英汉结果构式RAP制约的认知研究

论文价格:300元/篇 论文用途:硕士毕业论文 Master Thesis 编辑:vicky 点击次数:
论文字数:52555 论文编号:sb2021100813021838655 日期:2021-10-15 来源:硕博论文网
本文是一篇英语论文,本论文的主要目标体现在两个方面。一方面,通过对英汉动静态组合的分析,揭示英汉动结式的语义特征、句法特征、说唱限制、认知理据和机制。另一方面,旨在补充前人的研究成果,发展相关研究成果。

Chapter One Introduction

1.1 Research Background
Goldberg (1995) defines the construction as: “C is a CONSTRUCTION iff def C is a form-meaning pair< Fi, Si > such that some aspects of Fi or some aspects of Si is not  strictly  predictable  from  C’s  components  parts  or  from  other  previously established constructions”. Resultative constructions are important syntactic structures in English and Chinese.
With the continuous developments of cognitive linguistics and the deepening of the  researches,  resultative  constructions  have  attracted  more  and  more  attention  of linguists and scholars at home and abroad. From the perspective of event structures, a resultative construction is composed of two sub-events with causal relationship. These two sub-events are expressed by predicate verbs and resultant predicates respectively. Resultant  predicates  are  also  known  as  resultative  complements  in  English  and Chinese. However, there are differences in verbs and resultant complements between different languages and the same language, which provides a basis for the comparison of resultative constructions between English and Chinese. Complements in resultative constructions are abbreviated to R, and the adjective complements used in resultative constructions can be called for short as RAP.
   In  the  study  of  western  scholars,  Wechsler(2001)  found  that  there  were  24 adjectives that could be used as the RAP in English resultative constructions. Moreover, some Western scholars have found that there is an opposition phenomenon in English resultative constructions that is worth studying (Green 1974; Dowty 1979; Wechsler 2005) . In English resultative constructions, some adjectives can act as RAP, but their antonyms can not. For example:
(1) Wipe the table clean / dry. 
(2) Wipe the table *dirty / *wet.
In  example  (1),  adjectives  “clean”  and  “dry”  can  act  as  the  RAP,  while  their antonyms “dirty” and “wet” cannot. The expression in example (2) is ungrammatical. In Chinese resultative constructions, however, this kind of antagonism does not exist, expressions  like  “把桌子擦干净/干/脏/湿”  are  accepted  and  they  are  grammatical Chinese  expressions.  It  can  be  seen  that  there  are  still  some  linguistic  phenomena which are worth studying in English and Chinese resultative constructions. 
..................................

1.2 Research Objective and Significance
Taking the corpus of COCA and CCL as the research objects, the thesis discusses the target resultative constructions in English and Chinese under the framework of the grammar network theory.
Generally speaking, English and Chinese resultative constructions are composed of  verbs  and  complements  with  the  semantic  meanings  of  “action-result”.  Both Chinese  and  English  resultative  constructions  express  a  certain  state,  and  this  state always  forms  a  predication  relation  of  “action-result”  with  the  preceding  verb. Complements are syntactic categories, while results are semantic concepts. There are mapping  relationships  between  complements  and  results.  Therefore,  the  syntactic expressions of English and Chinese resultative constructions can be expressed as [V Comp],  and  the  corresponding  semantic  features  are  [ACT  RESULT],  that  is  to  say, the  basic  semantic  meanings  are:  “The  subsequent  NP  of  a  verb  changes  its  nature, state and other features directly or indirectly due to the action of V.” (Xiong, 2004). The  grammatical  meanings  of  English  and  Chinese  resultative  constructions  can  be abstracted as: An entity factor causes a final resultant state change of something else or itself due to an action (Luo, 2009).
On  the  basis  of  the  previous  research  results,  this  thesis  expounds  the  basic concepts  of  resultative  constructions  in  English  and  Chinese,  and  also  sorts  out  the previous  research  investigations.  What  needs  to  be  explained  here  is  that  although there are different types of resultant complements in English and Chinese resultative constructions,  only  those  resultative  constructions  whose  resultant  complements  are adjectives are concerned in the whole research process. 
............................

