政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/119083

政大典藏 > College of Foreign Languages and Literature > Department of English > Theses > Item 140.119/119083

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/119083

Title:	英⽂學術論⽂中[N1 of N2]構式之探討 Investigating English [N1 of N2] Constructions in Academic Writing
Authors:	陳立茵 Chen, Li-Yin
Contributors:	鍾曉芳 Chung, Siaw-Fong 陳立茵 Chen, Li-Yin
Keywords:	of of -構式 N1 of N2 語意關係學術論文 BNC語料庫 of Of-construction N1 of N2 Semantic relations Academic writing British National Corpus
Date:	2018
Issue Date:	2018-07-31 13:43:47 (UTC+8)
Abstract:	英文中的[N1 of N2] 構式(e.g., every corner of the world) 涵蓋不同種類的名詞組，被英文的介系詞of 所連接。這兩個名詞組分別存在於of 的前後卻產生許多不同的語意關係(semantic relations)，其中最常討論到的為部分－整體關係(part-whole) 如：the rim of the mug 以及關係詞語(relational terms) ，如：the mother of the bride (e.g., Langacker, 1999)。雖然[N1 of N2] 這個構式常在英語學術言談的文獻中被提到(e.g., Biber, Johansson, Leech, Conrad & Finegan, 1999; Biber & Gray, 2010; Simpson-Vlach & Ellis, 2010)，卻尚少有針對此構式做一個比較完整的研究來了解這些不同的語意關係是否有相關性。因此，本論文的研究目的為探討不同的of -構式，藉此找出它們的語意關係之間的連結，並了它們如何幫助學術論文作者在文章傳遞訊息。本論文採用量化為本的認知語意學為理論架構，針對在British National Corpus 語料庫中的of -構式進行研究。研究結果發現相對於語意關係的分類，N1 和N2 的語意類別無法全然解釋of -構式中不同的語意。此外，研究結果顯示在學術論文中of -構式大多為名詞化的動詞(例如，combination of words) 或是動名詞（如，the advancing of organized interests)，這些of -構式主要有兩個功能，首先，此構式本身可以不用標記施事者，並且在當做主詞時可以取代施事者(agent)，可以降低明定施事者的風險，而達到謹言慎行(hedging) 的效果。of -構式的第二個功能是可以概括前文(encapsulation) 以一個總結的方式作為主詞，以利後續的銜接(e.g., Sinclair, 1993)。另外，本論文應用多變量分析來找出特定的模式，如，使用covarying collexeme analysis 找出專有名詞為of -構式中最具典範的例子。使用hiearchical configural frequency analysis 發現of -構式在不同的句法位置中，有不同的修飾模式會出現，當它在主詞中出現時，N1 大多會有前方修飾語(premodifier) 但卻比較不會被後方修飾語(postmodifier)。當它出現在受詞中，後修飾語常一起出現，卻比較不會有前修飾語。最後，of -構式在學術論文中有可能是一個很重要的評論媒介，可以把評論放如前修飾語中或以名詞的方式出現。本論為最後提出一個教學應用來提升學習者對of -構式的了解以及一些例子用來提升學習者對of -構式在agent demotion 使用上的理解。 English [N1 of N2] constructions (e.g., every corner of the world) consist of a wide range of nominal groups that are linked by the most commonly found preposition of. The two nominal groups that precede and follow of vary with their semantic relations such as part-whole relations (e.g., the rim of the mug) and relational terms (e.g., the mother of the bride) (e.g., Langacker, 1999). Although the [N1 of N2] constructions (henceforth, of -constructions) have been constantly mentioned in recent studies of English academic discourse (e.g., Biber, Johansson, Leech, Conrad & Finegan, 1999; Biber & Gray, 2010; Simpson-Vlach & Ellis, 2010), not much work has been devoted to considering of -constructions from a comprehensive perspective, i.e., how the varieties of of -constructions are congruent in meaning. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to examine the extent to which the different types of of -constructions are linked by various semantic relations and how they are distributed in academic writing and their functions. By adopting a quantification-based Cognitive Semantics approach, this study investigated of -constructions in the academic sub-corpus of the written British National Corpus using the platform BNCweb. Our analysis demonstrate that categorization of semantic categories of N1 and N2 nominal heads is not sufficient to capture the full spectrum of meanings of of -constructions as compared to using semantic relations. The results also show that there is a prevalence of of -constructions involving actions by means of deverbal nominalization (e.g., combination of words) or nominal gerunds (e.g., the advancing of organized interests) in academic writing. In association with these nominalized lexical items, two important functions were identified at the subject position. First, the construction allows a demotion of agent, or a substitution of the of -construction for an agentive subject, possibly to hedge the statement and demonstrate objectivity. The second function is an encapsulation function (Sinclair, 1993) that restates previous statements which in turn sets up the stage or acts as a theme for the academic discourse to build on (e.g., The assessment of practical subjects and their funding remains a problem…). Application of multivariate analyses identified some interesting patterns. First, the covarying collexeme analysis identifies proper names as the most prototypical of -constructions. Another interesting finding using the hiearchical configural frequency analysis is that at different syntactic positions, the of -construction is modified differently. When appearing at the subject position, N1 tends to be premodified but not postmodified. When appearing at the object position, the of -construction is more likely to be postmodified but not premodified at all. This modification pattern appears to allow a quick access to the main verb for ease of processing. Finally, the of -construction could contain evaluative premodifiers (e.g., user-friendly) or evaluative nominal groups (e.g., importance) for evaluation. Towards the end of this study, applications to pedagogy involving a mini corpus and instruction for teaching agent demotion were designed to raise learner’s awareness of the semantic relations of of -constructions.
