1. NCCU Academic Hub
  2. 學術產出
  3. 外國語文學院
  4. 學位論文
  5. Item

學術產出-學位論文

文章檢視/開啟

書目匯出

Google ScholarTM

政大圖書館

引文資訊

TAIR相關學術產出

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 3-八月-2020 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
dc.contributor.advisor 鍾曉芳zh_TW
dc.contributor.advisor Siaw-Fong Chungen_US
dc.contributor.author (作者) 林宜靜zh_TW
dc.contributor.author (作者) Lin, Yi-Chingen_US
dc.creator (作者) 林宜靜zh_TW
dc.creator (作者) Lin, Yi-Chingen_US
dc.date (日期) 2020en_US
dc.date.accessioned 3-八月-2020 17:17:23 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.available 3-八月-2020 17:17:23 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 3-八月-2020 17:17:23 (UTC+8)-
dc.identifier (其他 識別碼) G0104551018en_US
dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/130887-
dc.description (描述) 碩士zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 英國語文學系zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 104551018zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (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。		zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) 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.		en_US
dc.description.tableofcontents 中文摘要 vii
English Abstract viii

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 3
2.1 Difficulties in EFL adverb acquisition 3
2.2 Just and its meanings 4
2.3 Grammaticalization of the adverb just 12
2.3.1 Cross-linguistic grammaticalization tendencies 12
2.3.2 The semantic-pragmatic reconstruction of just 17
2.4 The adverb just used by native speakers 19
2.5 The adverb just used by L2/EFL learners 22
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY 25
3.1 Corpora 25
3.2 Data collection 26
3.3 Data analysis 29
3.3.1 Coding scheme and the meaning annotation procedures 29
3.3.2 Analyzing the lexico-grammatical patterns 35
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS OF THE FREQUENCIES OF JUST AND THE LEXICOGRAMMATICAL PATTERNS 37
4.1 The overall frequency of just in the NS and learner corpora 37
4.2 Frequencies of just by meaning categories 38
4.3 The lexicogrammatical patterns in which adverbial just was used 41
4.3.1 ‘Depreciatory’ just 41
4.3.1.1 [X + BE + ‘depreciatory’ just + adjective] 42
4.3.1.2 [X + BE + ‘depreciatory’ just + noun (phrase)] 43
4.3.1.3 [X + ‘depreciatory’ just + verb (phrase)] 45
4.3.1.4 [X + (auxiliary) + verb (phrase) + ‘depreciatory’ just + prepositional phrase] 48
4.3.1.5 [‘depreciatory’ just + to-infinitive clause] 49
4.3.1.6 [‘depreciatory’ just + because-clause] 50
4.3.1.7 [‘depreciatory’ just + imperative] 50
4.3.2 ‘Restrictive’just 52
4.3.2.1 The co-occurrence of the ‘restrictive’ just and negation 53
4.3.2.2 The co-occurrence of the ‘restrictive’ just and comparison 55
4.3.3 ‘Specificatory’ just 57
4.3.4 ‘Comparative’ just 60
4.3.5 ‘Emphatic’ just 63
4.3.6 Summary of the chapter 67
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION 71
5.1 Summary 71
5.2 Pedagogical implications 74
5.3 Limitation and future studies 80
Reference 81		zh_TW
dc.format.extent 2549521 bytes-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0104551018en_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) JUSTzh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 副詞zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 語料庫zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 字彙文法句式zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Justen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Adverben_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Corpusen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Lexico-grammatical patternen_US
dc.title (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zh_TW
dc.title (題名) A Corpus-based Study of Native Speakers’ and Taiwanese EFL Learners’ Use of the Adverb JUSTen_US
dc.type (資料類型) thesisen_US
dc.relation.reference (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.		zh_TW
dc.identifier.doi (DOI) 10.6814/NCCU202001090en_US