本文選題：英語短語動詞加工 + 字面意義　； 參考：《南京師范大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】：英語短語動詞是英語語言中特有的詞匯結(jié)構(gòu),也是中國英語學(xué)習(xí)者學(xué)習(xí)過程中的難點和重點。英語短語動詞的語義特征和句法結(jié)構(gòu)一直是理論研究和實證研究的熱點。本研究運(yùn)用事件相關(guān)電位技術(shù)(ERPs)研究了以下問題:1、不同熟練度的中國英語學(xué)習(xí)者在加工英語短語動詞字面意義和隱喻意義時所遵循的機(jī)制是什么? 2、高低不同熟練度的中國英語學(xué)習(xí)者加工英語短語動詞字面意義和隱喻意義的機(jī)制有什么差別? 3、高熟練度的中國英語學(xué)習(xí)者是否在加工機(jī)制上更接近英語母語者?實驗被試分為兩組。一組是已通過英語專業(yè)八級的英語專業(yè)學(xué)生,作為高熟練度被試;另一組是通過大學(xué)英語四級的非英語專業(yè)學(xué)生,作為低熟練度被試。168個包含短語動詞的英文句子通過電腦屏幕逐詞呈現(xiàn)給40名英語學(xué)習(xí)者(高低水平各20名)。每個短語動詞都包含字面意義和隱喻意義,每個短語動詞都形成包含字面意義和隱喻意義兩個版本的句子,被試僅會看到其中一個版本,實驗任務(wù)是要求被試根據(jù)第一反應(yīng)盡可能快并準(zhǔn)確地在每句話結(jié)束后通過按鍵進(jìn)行語義判斷。實驗過程中,被試的行為數(shù)據(jù)(語義判斷的準(zhǔn)確率及反應(yīng)時長)和腦電數(shù)據(jù)分別被E-prime 2.0和Brain Product軟件記錄下來。實驗結(jié)束后,被試的行為數(shù)據(jù)和腦電數(shù)據(jù)需通過SPSS 20.0軟件包,進(jìn)行重復(fù)方差測量進(jìn)行分析。實驗結(jié)果表明,就行為數(shù)據(jù)而言,高熟練度被試的語義判斷正確率和反應(yīng)時都優(yōu)于低熟練度被試。就腦電數(shù)據(jù)而言,高熟練度被試在加工包含字面意義的短語動詞比加工包含隱喻意義的短語動詞時引發(fā)的N400波幅更大。低熟練度被試在加工包含隱喻意義的短語動詞比加工包含字面意義的短語動詞時引發(fā)的N400波幅更大。低熟練度被試在加工包含隱喻意義的短語動詞比高熟練度加工包含隱喻意義的短語動詞時引發(fā)的N400波幅更大。比較低熟練度被試在加工包含字面意義的短語動詞與高熟練度被試加工包含字面意義的短語動詞,沒有出現(xiàn)可靠的ERP成分。根據(jù)行為數(shù)據(jù)和腦電數(shù)據(jù),高熟練度被試加工包含隱喻意義的短語動詞易于加工包含字面意義的短語動詞然而低熟練度被試加工包含字面意義的短語動詞易于加工包含隱喻意義的短語動詞。高熟練度被試加工包含隱喻意義的短語動詞優(yōu)于低熟練度被試加工包含隱喻意義的短語動詞但是沒有明確ERP成分表明高熟練度被試加工包含字面意義的短語動詞優(yōu)于低熟練度被試加工包含字面意義的短語動詞。參考以往關(guān)注母語者被試加工短語動詞的ERP研究,高熟練度的中國英語學(xué)習(xí)者在英語短語動詞加工上接近母語者。無論熟練度高低,中國英語學(xué)習(xí)者在加工英語短語動詞字面意義和隱喻意義時都表現(xiàn)出不同的電生理學(xué)反應(yīng)。然而,其各自的模式又存在差異。相對于低熟練度被試,高熟練度被試在短語動詞的隱喻意義加工上與母語者接近。
[Abstract]:English phrasal verb is a special lexical structure in English language, and it is also a difficult and important point in the learning process of Chinese English learners. The semantic features and syntactic structure of English phrasal verbs have always been the focus of theoretical and empirical studies. Using event-related potentials (ERPs), this study studied the following question: 1. What are the mechanisms followed by Chinese English learners with different proficiency in processing the literal and metaphorical meanings of English phrasal verbs? 2. What is the difference between the literal meaning of English phrasal verbs and the metaphorical meaning of English phrasal verbs by practicing Chinese English learners? (3) are highly proficient Chinese English learners closer to native English speakers in the processing mechanism? The subjects were divided into two groups. One group is an English major who has passed CET-8, and the other is a non-English major who has passed CET-4. As low proficiency subjects 168 English sentences containing phrasal verbs were presented word by computer screen to 40 English learners (20 at high and low levels). Each phrasal verb contains literal meaning and metaphorical meaning. Each phrasal verb forms a sentence with two versions of literal meaning and metaphorical meaning. The task of the experiment was to ask the participants to make semantic judgment by pressing the key as quickly and accurately as possible according to the first