Reference:	Aarts, B. (1998). Binominal noun phrases in English. Transactions of the Philological Society, 96(1), 117–158. Ädel, A., & Erman, B. (2012). Recurrent word combinations in academic writing by native and non-native speakers of English: A lexical bundles approach. English for Specific Purposes, 31(2), 81–92. Aktas, R. N., & Cortes, V. (2008). Shell nouns as cohesive devices in published and ESL student writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7(1), 3–14. Almeida, M. B., & Baracho, R. A. (2014). A theoretical investigation about the notion of parts and wholes: Mereological and meronymic relations. Brazilian Journal of Information Science: Research Trends, 8, 1–41. Alvarez, I., & REGO, M. (2001). Encapsulation and prospection in written scientific English. Estudios ingleses de la Universidad Complutense, 9, 81–101. Atkins, B. T. S. (1987). Semantic ID tags: Corpus evidence for dictionary senses. In Proceedings of the third annual conference of the uw centre for the new Oxford English dictionary (pp. 17–36). Banks, D. (1998). Vague quantification in the scientific journal article. Asp, la revue du GERAS, 19, 17–27. Biber, D. (2006). University language: A corpus-based study of spoken and written registers. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Biber, D., & Clark, V. (2002). Historical shifts in modification patterns with complex noun phrase structures. In T. Fanego, M. Lépez-Couso, & J. Perez-Guerra (Eds.), English historical morphology: Selected papers from 11 ICEHL, Sanitago de Compostela, 7-11 September 2000 (pp. 43–66). Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Cortes, V. (2004). If you look at…: Lexical bundles in university teaching and textbooks. Applied Linguistics, 25(3), 371–405. Biber, D., & Finegan, E. (1989). Styles of stance in English: Lexical and grammatical marking of evidentiality and affect. Text, 9(1), 93–124. Biber, D., & Gray, B. (2010). Challenging stereotypes about academic writing: Complexity, elaboration, explicitness. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(1), 2–20. Biber, D., & Gray, B. (2011). Grammatical change in the noun phrase: The influence of written language use. English Language & Linguistics, 15(2), 223–250. Biber, D., & Gray, B. (2013). Nominalizing the verb phrase in academic science writing. In B. Aarts, J. Close, G. Leech, & S. Wallis (Eds.), The verb phrase in English: Investigating recent language change with corpora (pp. 99–132). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Grammar of spoken and written English. Edinburgh: Pearson Education. Blasius, J., & Greenacre, M. (2006). Correspondence analysis and related methods in practice. In J. Blasius & M. Greenacre (Eds.), Multiple correspondence analysis and related methods (pp. 3–40). Boca Raton, FL: Chapman and Hall/CRC. Carter-Thomas, S., & Rowley-Jolivet, E. (2008). If-conditionals in medical discourse: From theory to disciplinary practice. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7(3), 191–205. Chaffin, R., & Herrmann, D. J. (1984). The similarity and diversity of semantic relations. Memory & Cognition, 12(2), 134–141. Chan, A. Y. (2010). Toward a taxonomy of written errors: Investigation into the written errors of hong kong cantonese ESL learners. TESOL Quarterly, 44(2), 295–319. Charles, M. (2003). ‘This mystery …’: A corpus-based study of the use of nouns to construct stance in theses from two contrasting disciplines. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2(4), 313–326. Charles, M. (2006). Phraseological patterns in reporting clauses used in citation: A corpus-based study of theses in two disciplines. English for Specific Purposes, 25(3), 310–331. Chen, L., & Chung, S.-F. (2014). Of -constructions in the predicate of demonstrate and show in academic discourse. Taiwan Journal of TESOL, 11(1), 105–144. Cho, K. (2010). Fostering the acquisition of English prepositions by Japanese learners with networks and prototypes. Fostering language teaching efficiency through cognitive linguistics, 17, 259–276. Chuang, F.-Y., & Nesi, H. (2006). An analysis of formal errors in a corpus of L2 English produced by Chinese students. Corpora, 1(2), 251–271. Collins, P. (2009). Modals and quasi-modals in English. Amsterdam/New York: Rodopi. Cortes, V. (2004). Lexical bundles in published and student disciplinary writing: Examples from history and biology. English for Specific Purposes, 23(4), 397–423. Coulmas, F. (1981). Conversational routine: Explorations in standardized communication situations and prepatterned speech. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter. Croft, W., & Cruse, D. A. (2004). Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cruse, A. (2000). Meaning in language: An introduction to semantics and pragmatics. Cruse, D. A. (1986). Lexical semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cutting, J. (2012). Vague language in conference abstracts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11(4), 283–293. Dagneaux, E., Denness, S., & Granger, S. (1998). Computer-aided error analysis. System, 26(2), 163–174. Dirven, R., Goossens, L., Putseys, Y., & Vorlat, E. (1982). The scene of linguistic action and its perspectivization by speak, talk, say and tell. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Erman, B., & Warren, B. (2000). The idiom principle and the open choice principle. Text, 20(1), 29–62. Evens, M., Litowitz, B. E., Markowitz, J. A., Smith, R. N., & Werner, O. (1980). Lexical-semantic relations: A comparative survey. Edmonton, AB: Linguistic Research. Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2003). The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books. Fellbaum, C. (2002). On the semantics of troponymy. In R. Green, C. Bean, & S. H. Mayeng (Eds.), The semantics of relationships: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 23–34). Dordrecht, NL: Kluwer. Ferris, D. (2011). Treatment of error in second language student writing. University of Michigan Press. Fillmore, C. J. (1967). The case for case. In E. Bach & R. T. Harms (Eds.), Universals in linguistic theory (pp. 1–88). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Wilson. Fillmore, C. J. (1976). Frame semantics and the nature of language. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 280(1), 20–32. Firth, J. R. (1957). Papers in linguistics 1934-1951. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Flowerdew, J. (2003). Signalling nouns in discourse. English for Specific Purposes, 22(4), 329–346. Flowerdew, J., & Forest, R. W. (2015). Signalling nouns in academic English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Flowerdew, L. (2004). The argument for using English specialized corpora to understand academic and professional language. In U. Connor & T. Upton (Eds.), Discourse in the professions: Perspectives from corpus linguistics (pp. 11–33). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Flowerdew, L. (2008). Corpora and context in professional writing. In V. Bhatia, J. Flowerdew, & R. H. Jones (Eds.), Advances in discourse studies (pp. 115–127). London/New York: Routledge. Francis, G. (1986). Anaphoric nouns. Birmingham: University of Birmingham. Francis, G. (1994). Labelling discourse: An aspect of nominal-group lexical cohesion. In M. Coulthard (Ed.), Advances in written text analysis (pp. 83–101). London/New York: Routledge. Francis, G., Hunston, S., & Manning, E. (1998). Collins Cobuild grammar patterns 2: Nouns and adjectives. London: Harper Collins. Glynn, D. (2014a). Correspondence analysis: Finding structure in linguistic data. In D. Glynn & J. A. Robinson (Eds.), Corpus methods for semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy (pp. 443–486). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Glynn, D. (2014b). Techniques and tools: Corpus methods and statistics for semantics. In D. Glynn & J. A. Robinson (Eds.), Corpus methods for semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy (p. 307-343). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Gosden, H. (1993). Discourse functions of subject in scientific research articles. Applied Linguistics, 14(1), 56–75. Granger, S. (1998). The computer learner corpus: A versatile new source of data for SLA research. In S. Granger (Ed.), Learner English on computer (pp. 3–18). Harlow: Addison Wesley Longman. Granger, S. (2003). The international corpus of learner English: A new resource for foreign language learning and teaching and second language acquisition research. TESOL Quarterly, 37(3), 538–546. Gray, B., & Biber, D. (2013). Lexical frames in academic prose and conversation. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 18(1), 109–136. Gries, S. T. (2004). Hcfa 3.2-a program for Hierarchical Configural Frequency Analysis for R. Retrieved from http://www.linguistics.ucsb.edu/faculty/stgries/ Gries, S. T. (2007). Coll.analysis3.2. a program for R. Retrieved from http://www.linguistics.ucsb.edu/faculty/stgries/teaching/groningen Gries, S. T., & Divjak, D. (2009). Behavioral profiles: A corpus-based approach to cognitive semantic analysis. In V. Evans & S. Pourcel (Eds.), New directions in cognitive linguistics (pp. 57–75). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Gries, S. T., & Stefanowitsch, A. (2004). Co-varying collexemes in the into-causative. In M. Achard & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Language, culture, and mind (pp. 225–236). Stanford: CSLI. Groom, N. (2005). Pattern and meaning across genres and disciplines: An exploratory study. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 4(3), 257–277. Haberman, S. J. (1973). The analysis of residuals in cross-classified tables. Biometrics, 205–220. Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman. Halliday, M. A. K., & Martin, J. R. (1993). Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press. Hasselgård, H. (2016). The way of the world: The colligational framework “the N1 of the N2” and its Norwegian correspondences. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 15(3), 55–79. Henry, A., & Roseberry, R. L. (2007). Language errors in the genre-based writing of advanced academic ESL students. RELC Journal, 38(2), 171–198. Hinkel, E. (2004). Teaching academic ESL writing: Practical techniques in vocabulary and grammar. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Hinkle, D. E., Wiersma, W., & Jurs, S. G. (2003). Applied statistics for the behavioral sciences. Wadsworth: Cengage Learning. Hoffmann, S. (2005). Grammaticalization and English complex prepositions: A corpus-based study. London/New York: Routledge. Hoffmann, S., Evert, S., Smith, N., Lee, D., & Berglund-Prytz, Y. (2008). Corpus linguistics with BNCWeb: A practical guide. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Hunston, G., S & Francis. (2000). Pattern grammar: A corpus-driven approach to the lexical grammar of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Hunston, S. (1994). Evaluation and organization in a sample of written academic discourse. Advances in written text analysis, 191–218. Hunston, S. (2010). Corpus approaches to evaluation: Phraseology and evaluative language. London: Routledge. Hunston, S., & Thompson, G. (2000). Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse. Oxford: Oxford: Oxford University Press, UK. Hyland, K. (1998). Hedging in scientific research articles. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Hyland, K. (1999). Disciplinary discourses: Writer stance in research articles. In C. Candlin & K. Hyland (Eds.), Writing: Texts, processes and practices (pp. 99–121). London: Longman. Hyland, K. (2002). Activity and evaluation: Reporting practices in academic writing. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic discourse (pp. 125–140). London: Longman. Hyland, K. (2005). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse studies, 7(2), 173–192. Hyland, K. (2008). As can be seen: Lexical bundles and disciplinary variation. English for Specific Purposes, 27(1), 4–21. Hyland, K., & Shaw, P. (2016). Introduction. In K. Hyland & P. Shaw (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of English for academic purposes (pp. 1–14). New York: Routledge. Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2005). Evaluative that constructions: Signalling stance in research abstracts. Functions of Language, 12(1), 39–63. Ivanič, R. (1991). Nouns in search of a context: A study of nouns with both open-and closed-system characteristics. IRAL, 29(2), 93–114. Keizer, E. (2007). The English noun phrase: The nature of linguistic categorization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kennedy, G. D. (1987). Quantification and the use of English: A case study of one aspect of the learner’s task. Applied Linguistics, 8(3), 264–286. Kennedy, G. D. (1998). An introduction to corpus linguistics. London: Longman. Khoo, C. S., & Na, J.-C. (2006). Semantic relations in information science. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 40, 157–228. Kim, J.-B., & Sells, P. (2015). English binominal NPs: A construction-based perspective. Journal of Linguistics, 51(1), 41–73. Kjellmer, G. (1994). A dictionary of English collocations: Based on the Brown corpus. Oxford: Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kreyer, R. (2003). Genitive and of -construction in modern written English: Processability and human involvement. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 8(2), 169–207. Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Langacker, R. W. (1982). Space grammar, analysability, and the English passive. Language, 22–80. Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar: Theoretical prerequisites (Vol. 1). Standford: Stanford university press. Langacker, R. W. (1999). Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter. Langacker, R. W. (2008). Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lê, S., Josse, J., & Husson, F. (2008). FactoMineR: An R package for multivariate analysis. Journal of Statistical Software, 25(1), 1–18. Lee, D. Y. W. (2001). Genres, registers, text types, domains and styles: Clarifying the concepts and navigating a path through the bnc jungle. Language Learning and Technology, 5, 37–72. Lehmann, C. (2006). Participant roles, thematic roles and syntactic relations. In T. Tsunoda & T. Kageyama (Eds.), Voice and grammatical relations: In honor of Masayoshi Shibatani (pp. 153–174). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Levin, B. (1993). English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago: University of Chicago press. Lindstromberg, S. (2010). English prepositions explained. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Lyngfelt, B., & Solstad, T. (2006). Demoting the agent: Passive, middle and other voice phenomena. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics (2 vols.). London/New York: Cambridge University Press. Lyons, J. (1995). Linguistic semantics: An introduction. London/New York: Cambridge University Press. Master, P. (1991). Active verbs with inanimate subjects in scientific prose. English for Specific Purposes, 10(1), 15–33. Master, P. (2001). Active verbs with inanimate subjects in scientific research articles. Academic writing in context, 169–181. Miller, G. (1998). Nouns in WordNet. In C. Fellbaum (Ed.), Wordnet: An electronic lexical database (pp. 22–46). Cambridge/London: MIT Press. Miller, G. A. (1995). WordNet: A lexical database for English. Communications of the ACM, 38(11), 39–41. Moldovan, D., Badulescu, A., Tatu, M., Antohe, D., & Girju, R. (2004). Models for the semantic classification of noun phrases. In Proceedings of the HLT-NAACL workshop on computational lexical semantics (pp. 60–67). Murphy, M. L. (2003). Semantic relations and the lexicon: Antonymy, synonymy and other paradigms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Myers, G. (1989). The pragmatics of politeness in scientific articles. Applied Linguistics, 10(1), 1–35. Myers, G. (1996). Strategic vagueness in academic writing. In E. Ventola & A. Mauranen (Eds.), Academic writing: Intercultural and textual issues (pp. 3–18). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Napoli, D. J. (1989). Predication theory: A case study for indexing theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nastase, V., & Szpakowicz, S. (2003). Exploring noun-modifier semantic relations. In Fifth international workshop on computational semantics (IWCS-5) (pp. 285–301). Newman, J. (2011). Corpora and cognitive linguistics. Revista Brasileira de Linguística Aplicada, 11(2), 521–559. Nikiforidou, K. (1991). The meanings of the genitive: A case study in semantic structure and semantic change. Cognitive Linguistics, 2(2), 149–206. Oakey, D. (2002). Formulaic language in English academic writing: A corpus-based study of the formal and functional variation of a lexical phrase in different academic disciplines. In R. Reppen, S. M. Fitzmaurice, & D. Biber (Eds.), Using corpora to explore linguistic variation (pp. 111–129). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Pawley, A., & Syder, F. H. (1983). Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Nativelike selection and nativelike fluency. In J. C. Richards & R. W. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and communication (p. 191-225). London: Longman. Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., & Leech, G. (8). G. and svartvik, j. 1985. a comprehensive grammar of the English language. London and New York: Longman. R Development CORE TEAM. (2008). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. foundation for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria. Retrieved from http://www.R-project.org Radden, G., & Dirven, R. (2007). Cognitive English grammar. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Renouf & Sinclair, J. (1991). Collocational frameworks in English. In K. Aijmer & B. Altenberg (Eds.), English corpus linguistics (pp.128-143). London: Longman. Rock, I., & Palmer, S. (1990). The legacy of gestalt psychology. Scientific American, 263(6), 84–91. Rosenbach, A. (2014). English genitive variation–the state of the art. English Language & Linguistics, 18(2), 215–262. Schmid, H.-J. (1999). Cognitive effects of shell nouns. In K. van Hoek, A. A. Kibrik, & L. Noordman (Eds.), Amsterdam studies in the theory and history of linguistic science series 4 (pp. 111–132). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Schmid, H.-J. (2000). English abstract nouns as conceptual shells: From corpus to cognition. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter. Schmid, H.-J. (2007). Entrenchment, salience, and basic levels. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 117–138). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Schmid, H.