英語雙及物小句的認(rèn)知研究

內(nèi)容概要

《英語雙及物小句的認(rèn)知研究》從語言系統(tǒng)的認(rèn)知操作可行性出發(fā)，旨在探討小句在理解和產(chǎn)出過程中所激活的多維網(wǎng)絡(luò)概念結(jié)構(gòu)。小句包含五個主要變體形式，分別以客體，即遞送物的不同來標(biāo)示，它們分別是具體物質(zhì)、身份、信息、動作和事件。英語雙及物小句都包含一個含“終屬
”的致使概念結(jié)構(gòu)，但遞送物的概念差異導(dǎo)致小句的概念語義變化，主要表現(xiàn)在概念角色的不同重合上?！队⒄Z雙及物小句的認(rèn)知研究》以197個雙及物動詞的語料為主要依據(jù)，對這些差異作精細(xì)討論。此外對雙及物動詞進(jìn)行分類，并對以往研究中的一些特殊情況展開討論。本書由田朝霞著。

作者簡介

田朝霞，陜西西安人。英語語言文學(xué)專業(yè)文學(xué)博士?，F(xiàn)任南京師范大學(xué)外國語學(xué)院副教授、碩士生導(dǎo)師。研究方向主要為理論語言學(xué)及英語教學(xué)。發(fā)表論文十余篇，教材及譯著多部。代表作有《形義匹配種種——四種構(gòu)架語法模式的比較研究》、《英語雙及物小句的五個主要變體——跨越“形義匹配”》、《英語口語語篇中的調(diào)核位置與信息焦點(diǎn)》等。

書籍目錄

Introduction
  0.1  Aim and scope
    0.1.1  The form of the ditraitive clause
    0.1.2  The meaning of the ditraitive clause
    0.1.3  The aim and the research pepective
  0.2  Issues arising from previous analyses
  0.3  Conceptual frame
  0.4  The data
  0.5  Layout of the dissertation
Chapter 1  Cognition and operation
  1.1  Introduction
  1.2  View of language
  1.3  Cognition and operation
    1.3.1  Cognition and language in cognitive science
    1.3.2  Operation in cognitive linguistics
  1.4  A stratified model
    1.4.1  Neurocognitive linguistics
    1.4.2  Tripartite parallel architecture
    1.4.3  Conceptual frame
  1.5  The syntactic structure of the ditraitive clause
  1.6  Summary
Chapter 2  Conceptual frame
  2.1  Introduction
  2.2  Meaning activated in compreheion and production
    2.2.1  Conceptual structure
    2.2.2  Between the mental world and the outside world
    2.2.3  The metaphorical account
    2.2.4  Conceptual frame vs.argument structure
  2.3  Cotrual operatio and conceptual frame
    2.3.1  The ditraitive clause as a gestalt
    2.3.3  Conceptual frame as a gestalt
  2.4  Conclusion
Chapter 3  Major variants of the traferred object
  3.1  Introduction
  3.2  A radial network
    3.2.1  The "prospective possessor" account and "affecte- dness"
account
    3.2.2  An overview of cotruction grammar
    3.2.3  Discussion
    3.2.4  Conceptual frame: A proposal
  3.3  Major variants of the traferred object
    3.3.1  A frequent type of the ditraitive clause
    3.3.2  Object as Thing
    3.3.3  Object as Identity
    3.3.4  Object as Information
    3.3.$  Object as Action
    3.3.6  Object as Event
  3.4  Discussion and conclusion
Chapter 4  Major variants and verb categorizatio
  4.1  Introduction
    4.1.1  Introduction
    4.1.2  An investigation into the FrameNet
    4.1.3  Semantic motivation and productivity
  4.2  Trafer of Thing
    4.2.1  Simple conceptual process
    4.2.2  Simple conceptual process and the to-phrase
    4.2.3  Composite conceptual process
    4.2.4  The for-phrase and the to-phrase
    4.2.5  From concrete things to abstract things
    4.2.6  Summary
  4.3  "Trafer" of Identity
  4.4  Trafer of Information
    4.4.1  Verbal Information
    4.4.2  Non-verbal Information
  4.5  "Trafer" of Action
    4.5.1  Physical actio
    4.5.2  Mental actio
  4.6  Summary
Chapter 5  Special eases
  5.1  Permit, allow ; forbid, prohibit
  5.2  Owe
  5.3  Buy
  5.4  Previously recognized exceptio
    5.4.1  Ask, beg; bill, charge, fine
    5.4.2  Refuse and deny
    5.4.3  Envy ; forgive ; bear ; mean
    5.4.4  Save and spare
  5.5  Metapho involving an abstract entity
  5.6  Topics for future study
Conclusion
Appendix I  A list of verbs that have been investigated
References

章節(jié)摘錄

　　In the analysis of John， baked Mary a cake， construction grammar and conceptual frame （CF） produces comparable results.　Their similarities areas follows. First， the argument structure is equivalent to the causation structure; the verb frame is equivalent to the action structure in this case （though they are different in nature）. Second， in construction grammar the verb bake does not bear the sense of cause-receive; in the CF， Act does not conflate with Cause and Cause does not have a lexical realization. On this point， both construction grammar and the CF stand on the opposite side to lexical rules-construction denotes a particular conceptual structure of its own.　Third， the form-meaning correspondence in construction gram- mar is comparable to form-meaning realization if not considering a differ-ence between grammatical relations and grammatical elements in this case.　　However， when it comes to John gave Mary a kiss， constructiongrammar， which takes it as a metaphorical extension， is not able to depict the whole picture.One argument structure "Cause-receive　，" which mainly focuses or！causation， cannot capture the ac-tion structure of kissing.　And this action structure is crucial to the actualcomprehension of the sentence. This is where the CF diverges from con- struction grammar-the action structure in the CF is defined in terms of theaction involved in the event， not in terms of the verb. The action denoted by John， gave Mary a kiss is kissin，g rather than givin，g in terms of what hap-pens in reality. This is why the argument structure in construction grammarcannot be adopted here： it is not a real conceptual structure， more similarto semantic structure. Levin （2004： 1） notes that， though differing inhow much meaning is allocated to the syntax and how much to the lexicon，construction grammar and lexical rules "incorporate the same important as-sumption about the nature of the meaning of sentences with verbs and theirarguments. "　　……

圖書封面

評論、評分、閱讀與下載

---

    英語雙及物小句的認(rèn)知研究 PDF格式下載

---