Chapter Two Literature Review

2.1 Definitions and Classifications of Resultative Constructions
All the time, the academic circles at home and abroad have paid much attention to  resultative  constructions,  and  researches  on  resultative  constructions  play  an important  role  in  the  theory  and  application  researches  of  linguistics.  Different scholars  have  made  different  definitions  of  English  and  Chinese  resultative constructions.
2.1.1 Definitions of Resultative Constructions
In  order  to  better  explain  the  semantic  and  syntactic  functions  of  resultative constructions  and  to  better  compare  English  and  Chinese  resultative  constructions, this section describes the narrow definitions of resultative constructions. 
English resultative constructions have been explored for a long time, but they are still some controversial phenomena. Halliday(1967) is generally considered to be the first  leader  to  give  the  definition  of  English  resultative  constructions.  According  to Halliday’s (1967) view, resultative constructions are complex event structures, which are  composed  of  active  components  and  end  state  components.  Rappaport  and Levin(2001)  subsequently  defined  them  as  event  structures  consisting  of  cause sub-events  and  result  sub-events.  For  example:  “Tom  paint  the  wall  a  pale  shade  of green”. In this example, the cause sub-event is that “Tom painted the wall”. The result  sub-event is that “The wall turns pale green”. With the rapid development of cognitive linguistics,  Goldberg(1995)  argued  that  resultative  constructions  could  only  be applied to arguments which potentially undergo the changes of states as the results of the  action  denoted  by  the  verbs.  In  this  thesis,  Goldberg’s  view  is  adopted,  and English resultative constructions are the metaphorical extensions of the cause-motion representing the displacement. 
............................

2.2 Previous Researches on English Resultative Constructions
According  to  the  literature  at  hand,  the  researches  on  English  resultative constructions  can  be  traced  back  into  Jespersen(1949).  At  present,  there  have  been many achievements in the studies of English resultative constructions. Scholars have obtained many valuable research results from different perspectives based on different theories.  Tenny(1994)studied  resultative  constructions  from  the  perspective  of  event structures,  Levin  &  Rappaport(1995)  researched  resultative  constructions  from  the lexical  semantic  perspective,  Hoekstra(1988),  Levin  &  Rappaport(2001)  and  Van Valin(1990)  adopted  the  perspective  of  syntactic  structures,  Goldberg(1995)  carried out  her  research  from  the  constructional  perspective,  Boas(2003)  started  studying from  the  cognitive  and  pragmatic  perspective  based  on  corpus.  The  thesis  mainly groups researches on English resultative constructions into three aspects. 
2.2.1 Researches on the Types
In  terms  of  the  types  of  English  resultative  constructions,  researchers  make different distinctions based on different criteria. 
Boas(2003)  classified  English  resultative  constructions  into  five  categories according to the semantic selection relations between the NP and verbs. The first type is  resultative  constructions  with  selected  objects.  The  second  type  is  resultative constructions with the mandatory choice of objects. The third category is resultative constructions  with  reflexive  pronoun  objects.  The  fourth  type  is  resultative constructions whose verbs are transitive verbs with unselected objects. And resultative constructions whose verbs are intransitive verbs with unselected objects belong to the fifth type. For instance: 
(7) a. Tom painted the house red. (The first type) b. John ran his shoes threadbare. (The second type) c. Jack drank himself sleepy. (The third type) d. Beryl painted the brush into pieces. (The fourth type) e. Melissa ran her feet sore. (The fifth type) 
Graph 1: Network Pattern of Syntactic Generation in Cognitive Linguistics
Graph 1: Network Pattern of Syntactic Generation in Cognitive Linguistics
................................

Chapter Three Theoretical Framework .......................... 29
3.1 Construction Grammar .......................................... 29
3.1.1 Origin and Development of Construction Grammar ............................ 29
3.1.2 Main Tenets of Construction Grammar ................................................ 31
Chapter Four Semantic Features of English and Chinese Resultative Constructions . 42
4.1 Constructional Nodes in English and Chinese Resultative Constructions ...... 42
4.1.1 Relational and Inheritance Relations ................................ 42
4.1.2 Causative Event Structures .......................... 43
Chapter  Five  Semantic  Constraints  of  RAP  in  English  and  Chinese  Resultative Constructions ................................. 56
5.1 Quantities and Types of RAP ....................................... 56
5.1.1 RAP Types .......................................... 57
5.1.2 RAP Quantities ................................ 59