-J., & Küchenhoff, H. (2013). Collostructional analysis and other ways of measuring lexicogrammatical attraction: Theoretical premises, practical problems and cognitive underpinnings. Cognitive Linguistics, 24, 531–577. Schönthal, D. (2016). On the multifaceted nature of English of-NPs: A theoretical, corpus, cotextual and cognitive approach (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Cardiff University. Simpson-Vlach, R., & Ellis, N. C. (2010). An academic formulas list: New methods in phraseology research. Applied Linguistics, 31(4), 487–512. Sinclair, J. (1991). Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sinclair, J. M. (1993). Written discourse structure. In J. M. Sinclair, H. M, & F. G (Eds.), Techniques of description (pp. 6–31). London: Routledge. Smith, N. (2003). Changes in the modals and semi-modals of strong obligation and epistemic necessity in recent British English. In R. Facchinetti, M. Krug, & F. Palmer (Eds.), Modality in contemporary English (pp. 241–266). Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter. Snow, C. E. (2010). Academic language and the challenge of reading for learning about science. Science, 328(5977), 450–452. Stefanowitsch, A. (2003). Constructional semantics as a limit to grammatical alternation: The two genitives of English. In G. Rohdenburg & B. Mondorf (Eds.), Determinants of grammatical variation in English (pp. 413–444). Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter. Stefanowitsch, A., & Gries, S. T. (2003). Collostructions: Investigating the interaction of words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 8(2), 209–243. Stefanowitsch, A., & Gries, S. T. (2005). Covarying collexemes. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 1(1), 1–43. Storjohann, P. (2010). Lexico-semantic relations in theory and practice. Lexical semantic Relations: Theoretical and Practical Perspectives, 28, 5–14. Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Swales, J. M., & Burke, A. (2003). ”It’s really fascinating work”: Differences in evaluative adjectives across academic registers. Language and Computers, 46, 1–18. Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a cognitive semantics, volume I: Conceptual structuring systems. Cambridge: MIT Press. Tarone, E., Dwyer, S., Gillette, S., & Icke, V. (1981). On the use of the passive in two astrophysics journal papers. The ESP Journal, 1(2), 123–140. Taylor, J. R. (1996). Possessives in English: An exploration in cognitive grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Thomas, S., & Hawes, T. P. (1994). Reporting verbs in medical journal articles. English for Specific Purposes, 13(2), 129–148. Thompson, G., & Yiyun, Y. (1991). Evaluation in the reporting verbs used in academic papers. Applied Linguistics, 12(4), 365–382. Tribble, C. (2002). Corpora and corpus analysis: New windows on academic writing. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic discourse (pp. 141–159). London: Longman. Tyler, A. (2012). Cognitive linguistics and second language learning: Theoretical basics and experimental evidence. New York/London: Routledge. Tyler, A., & Evans, V. (2003). The semantics of English prepositions: Spatial scenes, embodied meaning, and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Vendler, Z. (1967). Linguistics in philosophy. Cornell University Press. Ventola, E. (1996). Packing and unpacking of information in academic texts. In E. Ventola & A. Mauranen (Eds.), Academic writing: Intercultural and textual issues (pp. 153–194). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Von Eye, A. (1990). Introduction to configural frequency analysis: The search for types and antitypes in cross-classification. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Von Eye, A., Mair, P., & Mun, E.-Y. (2010). Advances in configural frequency analysis. London: Guilford Press. Winter, E. O. (1977). A clause-relational approach to English texts: A study of some predictive lexical items in written discourse. Instructional Science, 6(1), 1–92. Yamasaki, N. (2008). Collocations and colligations associated with discourse functions of unspecific anaphoric nouns. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 13(1), 75–98. Zlatev, J. (2007). Spatial semantics. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 318–350). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Description:	博士國立政治大學英國語文學系 98551505
Source URI:	http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0985515052
Data Type:	thesis
DOI:	10.6814/DIS.NCCU.ENG.006.2018.A09
Appears in Collections:	[Department of English] Theses

Files in This Item:

File	Size	Format
505201.pdf	1407Kb	Adobe PDF2	278	View/Open

社群 sharing

Loading...