英语不及物动词习得与加工研究综述

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1674-8921.2017.03.018

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 英语不及物动词的习得和加工是国内外研究的热点。英语不及物动词过度被动的影响因素、英语不及物动词词汇语义特征的习得以及英语不及物动词的在线加工是先前研究的主要内容。但语用因素对英语不及物动词习得和加工的影响以及母语迁移的影响却鲜有研究。同时,Sorace (2000,2001)提出的“不及物动词层级分类”(Split Intransitivity Hierarchy)理论是否适合描述中国学习者对英语不及物动词的习得和加工,尚需充分的实证研究和验证。本文认为深入探究二语学习者对英语不及物动词的在线加工以及验证“接口假说”(Interface Hypothesis)将是未来研究的重点。

中图分类号:

H315.9

朱秀杰, 王同顺. 英语不及物动词习得与加工研究综述[J]. 当代外语研究, 2017, 17(03): 103-106.

ZHU Xiujie, WANG Tongshun. The Review on the Acquisition and Processing of English Intransitive verbs[J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2017, 17(03): 103-106.

参考文献

Agnewa, Z. K., H. van de Koot & C. Mc. Gettigana. 2014. Do sentences with unaccusative verbs involve syntactic movement? Evidence from neuroimaging Language [J]. Cognition and Neuroscience (9): 1035-1045.
Balcom, P. 1997.Why is this happened? Passive morphology and unaccusativity [J]. Second Language Research 13:1-9.
Chung, T. 2014. Multiple factors in the L2 acquisition of English unaccusative verbs [J]. International Review of Applied Linguist (1): 59-87.
Dehghan, F. & R. Rezvani. 2016. Transfer at the level of argument structure or morphology: A comparative study of English and Persian unaccusative and unergative verbs [J]. Topics in Linguistics 17:111-124.
Friedmann, N., G. Taranto & L. Shapiro. 2008. The leaf fell (the Leaf): The online processing of unaccusatives [J]. Linguistic Inquiry 39: 355-377.
Ju , M. K. 2000. Overpassivization errors by second language learners: The effect of conceptualizable agents in discourse [J]. SSLA 22: 85-111.
Kondo, T. 2005. Overpassivization in second language acquisition [J]. IRAL 43:129-161.
Lee , J. & K. Thompson. 2011. Real-time production of unergative and unaccusative sentences in normal and agrammatic speakers: An eyetracking study [J]. Aphasiology 25: 813-825.
Montrul, S. 2000. Transitivity alternations in L2 acquisition: Toward a modular view of transfer [J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 22: 229-273.
Montrul, S. 2001. Causatives and transitivity in L2 English [J]. Language Learning 51: 51-106.
Oshita, H. 2000. What is happened may not be what appears to be happening: A corpus study of “passive” unaccusatives in L2 English [J]. Second Language Research 16: 293-324.
Perlmutter, D. M. 1978. Impersonal passives and the unaccusative hypothesis [J]. Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 4:157-189.
Shetreet, E., N. Friedmann & U. Hadar. 2009. The neural correlates of linguistic distinctions: Unaccusative and unergative verbs [J]. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 22: 2306-2315.
Shin, Jeong-Ah. 2011. Overpassivization errors in Korean college students' English writings [J]. Korean Journal of Applied Linguistics 27: 255-273.
Sorace, A. & L. Serratrice. 2009. Internal and external interfaces in bilingual language development: Revisiting the processing vs. representation distinction [J]. The International Journal of Bilingualism 13: 195-210.
Sorace, A. 1993a. Incomplete versus divergent representations of unaccusative grammars of Italian [J]. Second Language Research 9:22-47.
Sorace, A. 1993b. Unaccusativity and auxiliary choice in non-native grammars of Italian and French: Asymmetries and predictable indeterminacy [J]. Journal of French Language Studies (3): 71-93.
Sorace, A. 1995a. Acquiring linking rules and argument structures in a second language: The unaccusative/ unergative distinction [A]. In L. Eubank, L. Selinker & M. S. Smith (eds.). The Current State of Interlanguage [C]. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 153-175.
Sorace, A. 1995b. Contraintes se′mantiques sur la syntaxe: L'acquisition de l'inaccusativite' en italien L2 [Semantic constraints on syntax: The acquisition of unaccusativity in L2 Italian] [J]. Acquisition et Inte′raction en Langue Etrange`re (5): 79-113.
Sorace, A. 2000. Gradients in auxiliary selection with intransitive verbs [J]. Language 76: 859-890.
Sorace, A. 2011. Pinning down the concept of “interface” in bilingualism” [J]. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism (1): 1-33.
Sorace, A. & F. Filiaci. 2006. Anaphora resolution in near-native speakers of Italian [J]. Second Language Research 22: 339-365.
Yip, V. 1995. Interlanguage and Learnability: From Chinese to English [M]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Zobl, H. 1989. Canonical typological structures and ergativity in English L2 acquisition [A]. In S. M. Gass & Schacter (eds.). Linguistic Perspectives on Second Language Acquisition [C]. New York: Cambridge University Press. 203-221.
蔡金亭.2000.中国学生英语过渡语中的作格动词——一项实证研究[J]. 外语教学与研究(4): 283-289.
蔡金亭.2008.汉-英过渡语中非宾格动词的过度被动化[J]. 外语研究(6): 60-67.
李素枝.2007.英语非宾格动词被动化现象的理论解释[J]. 中州学刊(6): 254-256.
李素枝.2010.二语中的非宾格动词被动泛化及其发生机制[J]. 当代语言学(1):45-52.
朱秀杰、王同顺. 2016.中国学生英语中不及物动词的及物化现象研究[J]. 外语与外语教学(3):67-74.
朱秀杰、王同顺. 2017.中国学生英语不及物动词不对称习得研究[J]. 外语教学与研究(1):85-98.
张达球、乔晓妹.2013.中国英语学习者非宾格结构在线加工研究[J]. 外语界(3): 12-21.
赵晨、葛邵玲.2017.中国学生英语非宾格动词在线加工研究:基于用法的理论视角[J]. 现代外语(1):80-90.

