政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/130887
English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  全文筆數/總筆數 : 113318/144297 (79%)
造訪人次 : 51009128      線上人數 : 948
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
搜尋範圍 查詢小技巧：
  • 您可在西文檢索詞彙前後加上"雙引號"，以獲取較精準的檢索結果
  • 若欲以作者姓名搜尋，建議至進階搜尋限定作者欄位，可獲得較完整資料
    •  進階搜尋


    請使用永久網址來引用或連結此文件: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/130887


    題名: 英語母語者與臺灣英語學習者副詞JUST使用之分析： 以語料庫為本
    A Corpus-based Study of Native Speakers’ and Taiwanese EFL Learners’ Use of the Adverb JUST
    作者: 林宜靜
    Lin, Yi-Ching
    貢獻者: 鍾曉芳
    Siaw-Fong Chung
    林宜靜
    Lin, Yi-Ching
    關鍵詞: JUST
    副詞
    語料庫
    字彙文法句式
    Just
    Adverb
    Corpus
    Lexico-grammatical pattern
    日期: 2020
    上傳時間: 2020-08-03 17:17:23 (UTC+8)
    摘要: 　　儘管多義副詞JUST在外語學習者的寫作中是一個高頻詞，然而大多數的學習者可能不清楚JUST該如何被使用。本研究的目的為探討母語者及臺灣英語學習者在英語寫作中如何使用JUST的五種意義，並分析母語者和臺灣英語學習者使用副詞JUST時在字彙文法句式方面的差異。本研究的語料來自三個線上語料庫，包含一個母語者語料庫以及兩個臺灣英語學習者語料庫，語料分析為兩個面向：（一）不同意義的JUST使用之頻率、（二）不同意義的JUST字彙文法句式使用之差異。
    　　研究結果顯示，整體而言JUST在母語者語料庫及臺灣英語學習者語料庫的使用頻率相似。然而，就JUST的不同意義而言，’depreciatory’ JUST在所有語料庫中皆是最常被使用的意義，而最不常被使用的則為’specificatory’ JUST。我們也發現，JUST最常被使用的兩個意義，意即’depreciatory’和’restrictive’ JUST，使用頻率加總後占學習者語料的極大部分，這導致了JUST在學習者語料庫中的多樣性較低。JUST的字彙文法句式分析的結果則顯示當JUST修飾不同詞性的句式結構、與特定語境特徵共現或搭配特定的動詞時態／時貌時，會導致JUST產生不同的意義。在搭配詞錯誤或語意關聯不正確的情況下，亦會造成JUST使用上的疑義，例如JUST LIKE和SUCH AS的混淆。
    　　本研究期望能夠透過語料分析，從多義副詞JUST的使用頻率、句型特徵及語義演變提供學習者在副詞習得方面的建議。
    Although the polysemous adverb JUST is frequently used by EFL learners in essays, many of them may still be unconscious of how just was used (Grant, 2011). The aim of this study is to examine how frequently different meanings of the adverb JUST are employed by native speakers and Taiwanese EFL learners in their essays and the differences in the lexico-grammatical patterns. Data were drawn from one NS corpus and two Taiwanese EFL learner corpora to investigate the overall frequencies of JUST and the frequencies of JUST by meaning categories. By scrutinizing the instances derived from the above corpora, semantic and syntactic features of the lexico-grammatical patterns were identified and discussed.
    The results of the corpus analysis showed that the overall frequencies of JUST were similar in the NS and learner corpora. As for the frequencies of JUST by meanings, the ‘depreciatory’ JUST was found to be the most frequently used meaning in all of the corpora, and the ‘specificatory’ JUST the least. The top two frequently used meaning in the learner corpora, the ‘depreciatory’ and ‘restrictive’ JUST took up a high proportion of the total instances, which in turn led to a smaller variety of meanings. Next, we examined the lexico-grammatical patterns of the different meanings of JUST. Results indicated that different meanings of the adverbial JUST were induced when modifying different syntactic structures, co-occurring with specific contextual clues, or interacting with particular tense/aspect of verbs. Besides, the semantic features and the lexical choices are also important in determining whether the use of certain senses of JUST would be acceptable in a sentence. Incorrect semantic relation or lexical choice are found to contribute to questionable uses, for example, awkward use of the ‘specificatory’ JUST and confusion between JUST LIKE and SUCH AS.
    With the inclusive knowledge of the frequencies of JUST and the semantic and syntactic features of the lexico-grammatical patterns JUST was used in, it is hoped that the findings will shed light on the perplexing issue of adverb acquisition.
    參考文獻: Aijmer, K. (2005). Just and multifunctionality. Contexts-Historical, Social, Linguistic: Studies in Celebration of Toril Swan, 31.
    Bauer, G. (1970). The English perfect reconsidered. Journal of Linguistics, 6(2), 189-198.
    Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., Finegan, E., & Quirk, R. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English (Vol. 2). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1978). Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. In Questions and politeness: Strategies in social interaction (pp. 56-311). Cambridge University Press.
    Charles, M. (2009). Stance, interaction and the rhetorical patterns of restrictive adverbs: Discourse roles of only, just, simply and merely. Academic writing: At the interface of corpus and discourse, 152-169.
    Deroey, K. L., & Taverniers, M. (2012). Just remember this: Lexicogrammatical relevance markers in lectures. English for Specific Purposes, 31(4), 221-233.
    Gilquin, G., Granger, S., & Paquot, M. (2007). Learner corpora: The missing link in EAP pedagogy. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6(4), 319-335.
