國立臺灣師範大學博碩士論文全文系統

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

回結果列表

研究生：	林宜萱 Yi-Xuan Veronica Lin
論文名稱：	論量化詞範域之歧義性:英文第二語言習得中,台灣學生對於英文量化詞的詮釋 On Scope Ambiguity: An Experimental Study of Taiwanese Students' Interpretations of English Quantificational Noun Phrases in L2 Acquisition of English
指導教授：	陳純音 Chen, Chun-Yin
學位類別：	碩士 Master
系所名稱：	英語學系 Department of English
論文出版年：	2004
畢業學年度：	92
語文別：	英文
論文頁數：	191
中文關鍵詞：	第二語言習得、邏輯形式、全稱量化詞、範域、句法學、偏稱量化詞
英文關鍵詞：	L2 Acquisition, Logical Form, universal quantifier, scope, syntax, existential quantifier
論文種類：	學術論文
相關次數：	點閱：209 下載：23
分享至:	分享至facebook 分享至twitter

查詢本校圖書館目錄查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統勘誤回報

本論文旨在探討台灣學生對不同句法結構（如：簡單主動句、簡單被動句、雙賓結構、授予結構、主語控制句、賓語控制句）中英語量化詞的詮釋。本實驗共設計兩種測驗（即問答題和圖片選擇題），受試對象為就讀於臺灣師範大學英語學系的30名大二學生及就讀於高雄中學一年級的30名高中生，他們須就出現於六種結構中不同順序（全稱量化詞在偏稱量化詞之前及偏稱量化詞在全稱量化詞之前）的英語量化詞加以詮釋。另外，本實驗尚有18名以英語為母語的人士及15名國文系學生分別擔任兩組控制組。所收集的資料是以SPSS統計軟體裡的卡方檢定與事後比較來分析。
實驗結果顯示：(1)母語影響顯著，且高成就與低成就學生在解讀英語量化詞時並沒有顯著差異；(2) 不同的測驗題型對於受試者在解讀英語量化詞上有顯著影響；(3)受試學生對於量化詞的詮釋受到句法結構的影響，句法結構對臺灣學生與英語母語者的影響有顯著差異；(4) 量化詞的先後順序也對受試學生詮釋量化詞有顯著影響。因此，依本研究結果來看，發展英語教學理論輔助學生習得英語量化詞是必要的；為能對英語量化詞的實證結果提供一個合理的解說，句法學與語意學理論適度的修正亦是必要的。

This thesis aims at investigating Taiwanese students’ interpretations of English quantificational noun phrases (QNPs) in six constructions (i.e., simple active, simple passive, double object, dative, subject control, and object control constructions). Two experimental groups (one consisting of thirty sophomores from the English Department in NTNU, and the other, thirty first-year high school students from Municipal Kaohsiung Senior High School) were asked to interpret sentences with two sequences of QNPs (a universal QNP preceding an existential QNP and an existential QNP preceding a universal QNP) in the six constructions. In addition, there were eighteen English native controls and fifteen Chinese native controls. The experiment consisted of two tasks: a picture-selection task and a problem-solving task. Every response was entered into the SPSS statistics package. The Chi-square test and posterior comparisons were applied for data analysis.
The results showed that: (1) L1 influence was significant, and the high achievers and low achievers did not exhibit any significant differences in interpreting QNPs; (2) There was a methodology effect on the subjects’ interpretations of QNPs; (3) There were construction effects on the English learners and on the English native controls; (4) A sequence effect on the subjects’ interpretations of QNPs was obvious. Based on the results, the present study suggests that the development of TEFL theories to help Taiwanese students acquire English QNPs be necessary and that syntactic and semantic theories need to be revised to capture the present empirical findings.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ENGLISH ABSTRACT…………………………………………………….i
CHINESE ABSTRACT……………………………………………………ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS……………………………………………………iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS……………………………………………………iv
LIST OF TABLES………………………………………………………viii
LIST OF FIGURES……………………………………………………..xi
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS…………………………………..………xiii

   INTRODUCTION………………………………………………1
1    Motivation………………………………………………..1
2    Theoretical Background…………………………………2
2.1    The SLA Framework………………………………...……2
2.2    Language Typology………………………………………4
2.3    The Linguistic Framework…………………………….6
3    Research Questions……………………………………10
4    Organization of the Thesis…………………………10

   LINGUISTIC PROPERTIES AND PREVIOUS STUDIES OF QNPs...................................................12
1    Linguistic Properties of QNPs…………….………12
1.1    Simple Active Constructions………………….……12
1.2    Simple Passive Constructions………………………15
1.3    Double Object Constructions…………….…………17
1.4    Dative Constructions…………………………………19
1.5    Subject Control Constructions……………….……21
1.6    Object Control Constructions………………………24
1.7    A Comparison of QNPs in English and Chinese Syntactic Constructions…………………………………...….26
2    Syntactic Analyses of QNPs……..…………………27
2.1    Aoun and Hornstein (1985)…………………….……28
2.2    Aoun and Li (1989)……………………………………31
2.3    Kuno et al. (199………………………………………39
3    Previous Empirical Studies of QNPs………………45
3.1    Lee (1991)………………………………………………45
3.2    Crain et al. (1996)…………………………….……52
4    Summary of Chapter Two………………………………58

   EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN AND RESULTS………….………60
1    Subjects………….…………………………………….60
2    Methodologies and Material…………………………61
3    Procedures………………………………………………66
3.1    Pilot Study…………………………………………….67
3.2    Formal Testing…………………………………………69
3.3    Scoring…………….……………………………………69
4    Results………………………………….………………70
4.1    The Problem-Solving Task……………………………70
4.1.1    Simple Active Constructions………………….……70
4.1.2    Simple Passive Constructions………………………73
4.1.3    Double Object Constructions……………………….76
4.1.4    Dative Constructions…………………………………78
4.1.5    Subject Control Constructions……………….……80
4.1.6    Object Control Constructions………………………83
4.2    The Picture-Selection Task…………………………85
4.2.1    Simple Active Constructions……………………….85
4.2.2    Simple Passive Constructions………………………88
4.2.3    Double Object Constructions……………………….90
4.2.4    Dative Constructions…………………………………92
4.2.5    Subject Control Constructions…………………….95
4.2.6    Object Control Constructions………………………97
5      Summary of Chapter Three…………………………..99

   DISCUSSION……………………………………………..101
1    SLA Issues………………………………………………101
1.1    L1 Transfer…………………………………………….101
1.2    Methodology Effect……………………………….….110
2    Linguistic Implications…………………………….113
2.1    Construction Effect………………………………….114
2.2    Sequence Effect………………………..…………….122
3    Summary of Chapter Four…………………………….125

   CONCLUSION………………………………………………126
1    Pedagogical and Linguistic Implications….……126
2    Limitations of the Present Study and Suggestions  for Further Research….................................127

BIBLIOGRAPHY…………………………………………….…………128
APPENDIX A: Questionnaire for the Subjects’ Background     Information…………....................................134
APPENDIX B: The Picture-Selection Task………….…………135
APPENDIX C: The Problem-Solving Task……………………….171
APPENDIX D: The Chinese Test Sentences with “you” Preceding an Existential QNP in the Subject Position...183
APPENDIX E: The Consent Form…...………………………..…188
APPENDIX F: The Results of Two Tasks in the Pilot Study189
                                

BIBLOGRAPHY

Aoun, Joseph, & Hornstein, Norbert. 1985. Quantifier Types, Linguistic Inquiry 16: 623-36.

Aoun, Joseph, Hornstein, Norbert, & Sportiche, Dominique. 1981. Aspects of Wide Scope Quantification, Journal of Linguistic Research 1: 67-95.

Aoun, Joseph, & Li, Audrey. 1989. Scope and Constituency, Linguistic Inquiry 20: 141-172.

Aoun, Joseph, & Li, Audrey. 1993. Syntax of Scope. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Aoun, Joseph, & Sportiche, Dominique. 1983. On the Formal Theory of Government, Linguistic Review 2: 211-236.

Ard, Josh., & Homburg, Taco. 1992. Verification of Language Transfer, in S. Gass & L. Selinker (Eds.), Language Transfer in Language Learning, pp.47–70. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co.

Bialystok, Ellen, & Hakata, Kenji. 1999. Confounded Age: Linguistic and Cognitive Factors in Age Differences for Second Language Acquisition, in David Birdsong (Ed), Second Language Acquisition and the Critical Period Hypothesis, pp. 161-181. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Carpenter, Bob. 1997. Type-Logical Semantics. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Cheng, Hsu-Te. 2002. On Scope Ambiguities of Quantifiers. Master Thesis, NTNU.

Chomsky, Norm. 1977. Essays on Form and Interpretation. New York: Elsevier North-Hollan.

Chomsky, Norm. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.

Chomsky, Norm. 1986. Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Chomsky, Norm. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Cook, Vivian. 1993. Linguistic and Second Language Acquisition. London: the Macmillan Press Ltd.

Crain, Stephen, Thornton, Rosalind, Boster Carole, Conway, Laura, Lillo-Martin, Diane, & Woodams, Elaine. 1996. Quantification without Qualification, Language Acquisition 5: 83-153.

Crane, Stephen, & Thornton, Rosalind. 1998. Investigations in Universal Grammar: A Guide to Experiments on the Acquisition of Syntax and Semantics. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Flege, James E. 1999. Age of Learning and Second Language Speech, in David Birdsong (Ed), Second Language Acquisition and the Critical Period Hypothesis, pp. 101-132. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Fromkin, Victoria, & Rodman, Robert. 1998. An Introduction to Language. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.

Gass, Susan, & Selinker, Larry. (Eds). 1992. Language Transfer in Language Learning. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co.

Gass, Susan, & Selinker, Larry. 2001. Second Language Acquisition: An introductory course, 2nd edition. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Haegeman, Liliane. 1994. Introduction to Government and Binding Theory, 2nd edition. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Heim, Irene. 1982. The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite NPs. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Massachusetts.

