跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(3.236.84.188) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/08/06 10:05
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果 :::

詳目顯示

我願授權國圖
: 
twitterline
研究生:曾郁雯
研究生(外文):Tseng, Yu Wen
論文名稱:介系詞In/On片語語意分析:以母語及學習者語料庫為基礎之研究
論文名稱(外文):Semantic analysis of in/on prepositional phrases: A study based on english native speaker corpus and learner corpus
指導教授:鍾曉芳鍾曉芳引用關係
指導教授(外文):Chung, Siaw Fong
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立政治大學
系所名稱:英國語文學研究所
學門:教育學門
學類:普通科目教育學類
論文種類:學術論文
畢業學年度:100
語文別:英文
論文頁數:136
中文關鍵詞:第二語言習得BNC英國國家語料庫英文介系詞學習者語料庫語意分析
外文關鍵詞:second language acquisitionBNCEnglish prepositionslearner corpussemantic analysis
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:278
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:0
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:0
過去多數英文介系詞語意之研究皆以介系詞為多義詞,並藉由語意網絡去分析其詞義(e.g. Lindner, 1983; Tyler and Evans, 2001),或透過意象圖式理論(image schema theory)來探究介系詞語意,依不同的前景名詞(figure)與背景名詞(ground)組成可產生不同的形貌結構,從而衍生出其特殊語意(e.g. Lakoff, 1987)。然而,有關介系詞片語中詞彙搭配詞組如何影響介系詞使用之研究則較不多見。故本論文著重在分析前景與背景名詞等搭配詞組之語意特徵,探究其對介系詞in和on語意及介系詞片語組成之影響。以英國國家語料庫(British National Corpus)和政治大學外語學習者語料庫(The NCCU Foreign Language Learner Corpus)作分析,比較學習者與以英語為母語者使用in和on介系詞片語在語意上的差異。
本研究共分三部分。第一部分的詞義分析比較學習者與母語人士在使用in與on之詞義之異同,在介系詞in的部分,學習者與母語人士語料相較之下僅有細微的差異,多數語料皆為原型場景(proto-scene)之詞義的使用。介系詞on的詞義使用則稍有不同;學習者較傾向作具體位置的指涉,然母語者則較傾向呈現此介系詞的抽象意涵。第二部分的語意特徵分析則比較介系詞in和on在具體(literal)與抽象(metaphorical)片語組成上,前景與背景語意特徵之異同。研究結果顯示不同的介系詞片語會由特定類型的前景與背景名詞組成,故在組成不同語意之介系詞片語時,特定語意特徵出現的頻率會呈現顯著性地差異。第三部分為學習者語料的錯誤分析,探究學習者誤用in和on介系詞片語之情形。
綜合上述研究結果可得知,組成介系詞片語的名詞詞組會依上下文語意而產生不同之語意偏好(semantic preferences),介系詞的語意除了會受到後接名詞的影響,周圍名詞也可能造成語意上的差異。這些名詞可能會選擇特定的介系詞來使用,亦會影響介系詞在片語中之語意。
本論文深入地探討了介系詞片語詞組之組成,透過大量的語料分析,為英語介系詞複雜的語意層面提出了一個較系統化且完整之解釋,期能將研究發現應用於教材設計上,希望能在學習介系詞使用上有所幫助,也供未來介系詞相關研究作為參考。
The meanings of English preposition have been explored greatly through vast directions of research. Most studies agree that preposition is a polysemous lexical item whose senses can be construed from the semantic network (e.g. Lindner, 1983; Tyler and Evans, 2001). Its senses has also been examined under the image-schema theory from the cognitive perspective (e.g. Lakoff, 1987), in which the figure (or trajector) and ground (or landmark) interact differently to form various configurations that contribute to sets of distinct senses. Though these studies attempt to provide a comprehensive network for the meanings of prepositions, how the semantic features of the figure and ground might influence the choice of a preposition and the construction of a prepositional phrase is hardly seen. The thesis adopted a native speaker corpus (British National Corpus, BNC) and a learner corpus (The NCCU Foreign Language Learner Corpus, NCCU) to probe into how the semantic features of the figure and ground nouns can help explicate the semantic profiles of the preposition in and on, and to compare learners’ understanding of them with that of the native speakers’.
Based on the corpora, the study is composed of three major analyses. The sense analysis compared the sense distributions of in and on, from which similarities and differences may be found between BNC and NCCU. The result of this analysis showed that in the sense categories of in, the distribution did not differ greatly since most of the data were categorized into the proto-scene sense in both BNC and NCCU, and only slight variations could be found in other categories. In the sense categories of on, in senses that refer to location, higher frequency could be found in NCCU, while more metaphorical constructions of on were identified in BNC. In the second analysis, the semantic feature analysis, the distribution of the semantic features are compared between literal and metaphorical constructions of in and on and between BNC and NCCU respectively. For the comparison of in and on, the statistical results showed that different types of nouns could be observed in the data of particular prepositions. Thus, for nouns in prepositions of different meanings, there may be significant differences in the semantic features identified in these nouns This result implied that the nouns surrounding a preposition might have some influences toward the meaning of this preposition. In the third analysis, the errors in the learner data were identified and examined.