    Grant, L. E. (2011). The frequency and functions of just in British academic spoken English. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 10(3), 183-197.
    Grant, L. E. (2013). The frequency and functions of just in British academic spoken English. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 10(3), 183-197.
    Heine, B., Bernd, H., & Kuteva, T. (2002). World lexicon of grammaticalization. Cambridge University Press.
    Heine, B. (2003). On degrammaticalization. Amsterdam studies in the theory and history of linguistics science series 4, 163-180.
    Hinkel, E. (2003). Adverbial markers and tone in L1 and L2 students` writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 35(7), 1049-1068.
    Hopper, P. J., & Traugott, E. C. (2003). Grammaticalization. Cambridge University Press.
    Hoye, L. (1997). Adverbs and Modality in English. London: Longman.
    Kishner, J. M., & Gibbs Jr, R. W. (1996). How “just” gets its meanings: Polysemy and context in psychological semantics. Language and speech, 39(1), 19-36.
    Kronasser, H. (1952). Handbuch der Semasiologie: Kurze Einführung in die Geschichte, Problematik und Terminologie der Bedeutungslehre. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.
    Lee, D. (1987). The semantics of just. Journal of Pragmatics, 11(3), 377-398.
    Lee, D. A. (1991). Categories in the description of just. Lingua, 83(1), 43-66.
    Lindemann, S., & Mauranen, A. (2001). “It’s just real messy”: the occurrence and function of just in a corpus of academic speech. English for specific purposes, 20, 459-475.
    Molina, C., & Romano, M. (2012). JUST revisited: Panchronic and contrastive insights. International Journal of English Studies, 12(1), 17-36.
    Osborne, J. (2008). Adverb placement in post-intermediate learner English: A contrastive study of learner corpora. In Linking up contrastive and learner corpus research (pp. 127-146).
    Pérez-Paredes, P., & Sánchez-Tornel, M. (2014). Adverb use and language proficiency in young learners’ writing. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 19(2), 178-200.
    Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., Svartvik, J. (1972). A Grammar of Contemporary English. London: Longman.
    Tottie, G. (1986). The importance of being adverbial. Adverbials of focusing and contingency in spoken and written English. In Tottie, G. and I. Bäcklund (eds.) English in speech and writing: A symposium. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell. 93-118.
    Traugott, E. C. (1982). From propositional to textual and expressive meanings: Some semantic-pragmatic aspects of grammaticalization. Perspectives on historical linguistics, 245-271.
    Traugott, E. C. (1988). Is internal semantic-pragmatic reconstruction possible. Rhetorica, phonologica, syntactica. London: Routledge, 128-144.
    Traugott, E.C. (1990). From less to more situated in language: The unindiretionality of semantic change. In S. Adamson, V. Law, N. Vincent and S. Wright (Eds), Papers from the fifth ICEHL (pp. 497-517). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
    Vendler, Z. (1957). Verbs and times. The philosophical review, 143-160.
    Yilmaz, E., & Dikilitaş, K. (2017). EFL Learners` Uses of Adverbs in Argumentative Essays. Novitas-ROYAL (Research on Youth and Language), 11(1), 69-87.
    描述: 碩士
    國立政治大學
    英國語文學系
    104551018
    資料來源: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0104551018
    資料類型: thesis
    DOI: 10.6814/NCCU202001090
    顯示於類別:[英國語文學系] 學位論文

    文件中的檔案:

    檔案 描述 大小格式瀏覽次數
    101801.pdf2489KbAdobe PDF20檢視/開啟


    在政大典藏中所有的資料項目都受到原著作權保護.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告 Copyright Announcement
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏，無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用，惟仍請適度，合理使用本網站之內容，以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用，則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    The digital content of this website is part of National Chengchi University Institutional Repository. It provides free access to academic research and public education for non-commercial use. Please utilize it in a proper and reasonable manner and respect the rights of copyright owners. For commercial use, please obtain authorization from the copyright owner in advance.

    2.本網站之製作，已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益，如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者，請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw)，維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    NCCU Institutional Repository is made to protect the interests of copyright owners. If you believe that any material on the website infringes copyright, please contact our staff(nccur@nccu.edu.tw). We will remove the work from the repository and investigate your claim.
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - 回饋