Abstract
Priorstudiesonsecondlanguagevocabularyacquisitiondidnotpaysufficientattentiontotheroleofmotivationwhichcouldprovideexplanationtothemeaning-meaningconnection,form-meaningconnection,andform-formconnectioninstantiatedinlinguisticexpressions.Inthepresentstudy,EnglishdenominalverbsarechosenasthesubjectofstudytobridgethegapbetweensecondlanguagevocabularylearningandmotivationstudywithaspecialfocusontheroleofcognitivemotivationinEFL（EnglishasaForeignLanguage）learners'construalofEnglishdenominalverbs.ResearchonEnglishdenominalverbsintheliteraturetendedtobeconfinedtoadescriptionanddiscoveringofrulesofderivation.ItwasaftertheadventofCognitiveLinguisticsthatresearcherswereabletoinvestigatehowhumanmindfunctionedinconstruingthisspecialtypeoflinguisticphenomenon.OnlyverylimitedeffortshavebeenmadetoinvestigatethedifficultiesthatEFLlearnerswouldencounterinconstruingEnglishdenominalverbsintheparadigmknownasAppliedCognitiveLinguistics（ACL）。
ThepresentstudymadeexploratoryattemptstorectifyproblemsconcerningEFLlearners*construalofEnglishdenominalverbsbyadoptingmixedmethods.DrawingontheoriesofCognitiveGrammar（Langacker.1987a,1991）。andconceptualmetaphorandmetonymy（Kovecses&Radden,1998;LakofF.1987;Lakoff&Johnson,1980:Panther.2006;Panther&Radden.1999;Radden&Kovecses,2007），thisstudyaimedatexploringthedynamicmeaningconstrualprocessofEnglishdenominalverbsbylanguageusers.DenominalverbswererecategorizedaccordingtothemetonymicrelationshipbetweentheparentnounandthewholeAction/MotionICMinvolvedinthenoun-to-verbconversion.ItsimpliedgrammaticalmeaningwasalsoanalyzedinlinewithCognitiveGrammartheory.Inaddition,thecognitivemotivationdrivenbymetonymy（includinggrammaticalmetonymyandzoneactivation）andmetonymy-metaphorcontinuumwasconsideredtobethemajorfactorcapableofconstructingtheunderlyingmeaning-meaningconnection.Theinteractionbetweencontextualclues,domain-basedknowledgeandcognitivemotivationinthemeaningconstrualprocesswasexploredtoacertainextent.ItisbelievedthatthesetheoreticalunderpinningswouldenableustoexplorehowChineseEFLlearnersmightprocessEnglishdenominalverbs.
TheempiricalpartofthisstudyhashighlightedtwoissuesthatareofparamountsignificanceinEFLlearners'construalofEnglishdenominalverbs:
（1）InwhatwaysdoestheEFLlearners'construalofEnglishdenominalverbsdifferfromthenativeEnglishspeakers'?
（2）HowdoesthecognitivemotivationaffecttheEFLlearners,construalofEnglishdenominalverbs?
Theempiricalpartofthisstudywasconductedintheformofavocabularytestandstimulatedrecall.Twogroupsofparticipants,25advancedChineseEFLlearnersand25nativeEnglishspeakers,wererecruitedforthestudy.TwentyEnglishdenominalverbswereselectedinthevocabulaiytestwithanaimtoelicitquantitativeandqualitativedataabouttheparticipants'knowledgeofEnglishdenominalverbs.
Theparticipantswereaskedtowritedownthemeaningofeachdenominalverbinthegivencontextandratetheirfamiliarityandperceiveddifficulty.Eachparticipantwasaskedtodoapost_teststimulatedrecallforthepurposeofanalyzingtheirthoughtsduringthetaskofconstruingEnglishdenominalverbs.Thevocabularytestandthestimulatedrecallintheempiricalpartyieldedbothquantitativeandqualitativedata.
ThequantitativedataanalysiswasconductedwiththesoftwareSPSS17.0toverifyiftheresultscouldobtainstatisticalsignificance.Thequalitativedata,withtheparticipants'verbalreportsinparticular,wascoded,analyzed,andquantifiedwiththesoftwareNVivo8inordertoenhancethevalidityandreliabilityofthedataanalysis.
Bothtypesofdatawerecombinedtotriangulatethefindings.
TheresultsrevealednoteworthyfindingsabouttheEFLlearners'construalofEnglishdenominalverbs.Regardingresearchquestion（1），itwasfoundthatthenativeEnglishspeakersoutperformedsignificantlytheEFLlearnersinthevocabularytest.
TheEFLlearnersandthenativeEnglishspeakersusedsimilarsourcesofcluesinconstruingEnglishdenominalverbsbutdifferedmainlyintheuseofthecontextandtiieparentnoun.FortheEFLlearners,theirunfamiliaritywiththeparentnounforcedthemtousemorefrequentlycontextualcluestoinferencethemeaningofthetargeteditems.Theytendedtousemoregeneralvocabularylearningstrategiesintheguessingprocess.Theirconstrualpatterndemonstratedthattheywerelessawareofthecognitivemotivationassociatingthedenominalverbsandtheparentnoun.ForthepartofthenativeEnglishspeakers,theywouldfocusfirstontheinformationgeneratedbytheparentnounanddeploymorefrequentlycognitive-motivation-relatedstrategiessuchasmetonymicandmetaphoricalmappings.Thedegreeofconventionalizationofthetargeteditemswasanimportantfactorthatinfluencedtheirconstrualpatterns.HenceunderstandingthecontextweighedmuchmorefortheEFLlearnersthanthenativeEnglishspeakers.IftheEFLlearnersdidknowthemeaningoftheparentnoun,theywoulduseboththeparentnounandthecontextforthetaskofconstrual.Duringthisprocess,theytriedtousecognitivemappingssuchasgrammaticalmetonymy'zoneactivation,andmetaphoricalmappings,butitseemedtobehardforthemtomakenative-likeassociations.HowtousecognitivemotivationinacorrectwaywasfoundtobeoneofthemostimmensedifficultiesfortheEFLlearners.
