Abstract
BasedontheframeworkofBandura'ssociallearningtheoryandEdwardT.Hall'sinterculturalcommunicationcompetencetheory,thisthesisdiscussesthepotentialeffectofindividual'scognitivecultural,behaviouralandenvironmentalaspectsoninter-culturalcommunication,postulatingculturalintelligence（CQ）asakeydriverofculturaladaptationandteamperformancesamongculturallydiversestudents.
Throughoutanempiricalcasestudyof7post-graduateprogrammesatImperialCollegeBusinessSchool,thethesisobserves,investigatesandanalyses322internationalparticipantsinseven-monthtime.Drawingupon5differentcomponents,i.e.,self-efficacy,contactapproach,culturalintelligence,diversityandteamperformances,4setsofmeasurementitemsprovingbyresearchersinrelevantfieldswereadoptedtoassessandcomparethepotentialimpactoftargetgroup'scognitive,motivationalandbehaviouralCQchangesthroughoutexperimentaleducationovertime,aswellastheireffectsonteamcollaborationandperformance.SPSSisadoptedtojustifythevalidityandreliabilityofcollecteddata,whileapathmapanalysishasbeengeneratedwithcoefficients,varianceandcorrelationsexplainedindetails.
Thefivehypotheseshavebeenjustified,illustrating3significantfindings:Self-efficacyandcontacttheoriesarepositivelyconnectedwithculturalintelligencedevelopment;Cognitiveandmotivationalculturalintelligencearedirectlyrelatedtopositiveteamperformances;whilebehaviouralculturalintelligenceisconnectedwithteamperformancethroughthemediationofperceivedteam-efficacy;Culturallydiversestudentteamscannotperformaswellasculturallyhomogeneousteamsattheinitialstage,buttheperformancegrowthrateandlong-termcompetitiveadvantageareeventuallygreaterthanlessdiverseteamswiththehelpofculturalintelligence.Theresultcanhavetwo-foldimplications.Forstudents,learningculturaldifferencesandimprovinglanguagecapabilityisfarfromenoughtoworkefficientlyinculturallydiversecontact,newskillsandcontactapproachshouldalsobeacquiredforbothculturaladaptationandcommunication.Foreducators,suchexperientialeducationasImperialCollegeBusinessSchoolisworthfollowingsinceitmightworkbetterandmoreefficientinstudents'culturalintelligencedevelopmentthanthetraditionalknowledgebasedculturaleducation.Limitationoftheanalysisaswellassuggestionsforfurtherstudyisalsodiscussedinthefinalpart.
ABSTRACT
Therehavebeenmanystudiesontheverbsofplacement（VOPforshort）andtheconstructionscontainingtheseverbs.However,thesepreviousstudieshavenotpaidsufficientattentiontothedifferencesexistingamongthevariousChineseconstructionscontainingVOPaswellasthoseexistingbetweentheChineseconstructionscontainingVOPandtheirEnglishcounterparts.ThispapermakesacomparisonofthosedifferenttypesofChineseconstructionscontainingVOP,anditalsocomparestheseChineseconstructionswiththeirEnglishcounterparts.Besides,itattemptstoaccountforsuchdifferencesinrelationtotheNormalStressConstraint（NSC），thePost-verbalConstraintaswellastheL/S-syntaxdistinctionmadeinthegenerativetheoryofsyntax.
First,theChineseconstructionNP1+V+NP2+PLocisdifferentfromtheotherconstructionscontainingVOPinthatinthisconstruction,theobjectandthelocativeprepositionalphraseco-occuraftertheverb.IntheotherChineseconstructionscontainingVOP,however,eithertheobjectorthelocativeprepositionalphraseoccursaftertheverb.AlltheconstructionsinthelattergroupcomplywiththeNSCandPost-verbalConstraintwhereastheconstructionNP1+V+NP2+PLocapparentlydoesnot.However,ifweregardthisconstructionasapivotalconstruction,wheretheverb-likeitemzai（在）takingthePpositionactsasapredicateelementcapableofassigningthenormalstresstothelocativenoun,thentheconstructioninquestiondoesnotviolateNSC.Moreover,thispivotalconstructionmaybeanalyzedasbeingcomprisedoftwoseparableclauses:NP1+V+NP2andNP2+PLoc.Ineachofthem,onlytheobjectoccursaftertheverb.Theconstructionthereforedoesn'tviolatethePost-verbalConstraint,either.
Second,thisthesisdeterminesthetypicalconstructionscontainingVOPinChineseandEnglish.ThetypicalconstructioncontainingVOPinChineseisNP1+PP+V+NP2whilethatinEnglishisNP1+V+NP2+PPinEnglish.Thedifferenceexistingbetweenthesetwoconstructionsapparentlyliesinwordorder.InthetypicalEnglishconstruction,theprepositionalphraseoccursaftertheverbbutitoccursinapreverbalpositioninthetypicalChineseconstruction.WethinkthatitisduetothePost-verbalConstraintattestedinChineseonlythatgivesrisetothisdifference.Generally,onlytheobjectoftheverbandtheresultativeelementcanoccurpost-verballyinaChineseclause.Theprepositionalphraseindicatinglocationorinstrument,however,hastooccurinapreverbalposition.ThisappliestothetypicalChineseconstructioncontainingaVOPaswell.