Based on the results, we proposed that in a prepositional phrase formed by a particular meaning of a preposition, there exist a range of semantic preferences shown in their co-text. The meanings of a preposition are influenced by the lexical words surrounding the preposition, rather than by the word that goes after the preposition (the ground). This thesis extends from the previous studies on the semantics of prepositions and includes the important linguistic elements in forming the prepositional phrases in the analysis. By incorporating a large amount of data, it also provides a systematic analysis and a more comprehensive explanation toward the complex semantics of English prepositions. The findings can be applied to the design of English teaching materials and techniques and may hopefully bring some insights to further preposition-related studies.

Acknowledgements..........................................ii
Chinese Abstract...........................................x
English Abstract.........................................xii
Chapter
1 INTRODUCTION.............................................1
1.1 Background and Motivation of the Study...............1
1.2 Significance of the Study............................5
1.3 Organization.........................................7
2 LITERATURE REVIEW........................................9
2.1 Semantic Analysis of Prepositions....................9
2.1.1 Cognitive perspective on the sense of preposition...10
2.1.2 The semantic network of prepositions................13
2.1.3 Related studies on prepositions from other perspectives..............................................19
2.2 De Vega et al.’s (2002) Study.........................21
2.3 Corpus-based Studies on Native Speaker and Learner’s Use of English Prepositions...................................23
2.4 Experimental Studies of the Learning of English Prepositions..............................................25
2.5 Summary of the Chapter................................28
3 METHODOLOGY.............................................31
3.1 Material..............................................31
3.2 The Tool for Extracting Data..........................33
3.3 Semantic Feature Analysis.............................36
3.3.1 Identifying the figure and ground noun phrases......37
3.3.2 Encoding the semantic features of figure and ground....................................................41
3.3.3 Data analysis.......................................44
3.4 Sense Analysis........................................45
3.4.1 Categorization of sense.............................45
3.4.2 Coding errors in the learner corpus.................48
3.5 Summary of the Chapter................................49
4 RESULTS.................................................51
4.1 Results of the Sense analysis.........................51
4.2 Results of the Semantic Feature Analysis..............62
4.2.1 The Comparison of semantic features between in and on........................................................63
4.2.1.1 Between figure nouns of literal expressions.......63
4.2.1.2 Between ground nouns of literal expressions.......66
4.2.1.3 Between figure nouns of metaphorical expressions..68
4.2.1.4 Between ground nouns of metaphorical expressions..74
4.2.1.5 The comparison of relative size and contact in literal expressions.......................................79
4.2.2 Semantic features for in and on between BNC and NCCU......................................................81
4.2.2.1 Figure nouns of in: Between BNC and NCCU..........81
4.2.2.2 Ground nouns of in: Between BNC and NCCU..........83
4.2.2.3 Figure nouns of on: Between BNC and NCCU..........86
4.2.2.4 Ground nouns of on: Between BNC and NCCU..........88
4.3 Error Analysis........................................91
4.4 Summary of the Chapter................................95
5 DISCUSSION..............................................99
5.1 Major Findings........................................99
5.2 Discussion of the Results............................105
5.3 Summary of the Chapter...............................113
6 CONCLUSION, LIMITATION, AND PEDAGOGICAL SUGGESTIONS....115
6.1 Overall Summary......................................115
6.2 Pedagogical Suggestions..............................117
6.3 Limitations, Suggestions for Future Studies, and Conclusion...............................................119
Appendix.................................................122
Appendix I: Encoding Instruction.........................122
Appendix II: Statistic Results of the Comparison of Semantic Features Between Data from BNC and NCCU..................124
Appendix III: Errors of Prepositional Phrases in the Learner Corpus...................................................127
References...............................................130
Liu, C. L. (劉昭麟) (1989)。利用語意機率模式解決英文介系詞片語定位問題之研究,碩士論文,國立清華大學。新竹:臺灣。
Anthony, L. (2005). AntConc: A Learner and Classroom Friendly, Multi-Platform Corpus Analysis Toolkit. Proceedings of IWLeL 2004: An Interactive Workshop on Language e-Learning, 7-13.
Armstrong, K. (2004). Sexing up the dossier: A semantic analysis of phrasal verbs for language teachers. Language Awareness, 13(4), 213-224.
Baker, P. (2006). Using corpora in discourse analysis. London, New York: Continuum.