[1]	杜世洪, 王渝. 生态翻译学的还原论与整体论思考[J]. 当代外语研究, 2021, 451(1): 86-96.
[2]	湛军. 商务英语学科框架与构成要素[J]. 当代外语研究, 2020, 450(6): 7-18.
[3]	陈新仁. 外语学者科研成果国际化刍议[J]. 当代外语研究, 2020, 450(6): 5-6.
[4]	张思永. 翻译过程的跨学科研究发展与思考[J]. 当代外语研究, 2020, 449(5): 91-100.
[5]	尚文博. 基于语料库的英汉学术翻译文本逻辑关系的显化特征——以Handbook of Social Justice in Education的翻译为例[J]. 当代外语研究, 2020, 449(5): 110-120.
[6]	朱晓映. 黄源深翻译美学思想探析[J]. 当代外语研究, 2020, 449(5): 23-33.
[7]	朱波. 翻译的战略传播观——以“中国关键词”项目为例[J]. 当代外语研究, 2020, 446(2): 111-118.
[8]	李朝, 王守宏. 训诂视角下的翻译路径[J]. 当代外语研究, 2020, 446(2): 119-128.
[9]	龚刚, 赵佼. “妙合”:文学翻译的佳境[J]. 当代外语研究, 2020, 445(1): 102-110.
[10]	彭文青, 王金波. 借鉴还是抄袭？——张亦文《三国演义》英文节译本存疑[J]. 当代外语研究, 2019, 19(06): 98-110.
[11]	冯全功, 顾涛. 旅游景区的翻译景观研究——以杭州西湖风景名胜区为例[J]. 当代外语研究, 2019, 19(06): 83-97.
[12]	坂井洋史. 漫忆《九月寓言》日译本及其他[J]. 当代外语研究, 2019, 19(05): 85-95.
[13]	褚东伟. 为了艺术的艺术:张炜小说英译散论[J]. 当代外语研究, 2019, 19(05): 96-105.
[14]	周远航. 论文学翻译风格的批评路径——以《酒国》的翻译为例[J]. 当代外语研究, 2019, 19(05): 106-117.
[15]	邓凌云, 余环. 中外笔译质量要求的对比研究与启示[J]. 当代外语研究, 2019, 19(04): 115-123.