英语动词-论元构式的习得初期,如何“学伴”为更佳被引量：7

In the Initial Stage of English Verb Argument Construction Learning,What Kind of Input Guarantees Better Acquisition?

导出

摘要本研究考察了两种不同"学伴"方式对新造英语动词-论元构式习得的影响。两个水平组的80名非英语专业学生分别参加了不同"学伴"条件下的学习和测试任务。研究发现:1)在英语动词-论元构式的习得初期,典型范例"学伴"的学习方式比等视相异范例"学伴"的学习方式更能显著促进被试对目标构式的习得。2)在典型范例"学伴"条件下,语言水平除了对动词-论元构式的连接规则有影响外,对习得新构式义的影响不显著。这说明在习得目标构式的过程中,两组被试都明显依赖典型范例来建构动词-论元构式的表征网络。 This paper investigated the effect of the two disparate ways of input in the acquisition of English novel verb argument constructions( VACs) by Chinese EFL learners,one being the typical token-oriented learning,the other being the even tokens-oriented learning. Eighty Chinese EFL learners at respective upper-intermediate and advanced levels participated in the study. The results show that:( i) the typical token-oriented learning is significantly more facilitative than the even tokens-oriented learning at the beginning of constructional learning;( ii) participants' English proficiency does not play a significant role in this constructional learning process except in learning the linking rules,which suggests that all the participants tended to use the typical tokens of the VACs as a cognitive anchor to establish their constructional representations.

作者张晓鹏

机构地区北方民族大学外国语学院

出处《解放军外国语学院学报》 CSSCI 北大核心 2015年第3期65-73,161,共9页 Journal of PLA University of Foreign Languages

基金国家社会科学基金青年项目"读后续写与打造高效的外语学习方法研究"(14CYY018)

关键词动词-论元构式不同“学伴”条件中国英语学习者

分类号 H319.35 [语言文字—英语]

引文网络
相关文献

参考文献24

1王初明.学相伴用相随——外语学习的学伴用随原则[J].中国外语,2009,6(5):53-59. 被引量：274
2姚岚.语言习得使用观:证据与挑战[J].解放军外国语学院学报,2011,34(4):66-70. 被引量：4
3张晓鹏,马武林.语言输入的频率分布对中国学生习得英语抽象构式的影响[J].现代外语,2014,37(1):74-84. 被引量：18
4Akhtar, N. & M. Tomasello. Young children's productivity with word order and verb morphology [J]. Develop- mental Psychology, 1997, 33 (6): 952-965.
5Best JB．认知心理学[M]．黄希庭，译.北京：中国轻工业出版社，2000：163
6Boyd, J. K. & A. E. Goldberg. Young children fail to fully generalize a novel argument structure construction when exposed to the same input as older learners [J]. Journal of Child Language, 2012, 39 (3) : 457-481.
7Boyd, J.K., E. A. Gottschalk & A. E. Goldberg. Linking rule acquisition in novel phrasal constructions [J]. Language Learning, 2009, 59 (Supplement issue 1) : 64-89.
8Brooks, P.J. & M. Tomasello. How children constrain their argument structure constructions [J]. Language, 1999, 75 (4): 720-738.
9Clark, E.V. Early Verbs , Event Types and Infections [M]. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbanm, 1996.
10Dulay, H. & M. Burt. Natural sequences in child second language acquisition [J]. Language Learning, 1974, 24 (1) : 37-53.

二级参考文献37

1王初明.论外语学习的语境[J].外语教学与研究,2007,39(3):190-197. 被引量：238
2Ambridge, B. , C. F. Rowland, A. L. Theakston & M. Toma- sello. Comparing different accounts of inversion errors in children's non-subject wh-questions: 'What experimental data can tell us?' [J]. Journal of Child Language, 2006, 33: 519-557.
3Aslin, R.N. & E. L. Newport. What statistical learning can and can't tell us about language acquisition [ C ] // J. Colombo, P. McCardle & L. Freund. Infant Pathways to Language. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2009 : 15 - 29.
4Behme, C. & S. H. Deacon. Language learning in infancy: Does the empirical evidence support a domain specific lan- guage acquisition device? [ J]. Philosophical Psychology, 2008, 21 (5): 641-671.
5Behrens, H. Usage-based and emergentist approaches to language acquisition [J]. Linguistics, 2009, 47 (2) : 383 -411.
6Bemal, S. , G. Dehaene-Lambertz, S. Millotte & A. Chris- tophe. Two-year-olds compute syntactic structure on-line [J]. Developmental Science, 2010, 13 (1): 69-76.
7Bemal, S. , J. Lidz, S. MiUotte & A. Christophe. Syntax constrains the acquisition of verb learning [ J ]. Language Learning and Development, 2007, 3 (4) : 325 - 341.
8Chomsky, N. Rules and Representations [ M ]. Oxford: Blackwell, 1980.
9Christiansen, M.H. & N. Chater. Language as shaped by the brain [ J]. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 2008, 31 (5) : 489 - 558.
10Dabrowska, E. , C. Rowland & A. Theakston. The acquisi- tion of questions with long-distance dependencies [ J ]. Cog- nitive Linguistics, 2009, 20 (3) : 571 -597.