Finally,theextension-typeconstructionfoundinEnglishcannotbefoundinChinese.Accordingtoouranalysis,Englishverbsofplacementsuchaspocketandbutter,whichcanentertheextension-typeconstruction,arederivedfromtheircorrespondingnominalform.Inthederivativeprocess,thenounsincorporaterespectivelywiththelightverbsCAUSEandBECOMEthroughsyntacticoperationsatthelexicalsyntacticlevel,ultimatelyformingthedenominalVOPstakingthematrixverbposition.SuchsyntacticoperationsinL-syntaxare,however,unavailableinChineseaccordingtoLin（2001）。Therefore,thedenominalVOPisnotyieldableinChinese,resultingintheabsenceofextension-typeconstructioninChinese.
Abstract
WarmetaphorsareusedinbothChineseandEnglish.Thispaper,basedonConceptualMetaphorTheory,makesthecontrastiveanalysisofEnglishandChinesewarmetaphorsonthemappingprocessfromthesourcedomain（war）tothetargetdomain（otherfields）。ThispaperfindsoutthatEnglishandChinesewarmetaphorshavesimilaritiesanddifferences.ThenumberofChinesewarmetaphorsismorethanthatinEnglish,andtherangeofChinesewarmetaphorsisbroaderthanthatinEnglish.ThemetaphoricalwordsinEnglishtendtobenouns,whilethoseinChineseverbs.EnglishandChinesewarmetaphorshavesimilarities,indicatingthesimilaritiesofhumanmetaphoricalthought.AndlearningaboutthedifferentfeaturesofEnglishandChinesewarmetaphorscanavoidthemisuseofexternalcommunication.
ABSTRACT
CognateObjectConstruction（COCforshort）inEnglishisaspeciallinguisticphenomenon.Itisformedbyanintransitiveverbanditscognatenounsomehowmodified.Manydomesticandforeignscholarshavedescribeditssyntacticandcognitivepropertiesfromdifferentangles,butstillthereremainthingsinconclusive.
Forexample,musttherebeamodifierbeforethecognateobject（CO）Ifso,whatmotivatesthenecessityofmodifyingtheCO?SincethepredicateverbintheCOCisintransitive,whatmakesitpossibleforittotakeanobject?IsthereanyinstantiationofCOCinChinese?WhatarethedifferencesbetweentheconstructionV-yi-VinChineseandtheCOCinEnglish?Inthisthesis,weattempttoprovideanswerstothesequestions.
Firstly,weapproachthenecessityofqualifyingtheCOfrompragmaticandcognitiveperspectives.Fromtheviewpointofpragmaticinformationalfocus,themodifieroftheCOexpressesnon-presupposedinformationandcarriesthenormalstress.Therefore,itconstitutesthenaturalfocusofanentiresentence.Ontheotherhand,inthelightofthecognitivemechanismsdevelopedintheconstrualtheory,themodifieroftheCOhighlightsthedifferencebetweentheprofile（i.e.thespecificeventdenotedbytheCOlinkedwiththepropertycharacterizedbythemodifierphrase）andthebase（i.e.theeventkinddenotedbythepredicateverb），andmetaphoricallyalludestothepathalongwhichthesubjectreferent（i.e.thetrajector）movesagainstthebackgroundevent（i.e.thelandmark）designatedbythepredicateverbtowardsatelicpointwhichisthespecificeventdenotedbytheCOtogetherwithitsmodifier.Inanothersense,themodifyingelementbringsprominencetotheresultativenessaswellasboundednessoftheverb-denotedeventinitsbeingsummarilyscannedbytheCO.
Secondly,byadoptingaconstructiongrammarapproach,thethesistentativelyexplainsthecauseforthetransitiveuseoftheintransitiveverbintheCOC.WecomparetheCOCwithtypicaltransitiveconstructionsbasedonHopper&Thompson's（1980）viewontransitivityandconcludethatCOCislikewiseatransitiveconstruction.Meanwhile,thethesisreformulatestheconstructionalmeaningoftheCOCasbeing“XvolitionallydoestheactofZinaboundedqualifiedYway”.
Therebytheintransitiveverbiscoercedbytheconstructiontotakeanobject.
Lastly,thethesisdescribesthesemanticandsyntacticfeaturesoftheChineseV-yi-VconstructionandcomparesitwiththeCOCinEnglish,drawingthefollowingconclusions:whilethesetwoconstructionsshareasimilarsurfaceformandbothinvolveasemanticbleachingoftheverbandtheboundedreadingoftheconstruction,thereareremarkabledifferencesbetweentheCOinCOCandthe“yi-V”in“V-yi-V”intermsofbothsyntacticpropertiesandsemanticfeatures.Therefore,theChineseV-yi-VconstructionisnotatrueCOC.
13888888888
点击咨询 