‚ฌ์—ญ์ด๋™๊ตฌ๋ฌธ๊ณผ ๊ฒฐ๊ณผ๊ตฌ๋ฌธ์˜ ์Šต๋“์„ ๊ฒ€์‚ฌํ•˜์˜€์œผ๋ฉฐ ํ•™์ƒ๋“ค์€ ๋‘ ๊ฐ€์ง€์˜ ๊ณผ์—…์„ ์ˆ˜ํ–‰ํ•˜์˜€๋‹ค: ๊ทธ๋ฆผ ๋ฌ˜์‚ฌ ๊ณผ์—…, ๋ฌธ์žฅ ํ•ด์„ ๊ณผ์—…. ์ฒซ ๊ณผ์—…์€ ํ•™์ƒ๋“ค์˜ ๊ตฌ๋ฌธ ์‚ฌ์šฉ์„ ๊ฒ€์‚ฌํ•˜์˜€๊ณ , ๋‘๋ฒˆ์งธ ๊ณผ์—…์€ ํ•™์ƒ๋“ค์˜ ๊ตฌ๋ฌธ ์ดํ•ด๋ฅผ ํ‰๊ฐ€ํ•˜์˜€๋‹ค. ์‹คํ—˜๊ฒฐ๊ณผ, ๊ตฌ๋ฌธ๋ฌธ๋ฒ•์— ๊ธฐ๋ฐ˜ํ•œ ๊ตฌ๋™์‚ฌ์˜ ํ•™์Šต์œผ๋กœ ์ธํ•œ ๊ต์ˆ˜ํ•˜์ง€ ์•Š์€ ์›ํ˜•์˜ ์‚ฌ์—ญ์ด๋™๊ตฌ๋ฌธ๊ณผ ๊ฒฐ๊ณผ๊ตฌ๋ฌธ์˜ ์Šต๋“๊ณผ ๊ด€๋ จํ•˜์—ฌ ์œ ์˜๋ฏธํ•œ ํ˜„์ƒ๋“ค์ด ๋ฐœ๊ฒฌ๋˜์—ˆ๋‹ค. ์ฒซ์งธ, ์ง์ ‘๊ตฌ๋™์‚ฌ์˜ ํ•™์Šต์ด ์›ํ˜•์˜ ์‚ฌ์—ญ์ด๋™๊ตฌ๋ฌธ์˜ ์Šต๋“์„ ํ–ฅ์ƒ์‹œ์ผฐ๋‹ค. ์ง์ ‘๊ตฌ๋™์‚ฌ ๊ต์ˆ˜๊ทธ๋ฃน์€ ์ƒ๊ตฌ๋™์‚ฌ ๊ต์ˆ˜๊ทธ๋ฃน๋ณด๋‹ค ์›ํ˜•์˜ ์‚ฌ์—ญ์ด๋™๊ตฌ๋ฌธ ์Šต๋“์— ๋”์šฑ ํฐ ํ–ฅ์ƒ์„ ๋ณด์˜€์œผ๋ฉฐ ๊ณผ์—…์˜ ์ข…๋ฅ˜์— ๊ด€๊ณ„์—†์ด ํฐ ํ–ฅ์ƒ์„ ๋ณด์˜€๋‹ค. ๋‘˜์งธ, ์ƒ๊ตฌ๋™์‚ฌ ๊ต์ˆ˜๊ทธ๋ฃน์€ ์›ํ˜•์˜ ๊ฒฐ๊ณผ๊ตฌ๋ฌธ ์Šต๋“์— ๋”์šฑ ํฐ ํ–ฅ์ƒ์„ ๋ณด์˜€๋‹ค. ์ƒ๊ตฌ๋™์‚ฌ ๊ต์ˆ˜๊ทธ๋ฃน์˜ ํ•™์ƒ๋“ค์€ ๋‘ ๊ฐ€์ง€ ๊ณผ์—… ๋ชจ๋‘์—์„œ ์œ ์˜๋ฏธํ•œ ํ–ฅ์ƒ์„ ๋ณด์˜€๋‹ค. ์ง์ ‘๊ตฌ๋™์‚ฌ ๊ต์ˆ˜๊ทธ๋ฃน ์—ญ์‹œ ์›ํ˜•์˜ ๊ฒฐ๊ณผ๊ตฌ๋ฌธ์˜ ์Šต๋“์— ํ–ฅ์ƒ์„ ๋ณด์˜€๋Š”๋ฐ ์ด๋Š” ๊ตฌ๋ฌธ์ด ๊ฐ๊ฐ ๋…๋ฆฝ์ ์œผ๋กœ ์กด์žฌํ•˜๋Š” ๊ฒƒ์ด ์•„๋‹ˆ๊ณ  ์œ„๊ณ„์  ๊ทธ๋ฌผ๋ง์•ˆ์—์„œ ์„œ๋กœ ์—ฐ๊ฒฐ๋˜์–ด ์žˆ์Œ์„ ์‹œ์‚ฌํ•œ๋‹ค. ๋˜ํ•œ, ๋‘ ๊ทธ๋ฃน ๋ชจ๋‘ ์›ํ˜•์˜ ๊ฒฐ๊ณผ๊ตฌ๋ฌธ ์Šต๋“์˜ ํ–ฅ์ƒ์ด ์›ํ˜•์˜ ์‚ฌ์—ญ์ด๋™๊ตฌ๋ฌธ ์Šต๋“์˜ ํ–ฅ์ƒ๋ณด๋‹ค ๋”์šฑ ๋‘๋“œ๋Ÿฌ์กŒ๋‹ค. ์ด์ƒ์˜ ๋ฐœ๊ฒฌ์— ๊ทผ๊ฑฐํ•˜์—ฌ, ๋ณธ ๋…ผ๋ฌธ์€ ๊ตฌ๋ฌธ๋ฌธ๋ฒ•์— ๊ธฐ๋ฐ˜ํ•œ ๊ตฌ๋™์‚ฌ์˜ ํ•™์Šต์ด ์–ธ์–ด์  ๊ด€๋ จ๋„๊ฐ€ ๊นŠ์€ ๋‹ค๋ฅธ ๋…ผํ•ญ๊ตฌ์กฐ๊ตฌ๋ฌธ(์ฆ‰, ์›ํ˜•์˜ ์‚ฌ์—ญ์ด๋™๊ตฌ๋ฌธ๊ณผ ๊ฒฐ๊ณผ๊ตฌ๋ฌธ)์˜ ์Šต๋“์— ๊ธ์ •์ ์ธ ์˜ํ–ฅ์„ ๋ฏธ์นจ์„ ๋ฐํžˆ๋ฉฐ, ๊ตฌ๋ฌธ๋ฌธ๋ฒ•์  ์ ‘๊ทผ์ด ์ฒด๊ณ„์ ์ธ ์–ธ์–ด์˜ ์Šต๋“๊ณผ ๋”๋ถˆ์–ด ์˜์–ด์˜ ์ƒ์‚ฐ์„ฑ ํ–ฅ์ƒ์— ํšจ๊ณผ์ ์ผ ์ˆ˜ ์žˆ๋‹ค๋Š” ๊ฐ€๋Šฅ์„ฑ์„ ์‹œ์‚ฌํ•˜์˜€๋‹ค.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
    • โ€ฆ
    corecore