Thisfindingwasvitaltotheprobeintoresearchquestion（2）abouttheroleofcognitivemotivation.ThemetonymicmotivationofgrammaticalmetonymyandzoneactivationwerefoundtobemoredifficultfortheEFLlearnerstoemploy.Theirassociationsbetweenthetargeteditemsandaparticular1CMoractivezonedeviatedfromthenativespeakers*.Thisproblemwasattributedtotheirdifferentpatternsofconceptualizationentrenchedintheirmind.SincetheEFLlearnerscouldnotreachtheentrenchedassociationofcertainEnglishdenominalverbs,theyhadtohypothesizeaprobableoneandwouldpossiblyendupwithanincorrectconstruedmeaning.Thecognitiveprincipleofperceptualsalience,whichwasoneoftheinfluentialfactorsonthechoiceofmetonymy,seemedtohaveadirectrelationwiththeresultsofthepresentstudy.AlthoughtheEFLlearnerswerenotunfamiliarwiththemetonymicrelationshipofPARTFORWHOLEandWHOLEFORPARTrepresentedbythegrammaticalmetonymyandzoneactivationunderlyingEnglishdenominalverbs,theymightencounterlessfrequentlysimilarusagesofnoun-to-verbconversionintheirLI.
Withoutsufficientexposuretocertainmetonymicusageswhichshouldhavebeenentrenchedforreasonablecomprehension,itwouldbeextremelyhardfortheEFLlearnerstousethemetonymicmotivationinacorrectway.Whenitcomestothemetaphoricalmotivation,twocharacteristicswerefoundintheEFLlearners'performance.ThefirstwasthattheEFLlearners*useofthemetaphoricalmotivationwasbasedontheirunderstandingofthemetonymicmotivationtriggeredbycontextualclues.Thisfindingconfirmedourhypothesisthatmetonymywasamorefiandamentacognitivemotivationunderlyingdenominalverbs.ThesecondcharacteristicwasthattheEFLlearners'LIcouldhavebothpositiveandnegativetransferontheiruseofthemetaphoricalmotivation.Themetonymicmotivationseemedtoworkmoreonthecognitiveleveltoprovideliteralmeaningwhilethemetaphoricalmotivationmoreonthelinguisticleveltoprovidespecificfigurativemeaning.Therefore,theEFLlearners*useofthemetaphoricalmotivationwaseasilysubjecttoLItransfer.Inaddition,domain-basedknowledgesuchasencyclopedicknowledge,culture-specificknowledge,andembodimentcouldalsointeractwiththecognitivemotivationandcontributetotheblendingofmeaningsindenominalverbs.
Insomecases,theretrievalofcertaindomain-basedknowledgecouldprovideadditionalinputtopromotetheactivationofICMandactivezonethroughmetonymicmotivation.Inothercases,domain-basedknowledgeseemedindispensibletotheirattemptatinference.
ThisstudydemonstratedhowtheoriesofCognitiveLinguisticscouldbeappliedtothefieldofsecondlanguageacquisitionfromtheperspectiveofcognitivemotivation.Indoingso,weareabletodevelopthelineofACLresearchtoenhanceL2learners'vocabularyacquisitionandpromotingtheirlearninginamore“motivated”way.
ABSTRACT
AlthoughmoreandmoreResearchArticleswrittenbyChinesescholarsarepublishedininternationalpublications,itisstillaweakpointforthemwritingEnglishResearchArticles（Zhao,2010）。What'smore,avarietyofproblems,suchaslinguisticdeficiency,lackofacademicwritingstrategies,oftenexistinmasters'academicEnglishwriting（Lu,2007;Xiong,2012）。
BasedonRhetoricalStructureTheory（RST），thisstudyemploysamixedresearchmethodtoanalyzethemacroandmicrorhetoricalfeaturesofEnglish-majormasters'theses'“Discussion”.First,forconstructinganalysisframework,thisstudygeneralizesthemacrorhetoricalstructureandthemicrorhetoricalrelationsdistributionof“Discussion”ofResearchArticlesinAppliedLinguisticsbyanalyzing20piecesofResearchArticles'“Discussion”inleadinginternationaljournalsinAppliedLinguistics.Second,takingtheseresultsasreference,thisstudytriestomakeacriticalanalysisonthemacrorhetoricalstructureandmicrorhetoricalrelationsusageof20piecesofEnglish-majormasters'“Discussion”inAppliedLinguistics.
Third,163casesofdeficienciesarecollected,whichcanbegeneralizedinto7categories:（1）InappropriatenessinOrganizationofDiscussion,（2）IrrelevanceinStatement,（3）InsufficiencyinDiscussion,（4）InappropriatenessinOrganizationofElementaryDiscourseUnits,（5）MisuseofRelations,（6）IllogicalElementaryDiscourseUnits,and（7）InappropriatenessinTopicShiftbetweenElementaryDiscourseUnits.Fourth,thisstudyexplores3reasonsaccountingforthesedeficiencies:negativenativelanguagetransfer,differentthinkingpatternsbetweenChineseandWesterners,andweakdomesticacademicwritinginstructions.
13888888888
点击咨询 