(3.234.221.162) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/04/14 04:55
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:洪瀅瀅
研究生(外文):Ying-Ying Hung
論文名稱:外語學習者對於語言中身體換喻詞的共同和獨立語意之理解
論文名稱(外文):Shared and Separate Meanings of Body Part Metonymy in EFL Learners
指導教授:龔書萍龔書萍引用關係
指導教授(外文):Shu-Ping Gong
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立嘉義大學
系所名稱:外國語言學系研究所
學門:人文學門
學類:語言學類
論文種類:學術論文
畢業學年度:100
語文別:中文
論文頁數:65
中文關鍵詞:身體換喻詞東方文化修正階層模式第二外語習得
外文關鍵詞:body part metonymyEastern culturesthe Revised Hierarchical Modelsecond language acquisition
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:153
  • 評分評分:系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔
  • 下載下載:0
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:1
在英文和中文的日常生活對話中,我們很常使用換喻的概念去表達事物。舉例來講,我們在中文裡會說:「這支棒球隊有很多新手。」 (This baseball team has a lot of new hands.)。雖然我們在文獻中有找到許多第一語言(母語)換喻詞的研究,但關於第二外語身體換喻詞的相關研究卻相對地少。在本篇論文裡,我們用修正階層模式(Kroll and Stewart,1994)來檢驗英文的第二外語學習者如何獲得英文的身體換喻詞。
本篇論文的第一個研究中,我們從語料庫和線上字典找出身體換喻詞並檢視與分析哪些身體換喻詞在英文會使用、哪些在中英文都會使用、或是哪些只存在於中文。結果發現身體換喻詞在中文和英文確實有一些相同與不同的用法,而且中文使用內在的身體詞彙比英文多。而在第二個研究中是請20 位受試者利用電腦來判斷身體詞彙在句子中是否使用合宜以及測量他們的反應時間。40 句的句子有控制文法結構相同,句中的身體詞彙也是從第一個研究中所挑選的。實驗結果發現,第二外語學習者在反應那些中英文都有的身體換喻詞時,會比那些只存在於英文的換喻詞來的快並準確。
最後希望我們的研究能提供英語教學的老師在教學時,能知道哪些身體換喻詞彙的意思對學生來說是比較容易而哪些又是比較困難的,使得能設計出適當英文教學教材。
Metonymy is frequently used in our daily conversation and very productive in English and
Chinese. For example, “This baseball team has a lot of new hands.” (這支棒球隊有很多新手。)
Even though many studies focused on the use of metonymy from the first language perspective,
little research discussed the metonymy acquisition from the second language perspective. In this
thesis, we looked at English and Chinese body part metonymies and examined (1) whether the
use of body part metonymy are influenced by different cultures, i.e., Eastern and Western cultures, and (2) how EFL learners process English body part metonymy.
In Study One, we classified body part metonym from corpora and online dictionary to determine what body part metonymies are used in English only, in Chinese only and in both Chinese and English. The corpus results showed that body part metonymy meanings have the
same and different usages in English and in Chinese. In addition, Chinese metonymies use more
internal body parts than English. In Study Two, we asked 20 subjects to judge whether body part
metonym in sentences were appropriate or not and the reaction times were measured by
computer. The 40 metonymic sentences using body part terms were adopted from the corpus
study (i.e., Study One). We found out EFL learners responded to English body-part metonymic
expressions that also had the same usages in Chinese faster and more correctly than those that did not have similar usages in Chinese.
All in all, it is hoped that our research can provide direction for EFL teachers in designing
English materials and understand what meanings of body part lexicons could be more difficult or easier for students to acquire.