Hornstein, Norbert. 1984. Logic as Grammar. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Hornstein, Norbert. 1995. Logical Form: From GB to Minimalism. Cambridge, Mass: Blackwell.

Huang, C.-T. James. 1982. Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT.

Huang, C.-T. James. 1983. On the Representation of Scope in Chinese, Journal of Chinese Linguistics 11: 36-91.

Huang, C.-T. James. 1995. Logical Form, in Gert Webelhuth (Ed.), Government and Binding Theory and the Minimalist Program, pp.125-75. Oxford: Blackwell.

Huang, Shuan-fan. 1981. On the Scope Phenomenon of Chinese Quantifiers, Journal of Chinese Linguistics 9: 226-243.

Hudson, Williams. 1986. Predication Operators and Licensing of Indefiniteness. Thesis, UCLA, Los Angeles.

Ioup, Georgette. 1975. Some Universals for Quantifier Scope, in John Kimball (Ed.), Syntax and Semantics, pp.37-58. New York: Academic Press.

Johnson, J., & Newport, E. 1989. Critical Period Effects in Second Language Learning: the Influence of Maturational State on the Acquisition of English as a Second Language. Cognitive Psychology 21: 60-99.

Kaltenbacher, Martin. 2001. Universal grammar and parameter resetting in second language acquisition. New York : P. Lang.

Kayne, Richard S. 1981a. ECP Extensions, Linguistic Inquiry 12: 93–133.

Kayne, Richard S. 1981b. Two Notes on the NIC, in A. Belletti, L. Brandi, and L. Rizzi (Eds), Theory of Markedness in Generative Grammar, pp.317-346. Pisa: Scuola Normale Superiore.

Kayne, Richard S. 1984. Connectedness and Binary Branching. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.

Keenan, Edward. 1971. Quantifier Structures in English, Foundations of Language 7: 255-284.

Kuno, Susumo, & Takami, Ken-Ichi. 1999. Quantifier Scope in English, Chinese, and Japanese, Language 75: 63-111.

Larsen-Freeman, Diane, & Long, Michael H. 1991. An Introduction to Second Language Acquisition Research. New York: Longman Inc.

Larson, Richard. 1988. On the Double Object Construction, Linguistic Inquiry 21: 589-632.

Laufer, Batia, & Eliasson, Stig. 1993. What Causes Avoidance in L2 Learning: L1–L2 Difference, L1–L2 Similarity, or L2 Complexity? Studies in Second Language Acquisition 15: 33–48.

Lee, Thomas. 1986. Studies on Quantification in Chinese. Doctoral Dissertation, UCLA, Los Angeles, California.

Lee, Thomas. 1991. Linearity as a Scope Principle for Chinese: The Evidence from First Language Acquisition, in D. Napoli & J. Kegl (Eds.), Bridges between Psychology and Linguistics, pp.183-206. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Lewis, David. 1975. Adverbs of Quantification, in E. Keenan (Ed.), Formal Semantics of Natural Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Li, Charles, & Thompson, Sandra. 1981. Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference Grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.

May, Robert. 1977. The Grammar of Quantification. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.

May, Robert. 1985. Logical Form. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Philip, William. 1991. Spreading in the Acquisition of Universal Quantifiers, in Dawn Bates (Ed.), Proceedings of the Tenth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, pp.359-373. Stanford, CA: CSLI.

Philip, William. 1992. Distributivity and Logical Form in the Emergence of Universal Quantification, Proceedings of the 2nd Conference on Semantic and Linguistic Theory, Ohio State Working Papers in Linguistics 40: 327-346.

Philip, William, & Verrips, Maaike. 1994. Dutch Preschoolers’ Elk, paper presented at the 19th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, Boston.

Reinhart, Tanya. 1981. Defining NP Anaphora and C-command Domains, Linguistic Inquiry 12: 605-35.

Ringbom, Hakan. 1987. The Role of the First Language in Foreign Language Learning. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.

Roeper, Thomas, & De Villiers, Jill. 1991. The Emergence of Bound Variable Structures, in T. Maxfield and B. Plunkett (Eds.), University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers: Papers in the Acquisition of WH, pp.267-282. Massachusetts: GLSA, Amherst.

Schachter, Jacquelyn. 1983. A New Account of Language Transfer, in S. Gass & L. Selinker (Eds.), Language transfer in language learning, pp.32-46. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co.

Takahashi, Mari. 1991. Children’s Interpretation of Sentences Containing ‘Every’, in T. Maxfield and B. Plunkett (Eds.), University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers: Papers in the Acquisition of WH, pp.303-329. Massachusetts: GLSA, Amherst.

White, Lydia. 1989. Universal Grammar and Second Language Acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Yang, Rong. 2001. Common Nouns, Classifiers, and Quantification in Chinese. Doctoral Dissertation, Rutgers University.

林清山 1992. <<心理與教育統計學>> 台北：臺灣東華書局。

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

相關論文