Chapter Six Cognitive Motivations and Mechanisms of English and Chinese Resultative Constructions

6.1 Cognitive Motivations
In  English  and  Chinese  resultative  constructions,  there  are  two  main  cognitive motivations. One is event-language mapping, the other is event-language delimiting. Delimiting  is  related  to  the  term  “telicity”.  So  it’s  necessary  to  understand  “telicity” firstly. “Telicity” has evolved from philosophy to semantics to syntactic analysis since Aristotle.  Later  scholars  (Talmy,  2000)  extended  “telicity”  to  semantic  analysis  of nouns and adjectives. And it was culminated in Tenny(1994). One of the most famous claims  of  Tenny  is  the  Single  Delimiting  Constraints,  abbreviated  as  SDC,  which means an event can only be delimited once at most. When SDC maps to language, it means that a verb can only be delimited once at most, or an event described by a verb can  only  have  one  endpoint.  Goldberg(1995)  made  a  similar  point,  namely  Unique Path Constraint (UPC), or Unique Change of State Constrint (UCSC), to explain some co-occurrence constraint problems in resultative constructions.
6.1.1 Event-Language Mapping
The  unidirectional  mappings  and  mapping  deviations  between  events  and languages are the basis and embodiment of the diversities of “telicity”.
On  the  one  hand,  there  are  unidirectional  mappings  of  events  to  languages. Experience-based cognitive linguistics holds the view that the generations of syntactic structures generally go through the following processes: First, as objective existences, events are composed of actions or states and their participants to form some specific event  structures.  Then  the  event  structures  in  the  external  empirical  world  are conceptualized  into  the  human  brain  to  form  the  conceptual  structures,  which  are further abstracted into the semantic structures of languages. Finally, for the needs of language  and  communication,  semantic  structures  are  structured  or  grammaticalized to  facilitate  syntactic  structures,  and  finally  form  actual  sentences  used  in  specific contexts. 
Graph 2:   The Network Mapping Model of Syntactic Structure of Causative Events in Cognitive Linguistics
Graph 2:   The Network Mapping Model of Syntactic Structure of Causative Events in Cognitive Linguistics
.............................

Chapter Seven Conclusions

7.1 Major Findings
The main findings of the thesis are as follows:
First,  English  and  Chinese  resultative  constructions  are  the  syntactic representations  of  the  causative  event  structures.  According  to  the  iconicity  of  their semantic structures and causative event structures, the semantic types of English and Chinese  resultative  constructions  can  be  divided  into  four  categories:  typical resultative  constructions,  quasi-typical  resultative  constructions,  pseudo-typical resultative constructions and untypical resultative constructions. These four types all contain four main core elements: causers, undergoers, caused behaviors, and resultant states.  Through  analyzing  the  representations  of  these  four  types,  the  semantic features  can  be  concluded.  There  are  four  semantic  features  in  English  and  Chinese resultative  constructions.  The  first  semantic  feature  is  causativity,  it  is  the  most prominent semantic feature in resultative constructions. Causers must be able to cause the  results  represented  by  the  complements  R.  The  second  semantic  feature  is eventive  which  determines  that  causers  can  be  dominant  or  recessive.  The  third semantic feature is directness which means that causers directly cause undergoers to produce  specific  results.  The  last  semantic  feature  is  affectedness,  meaning  that undergoers are directly influenced by causers, and because of the influences, the states undergo some changes and finally form certain results.
Second, in English and Chinese resultative constructions, the complements of the English  and  Chinese  resultative  constructions  have  different  categorical  properties and integrated properties. In English resultative constructions, RAP, RPP, RADP and RNP can  be  found,  while  in  Chinese  resultative  constructions,  RAP,  RNP  and  RVP  can  be found. However, all kinds of R have different integration abilities, among which RAP is  the  strongest,  and  also  the  focus  of  this  thesis.  Based  on  the  researches  of  RAP quantities  and  types  and  with  the  help  of  linguistic  facts  from  corpus,  the  RAP constraints in English and Chinese resultative constructions are summarized. 
reference(omitted)

上一篇:自由的陷阱:从弗洛姆自由观视角解读《革命之路》
下一篇:中职英语语法教学中的思维导图推广思考