基于语料库的中国英语学习者非宾格动词泛被动化的研究

论文摘要

根据非宾格假设，不及物动词应分为两类：非宾格动词和非作格动词，这两类动词分别与不同的深层句法结构相联系。有关研究表明，英语非宾格动词给不同母语背景的英语学习者带来了习得上的困难；学习者常常将不及物的非宾格动词错误地或者不合适地用于be+Ven的被动语态结构中。在第二语言习得中，这种非宾格动词的泛被动化现象也被称为非宾格动词的被动化失误。本论文基于《中国学习者英语语料库》，运用语料库方法研究中国英语学习者中介语中的非宾格动词泛被动化现象。本研究主要讨论的问题是：非宾格动词的泛被动化现象是否也普遍存在于中国英语学习者的中介语中？非宾格动词被进一步区分为可转换和不可转换两类，学习者对这两类非宾格动词的泛被动化比率是否存在差异？非宾格动词泛被动化的成因是什么？整个语料研究过程包括两部分：1、对CLEC中标注出的593条语态失误逐一分析，按照所涉及的动词的类别对其中的不及物动词的被动化失误进行甄别分类。首先将不及物动词的被动化失误区分为非宾格动词和非作格动词的被动化失误两类，然后将非宾格动词的被动化失误进一步区分为可转换非宾格动词的被动化失误和不可转换非宾格动词的被动化失误。2、依据第一步的研究结果，选取了13个被动化频次较高的非宾格动词（包括转换类和不可转换类），仿效Oshita的研究方法，对其在CLEC中的句法分布进行统计分析，以期揭示非宾格动词被动化失误的根本成因。研究结果表明：1英语非宾格动词同样给母语为汉语的英语学习者带来了习得上的困难，学习者往往对非宾格动词发生被动化失误，但却很少对非作格动词发生此类失误。2英语学习者对可转换宾格动词的被动化失误比率要高于不可转换非宾格动词，这说明可转换非宾格动词的习得难度要高于不可转换的非宾格动词。3关于非宾格动词泛被动化的成因较为合理的解释应该是学习者过度概括被动语态规则，用be+Ven的形式来标记非宾格动词句中的NP从宾语位置移位到主语位置，即NP移位标记说。

论文目录

• Abstract
• 摘要
• 1. Introduction
• 1.1 Purpose of the study
• 1.2 Significance of the Study
• 2. Literature Review
• 2.1 The Unaccusative Hypothesis
• 2.1.1 Argument Structure and Related Concepts
• 2.1.2 The Unaccusative Hypothesis
• 2.2 The Unaccusative Diagnostics
• 2.2.1 The Resultative Construction
• 2.2.2 The Causative Alternation
• 2.2.3 The Locative Inversion Construction
• 2.3 Similarities and Differences between Unaccusatives and Passives
• 2.4 The Phenomenon of Overpassivization of Unaccusative Verbs
• 2.5 ErrorAnalysis and Corpus Linguistics
• 2.5.1 Error Analysis
• 2.5.2 Corpus-Based Approach
• 3. Theoretical Framework
• 3.1 Overpassivization of English Unaccusatives in consideration of the Distinction between Unaccusatives and Unergatives
• 3.1.1 The Distinction between Unaccusatives and Unergatives in Argument Structure
• 3.1.2 Overpassivization of Unaccusative Verbs but not Unergative Verbs
• 3.1.3 The Unaccusative Trap Hypothesis and the ‘Passive’Unaccusative Errors
• 3.2. Overpassivization of English Unaccusatives in terms of the Distinction between Alternating and Nonalternating Unaccusatives
• 3.3 Accounts for Overpassivization of English Unaccusatives
• 3.3.1 Previous Accounts of the Passive Unaccusative Errors
• 3.3.1.1 L1 Transfer of Learner’s L1
• 3.3.1.2 Overgeneralization of the English Adjectival Passive Formation
• 3.3.1.3 Non-target Lexical Causativization
• 3.3.1.4 Identification of the Lack of a Logical Subject and the be + en
• 3.3.1.5 Non-target Overt Marking of Syntactic NP Movement
• 3.3.2 The Study of Oshita （2000） -to Pursue the Most Plausible Account for Overpassivization of English Unaccusatives
• 4. The Corpus Study
• 4.1 Two Research Hypotheses and a Research Question
• 4.2 Corpus Based Approach
• 4.2.1 Data
• 4.2.2 Retrieving Tool
• 4.3 Procedure of the Study
• 4.3.1 Stage One: Identifying the Frequency of the Overpassivization Errors with Unaccusatives in CLEC （Following the Error-tagging of CLEC）
• 4.3.2 Stage Two: Investigating the Syntactic Distribution of Some Chosen Unaccusative Verbs in CLEC –a Replication of Oshita （2000）
• 4.4 Data Collection and Results
• 4.4.1 The Frequency of the Overpassivization Errors with Unaccusatives in CLEC （Following the Error-tagging of CLEC）
• 4.4.1.1 The Frequency of the Overpassivization Errors with English Intransitives: Unaccusatives vs. Unergatives
• 4.4.1.2 The Frequency of the Overpassivization Errors with Unaccusatives: Nonalternating vs. Alternating
• 4.4.2 The Syntactic Distribution of the Chosen 13 Unaccusative Verbs in CLEC
• 4.4.2.1 The Selection of the 8 Nonalternating Unaccusatives and the 5 Alternating Unaccusatives
• 4.4.2.2 The Syntactic Distribution of the Eight Nonalternating Unaccusative Verbs
• 4.4.2.3 The Syntactic Distribution of the Five Alternating Unaccusative Verbs
• 4.4.2.4 The Overpassivization Errors with Preselected UnergativeVerbs
• 5. Discussion
• 5.1 Unaccusatives vs. Unergatives, and Accessibility to UG
• 5.2 Alternating Unaccusatives vs. Nonalternating Unaccusatives and Their Different Learnability Problems
• 5.3 The Ultimate Cause of the ‘Passive’Unaccusatives: to Re-examine the Previous Analyses of the Overpassivization Phenomenon
• 5.3.1 Rejecting the Transfer Account.
• 5.3.2 Rejecting the Causativization Account
• 5.3.3 Supporting the NPMovement Account
• 6. Conclusions, Pedagogical Implications and Recommendations for Furture Research
• 6.1 Conclusions
• 6.2 Pedagogical Implications
• 6.3 Recommendations for Furture Research
• References
• AppendixⅠ The 83 Cases of ‘Passive’Unaccusative Error in CLEC （Following the Error-tagging of CLEC）
• AppendixⅡ The 29 Cases of Overpassivization with the 8 Nonalternating Unaccusative Verbs in CLEC
• Apendix Ⅲ The 94 Cases of Overpassivization with the 5 Alternating Unaccusative Verbs in CLEC
• Acknowledgements