Table Of Contents Abstract.......................... ii
摘要................................................. iii
Acknowledgements .................................... iv
Chapter 1 Introduction............................... 1
Chapter 2 Background ................................ 4
2.1 Metonymy......................................... 4
2.2 Body Part Metonymy............................... 7
2.3 Bilinguals & the Revised Hierarchical Model......... 8
2.3.2 Shared and separate systems in bilinguals ........ 11
2.4 Metaphor in L2 .................................. 11
2.5 Metonymy and SLA................................. 14
2.5.1 Metonymic inferencing and second language acquisition........................................ 14
2.5.2 Body part life form metonymy and the comprehension of L2 learners .................... 16
2.6 Limitations of previous studies and our goals....... 19
2.8 Research Questions................................ 20
3.1 Study 1 -- A Corpus Research....................... 21
3.2 Method .......................................... 21
3.2.1 Corpora................................... 21
3.2.2 Procedure .................................... 22
3.3 Results and Discussion........................... 25
3.3.1 The meanings of body part metonymies exist in both English and Chinese ............ 26
3.3.2 The meanings of body part metonymies exist in English only.................................. 29
3.3.3 The meanings exist in Chinese only............. 31
3.3.4 Summary ....................................... 33
4.1 Study 2— Online Judgment Experiment................ 36
4.2 Method .......................................... 36
4.2.1 Participants .................................. 36
4.2.2 Materials & Design ............................ 37
4.2.3 Procedure ..................................... 39
4.3 Results & Discussion............................. 40
Chapter 5 General Discussion & Conclusion ........... 43
5.1 Discussion of the Corpus Study .................. 43
5.2 Discussion of the online Judgment Experiment........ 45
5.4 Significance................................... 47
5.5 Limitation .................................... 48
References......................................... 49
Appendix 1 The meanings of body part metonymy exist in both English and Chinese ...... 54
Appendix 2 Materials for the online judgment experiment..61
Appendix 3 Examples of teaching body part metonymy..... 63
Barcelona, A. (2002). On the Ubiquity and Multiple-level Operation of Metonymy.
In B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk & K. Turewicz (eds.), Cognitive Linguistics Today (pp.
207 - 224). Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang.
Barcelona, A. (2010). Metonymic inferencing and second language acquisition. AILA Review,
23(1), 134 - 154.
Cieślicka, A. (2010). Formulaic language in L2 storage, retrieval and production of idioms by
second language learners, in M. Pütz & L. Sicola (eds.). Cognitive Processing in Second
Language Acquisition (p. 149 - 168), Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Croft, W. (1993). The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and metonymies.
Cognitive Linguistics, 4(4), 335 - 370.
Croft, W. and Cruse D. A. (2004). Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge University Press
Cutting, J. C. & Bock, K. (1997). That’s the way the cookie bounces: syntactic and semantic
components of experimentally elicited idiom blends. Memory & Cognition, 25(1), 57 – 71.
Deignan, A. (2005). Metaphor and Corpus Linguistics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John
Benjamins.
Eric Scott (2009). Body Part Life Form Metonymy and the Comprehension of Taiwanese L2
Learners. Master thesis. National Cheng Kung University.
Goatly, A. (2007). Washing the brain-Metaphor and Hidden Ideology: Amsterdam/Philadelphia:
John Benjamins.
Gibbs, R.W., Jr. (1999). Speaking and thinking with metonymy. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
50
Hartsuiker, R. J., Pickering, M. J & Veltkamp, E. (2004). Is syntax separate or shared between l
anguages? Cross-linguistic syntactic priming in Spanish-English bilinguals. Psychological
Science, 15, 409 - 414.
Hilpert, M. (2006). Keeping and eye on the data: Metonymies and their patterns. In Anatol
Stefanowitsch and Stefan T. Gries (eds). Corpus-based Approaches to Metaphor and
Metonymy, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 123 - 51.
Hilpert, M. (2007). Chained metonymies in lexicon and grammar: A cross-linguistic perspective
on body-part terms. Aspects of Meaning Construction, 78 - 94.
Holme, R. (2009). Cognitive Linguistis and Language Teaching.: Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Ibáñez, F. J.R de M., Velasco O. I. D., Radden G. & Panther K. (2004). Metonymic motivation in
anaphoric reference Berlin. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Kroll, J. F. & Stewart, E. (1994). Category interference in translation and picture naming:
Evidence for asymmetric connections between bilingual memory representations.
Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 149 – 174.
Kövecses, Z.& Radden, G. (1998). Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive
Linguistics, 9(1), 37 - 77.
Kövecses, Z. (2000). Metaphor and Emotion: Language, Culture, and Body in Human Feeling.
Cambridge University Press.
Kövecses, Z. (2001). A cognitive linguistic view of learning English idioms in an FLT context.
Applied Cognitive Linguistics II: Language Padagogy. Berlin/New York: Mouton de
Gruyter.
51
Krišković, A. & Tominac, S. (2009). Metonymy based on cultural background knowledge and
pragmatic inferencing: evidence from spoken discourse. Fluminensia : časopis za
filološka istraživanja, 49 - 72.
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: The University of Chicago
Press.
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. 1: theoretical prerequisties.
Stanford, Calif.: Standofr Unviersity Press.
Langacker, R. W. (2009). Metonymic grammar: Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Li, L., Mo, L., Wang, R., Luo, X. & Chen, Z. (2009). Evidence for long-term cross-language
repetition priming in low fluency Chinese–English bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language
and Cognition 12 (1), 13 – 21
Littlemore, J.(2009). Applying Cognitive Linguistics to Second Language Learning
and Teaching. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
Low, J. L. G. (2006). Metaphoric Competence, Second Language Learning, and Communicative
Language Ability Applied Linguistics. Applied Linguistics, 27(2), 268 - 294.
Marian, V., Spivey, Mi. & Hirsch, J. (2003). Shared and separate systems in bilingual language
processing: Converging evidence from eyetracking and brain imaging. Brain and
Language, 86, 70 – 82.
Martin. P. , S. N., & René, D. (2001). Applied Cognitive Linguistics II: Language Pedagogy.
Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Panther, K.U. (2005). The role of metonymy in meaning construction. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter,
353 - 386.
52
Panther, K-U, & Radden, G (1999). Metonymy in Language and Thought.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Potter, Mary C., So, Kwok- Fai, Von Eckhart, Barbara. & Feldman, Laurie B. (1984). Lexical
and conceptual representation in beginning and proficient bilinguals. Journal of Verbal
Learning and Verbal Behavior, 23, 23 – 38.
Radden, Z. K. a. G. (1998). Metonymy: Developing a Cognitive Linguistic View. Cognitive
Linguistics, 9(1), 37 - 77.
Robert J. Hartsuiker, M. J. P. & Eline Veltkamp. (2004). Is Syntax Separate or Shared Between
Languages? . Psychological Science 15(6), 409 - 414.
Ronald W. Langacker(1987). Theoretical Prerequisites.(Vol. 1): Stanford CA: Stanford
University Press.
Saville-Troike, Muriel (2006). Introducing Second Language Acquisition: Cambrige University
Press.
Sprenger, S. A., Levelt, W. J. M.& Kempen, Gerard (2006). Lexical access during the production
of idiomatic phrases. Journal of Memory and Language, 54 (2006) 161 – 184.
Yu, N. (1998). The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor: A perspective from Chinese. John
Benjamin’s Publishing Company.
Yu, N. (2003). Metaphor, Body, and Culture: The Chinese Understanding of Gallbladder and
Courage. METAPHOR AND SYMBOL, 18(1), 13-31.
Yu, N. (2009). From Body to Meaning in Culture. John Benjamin’s Publishing Company.
曹逢甫、蔡立中、劉秀瑩 (1991). 身體與譬喻:語言與認知的首要介面. 台北:文鶴出版社.
黃居仁、謝舒凱、洪嘉馡、陳韻竹、陳永祥、黃勝傳 (2010). 中文詞彙網路:跨語言知識處理基礎架構的設計理念與實踐 .中文信息學報, 24(2): 14-23.
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
系統版面圖檔 系統版面圖檔