Beitel, D.A., Gibbs, R.W. Jr. &; Sanders, P. (1997). The embodied approach to the polysemy of the spatial preposition on. In H. Cuyckens &; B. Zawada (Eds.), Polysemy in cognitive linguistics: selected papers from fifth international cognitive linguistics conference (pp. 241-260). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Bick, E. (2006). Noun sense tagging: Semantic prototype annotation of a portuguese treebank. In J. Hajic &; J. Nivre (Eds.), Proceedings of TLT 2006 (pp. 127-138), Prague, Czech Republic.
Boers, F. &; Demecheleer, M. (1998). A cognitive semantic approach to teaching prepositions. ELT Journal, 52(3), 197-204.
Cheng, P. Y. (2006). An analysis of EFL learners’ performance on “in, on, at” in Taiwan. Unpublished master’s thesis, Da-Yeh University, Changhua, Taiwan.
Chung, S. F. &; Tseng, Y. W. (2011). Learning prepositions: A corpus-based study in Taiwan EFL contexts. In M. Konopka, J. Kubczak, C. Mair, F. Štícha &; U. H. Waßner (Eds.), Grammatik und Korpora 2009 (pp. 575-584). Tübingen: Narr Dr. Gunter.
Chung, S. F., Wang, S. Y. &; Tseng, Y. W. (2010). The construction of the NCCU Foreign Language Learner Corpus. Foreign Language Studies, 12, 71-98.
Condon, N. (2008). How cognitive linguistic motivations influence the learning of phrasal verbs. In F. Boers &; S. Lindstromberg (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistic Approaches to Teaching Vocabulary and Phraseology (pp. 133-158). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Dagut, M. &; Laufer, B. (1985). Avoidance of phrasal verbs: A case for contrastive analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 7, 73-79.
Darwin, C. M. &; Gray, L. S. (1999). Going after the phrasal verb: An alternative approach to classification. TESOL Quarterly, 33(1), 65-83.
De Ilarraza, A. D., Mayor, A. Srasola, K. (2002). Semiautomoatic labeling of semantic features. Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, 1.
De Vega, M., Rodrigo, M. J., Ato, M., Dehn, D. M., Barquero, B. (2002). How nouns and prepositions fit together: An exploration of the semantics of locative sentences. Discourse Processes, 34(2), 117-143.
Dirven, R. (2001). English phrasal verbs: Theory and didactic application. In M. Pütz, S. Niemeier, &; R. Dirven (Eds.), Applied cognitive linguistics II: Language pedagogy (pp. 3-27). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Ellis, N. C. (2008). Phraseology: The periphery and the heart of language. In F. Meunier &; S. Granger (Eds.), Phraseology in foreign language learning and teaching (pp.1-13). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Evans, V. &; Tyler, A. (2004). Spatial experience, lexical structure and motivation: The case of in. In G. Radden &; K. Panther (Eds.), Studies in linguistic motivation (pp. 157-192). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Evans, V. (2006). A lexical concepts and cognitive models approach to spatial semantics: the “state” sense of English prepositions. In V. Evans &; P. Chilton (Eds.), Language, cognition and space. Unpublished manuscript. London: Equinox Publishing.
Forchini, P. &; Murphy, A. (2008). N-grams in comparable specialized corpora: Perspectives on phraseology, translation, and pedagogy. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 13(3), 351-367.
Fraser, B. (1976). The Verb-particle combination in English. Taikushan studies in Modern Linguistics. New York: Academic Press.
Fromkin, V., Rodman, R. &; Hyams, N. (2010). An introduction to language. New York: Wadsworth publishing.
Gardner, D. &; Davies, M. (2007). Pointing out frequent phrasal verbs: A corpus-based analysis. TESOL Quarterly, 41(2), 339-359.
Gilquin, G. &; Gries, S. T. (2009). Corpora and experimental methods: A state-of-the-art review. Corpus linguistics and linguistic theory, 5(1), 1-26.
Goddard, C. (2002). On and on: Verbal explications for a polysemic network. Cognitive linguistics, 13(3), 277-294.
Herskovits, A. (1988). Spatial expressions and the plasticity of meaning. In B. Rudzka-Ostyn (Ed.), Topics in cognitive linguistics (pp. 271-297). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Ho, Y. C. (2007). Implications of the polysemous network in teaching English spatial particles in and on. Unpublished master’s thesis, Tamkang University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Ho-Abdullah, I. (2010). A corpus-based cognitive lexical semantics analysis of prepositional usage in British, New Zealand and Malaysian English. Bern: Peter
Lang.
Hsu, Y. H. (2005). A cognitive semantic approach to teaching English prepositions in on and at for senior high school students in Taiwan. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Hulstijn, J. H. &; Marchena, E. (1989). Avoidance: Grammatical or semantic causes? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11, 241-255.
Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.
Khampang, P. (1974). Thai difficulties in using English prepositions. Language Learning, 24(2), 215-222.
Kreitzer, A. (1997). Multiple levels of schematization: A study in the conceptualization of space. Cognitive Linguistics, 8(4), 291-325.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar, I, theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Laufer, B. &; Eliasson, S. (1993). What causes avoidance in L2 learning: L1-L2 difference, L1-L2 similarity, or L2 complexity? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 35-48.
Liao, Y. &; Fukuya, Y. J. (2004). Avoidance of phrasal verbs: The case of Chinese learners of English. Language Learning, 54(2), 193-226.
Linder, S. J. (1983). A lexico-semantic analysis of English verb particle constructions with out and up. Indiana University Linguistics Club.
Lindstromberg, S. (1996). Prepositions: meaning and method. ELT Journal, 50(3), 225-236.
Lindstromberg, S. (2001). Prepositional entries in UK monolingual learners’ dictionaries: Problems and possible solutions. Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 79-103.
Lipka, L. (1992). An outline of English lexicology. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.
Machonis, P. A. (2008). Disambiguating phrasal verbs. Linguistica Investigationes, 31(2), 200-121.
McEnery, T., Xiao, R., &; Tono, Y. (2006). Corpus-based language studies: An advanced resource book. London, New York: Routledge.
Morimoto, S. &; Loewen, S. (2007). A comparison of the effects of image-schema-based instruction and translation-based instruction on the acquisition of L2 polysemous words. Language Teaching Research, 11(3), 347-372.
Morgan, P. S. (1997). Figure out figuring out: Metaphor and the semantics of the English verb-particle construction. Cognitive Linguistics, 8(4), 327-258.
Neagu, M. (2007). English verb particles and their acquisition. A cognitive approach. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada, 20. 121-138.
Odlin, T. (1989). Language transfer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Oxford English Dictionary. (n.d.). Retrieved November 15, 2010, from http://www.oed.com/
Peña C., S. (1998). The prepositions in and out and the trajectory-landmark distinction. RESLA, 13, 261-271.
Pustejovsky, J. (1995). The generative lexicon. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Richards, J. C., Platt, J. &; Platt, H. (1992). Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics. UK: Longman.
Rudzka-Ostyn, B. (2003). Word power: Phrasal verbs and compounds. Berlin: Mouton de Gryuter.
Sandra, D. &; Rice, S. (1995). Network analyses of prepositional meaning: Mirroring whose mind—the linguist’s or the language user’s? Cognitive Linguistics, 6(1), 89-130.
Side, R. (1009). Phrasal verbs: Sorting them out. ELT Journal, 44(2), 144-152.
Stubbs, M. (2007). An example of frequent English phraseology: Distribution, structures and functions. In R. Facchinetti (Ed.), Corpus linguistics 25 years on (pp. 89–105). Amsterdam: Radopi.
Tang, J. L. (2009). Error analysis of P-forms of on in verbal phrases used by EFL learners in Taiwan. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Changhua University of Education, Changhua, Taiwan.
Taylor, John R. (1993). Prepositions: Patterns of polysemization and strategies of disambiguation. In C. Zelinsky-Wibbelt (Ed.), The semantics of prepositions (pp. 151-175). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Tyler, A. &; Evans, V. (2001). Reconsidering prepositional polysemy networks: The case of over. Language, 77(4), 724-765.
Tyler, A. &; Evans, V. (2003). The semantics of English prepositions: Spatial scenes, embodied meaning and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ungerer, F. &; Schmid, H. (2006). An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics. Harlow, England, London &; New York: Pearson Longman.
Van der Grucht, F., Willems, K., &; De Cuypere, L. (2007). The iconicity of embodied meaning. Polysemy of spatial prepositions in the cognitive framework. Language Sciences, 29, 733-754.
Vandeloise, C. (1994). Methodology and analyses of the preposition in. Cognitive Linguistics, 5(2), 157-184.
Villavicencio, A. (2005). The availability of verb-particle constructions in lexical resources: How much is enough? Computer Speech and Language, 19, 415-432.
Wang, Y. (2007). A corpus-based analysis of some prepositions in Chinese learners’ English writing. Unpublished master’s thesis, Beijing University of Posts &; Communications. Beijing, China.
Wierzbicka, A. (1993). Why do we say in April, on Thursday, at 10 o’clock? In search of an explanation. Studies in Language, 17(2), 437-454.
連結至畢業學校之論文網頁點我開啟連結
註: 此連結為研究生畢業學校所提供,不一定有電子全文可供下載,若連結有誤,請點選上方之〝勘誤回報〞功能,我們會盡快修正,謝謝!
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top