reaction. During the experiment, the behavioral data (accuracy of semantic judgment and reaction time) and EEG data were recorded by E-prime 2.0 and brain Product software respectively. After the experiment, the behavioral data and EEG data were analyzed by repeated variance measurement by SPSS 20.0 software package. The experimental results show that, in terms of behavior data, the accuracy of semantic judgment and reaction time of the highly skilled subjects are better than those of the low-skilled subjects. As far as EEG data are concerned, the N400 amplitude was higher in the highly skilled subjects when processing phrasal verbs with literal meaning than with phrasal verbs with metaphorical meanings. The n400 amplitudes were higher in low proficiency subjects when processing phrasal verbs with metaphorical meaning than in phrasal verbs with literal meaning. The amplitude of N400 was higher in low proficiency subjects when processing phrasal verbs with metaphorical meanings than in those with high proficiency in processing phrasal verbs with metaphorical meanings. Low proficiency subjects processed phrasal verbs with literal meaning and high proficiency subjects processed phrasal verbs with literal meaning without any reliable ERP components. Based on behavioral data and EEG data, Phrase verbs with metaphorical meanings are more easily processed with high proficiency than those with literal meanings, while phrase verbs with literal meaning are easily processed with low proficiency. The highly skilled subjects were better at processing phrasal verbs with metaphorical meanings than those with low proficiency levels, but there was no clear ERP component to indicate that the highly skilled subjects processed phrasal verbs with literal meanings. It is superior to the low proficiency subjects in processing phrasal verbs with literal meaning. Referring to the previous ERP study on the processing of phrasal verbs by native speakers, Chinese English learners with high proficiency are close to their native speakers in the processing of phrasal verbs. Regardless of proficiency, Chinese EFL learners exhibit different electrophysiological responses when processing the literal and metaphorical meanings of English phrasal verbs. However, their respective models are different. Compared with the low proficiency subjects, the highly skilled subjects were similar to the native speakers in the metaphorical meaning processing of phrasal verbs.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：南京師范大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號】：H319.3

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前6條

1 王悅;孫爾鴻;張積家;;句子語境影響漢-英雙語者對英語短語動詞的語義加工——來自眼動研究的證據(jù)[J];外語教學(xué)與研究;2016年02期

2 張輝;;二語學(xué)習(xí)者句法加工的ERP研究[J];解放軍外國語學(xué)院學(xué)報;2014年01期

3 國偉;;中國學(xué)習(xí)者英語短語動詞回避傾向的實證研究[J];解放軍外國語學(xué)院學(xué)報;2013年04期

4 趙鵬芳;;基于中國學(xué)習(xí)者英語語料庫的短語動詞習(xí)得研究[J];湖南科技大學(xué)學(xué)報(社會科學(xué)版);2011年06期

5 程杰;;英語短語動詞的句法生成研究[J];解放軍外國語學(xué)院學(xué)報;2010年05期

6 張彬;;英語學(xué)習(xí)者對英語短語動詞的回避現(xiàn)象研究[J];解放軍外國語學(xué)院學(xué)報;2007年06期

，

本文編號：2062673