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 語料庫及心理語言學為基礎之研究： 以[Do/Make+Noun] 為例
Investigating [Do/Make+Noun] constructions: a study based on corpora and psycholinguistic experiments
作者 謝怡箴
Hsieh, Yi Chen
貢獻者 鍾曉芳
Chung, Siaw Fong
謝怡箴
Hsieh, Yi Chen
關鍵詞 搭配詞
輕動詞
語料庫
心理語言學實驗
collocation
light verbs
Corpora
psycholinguistic experiment
日期 2010
上傳時間 24-十月-2012 16:32:39 (UTC+8)
摘要 大多數台灣英語學習者在進入大學前已經習得相當數量的英文字彙，即便如此，他們仍然會誤用常見的搭配詞 (例如: [do/make+noun])。本論文藉用兩種語料庫 (分別為台灣英語學習者語料庫及英國國家語料庫)來分析、觀察[do+noun]和[make+noun]的異同以及英語母語人士及台灣英語學習者使用[do/make+noun]狀況。結果顯示台灣英語學習者和英語母語人士最大的不同在[make+noun]：就語意層面而言，最常被英語母語人士使用的[make+noun]為 ‘to perform, to carry out’ (例如: make a speech, make a fine judge, etc.) 而台灣英語學習者偏好 ‘to create’ (例如: make a sushi, make a robot, etc.)；就名詞特性而言，母語人士偏向使用抽象的名詞 (例如: comment, progress, etc.) 而學習者習慣使用具體的名詞 (例如: robot, sushi, etc.)。除了語料庫語料分析，本論文還透過心理語言學實驗測驗 (即圖片引述實驗－受試者描述他們不熟悉的動作) 觀察母語人士和學習者使用常見的搭配詞－[do/make+noun]－的差異。台灣英語學習者使用為數不少廣義的[do+noun] (例如：do exercise 或 do sports) 而英語母語人士傾向使用帶有具體意義的動詞 (例如:sit-up) 或搭配詞 (例如: do sit-up)。幾乎沒有母語人士使用[make+noun]而大多數學習者使用的是[make+noun]－當make做為causative的用法。根據此實驗分析，本論文提出一個模型來探討英語母語人士和英語學習者對[do/make+noun]的使用異同。
Learners of English in Taiwan are estimated to reach a certain command of vocabulary size before they enter colleges. However, they still differ from native speakers in producing the commonly-used patterns, such as [do/make+noun]. In order to observe the similarities and differences of [do+noun] and [make+noun], as well as their uses by EFL learners, this paper inspects their senses using two types of corpus data, namely a Taiwan-based learner corpus and the British National Corpus. The results show that learners differ from native speakers mainly in their use of [make+noun]. For example, the most frequent sense used by native speakers is ‘to perform, to carry out,’ as in make a speech, make a fine judge, etc., whereas that used by Taiwanese learners is ‘to create’ as in make a sushi, make a robot, etc. With respect to the characteristic of the noun following make, native speakers tend to choose abstract nouns, such as comment, progress, etc., whereas learners prefer concrete nouns, such as robot, sushi, etc. A psycholinguistic experiment is also included in order to see whether learners use language with general meanings, such as [do/make+noun], more in describing situations unfamiliar to them. Results show that [do+noun] patterns with a more general meaning (e.g., do exercise or do sports) are more often used by the learners in our experiment while native speakers prefer language with a more precise meaning (e.g., sit-up or do sit-up). Few [make+noun] constructions are found in native speakers’ language whereas learners produce numerous [make+noun] constructions, mostly the causative uses of make.
參考文獻 Aijmer, K. (2002). Modality in advanced Swedish learners’ written interlanguage. In S. Granger, J. Hung & S. Petch-Tyson (Eds.), Computer learner corpora, second language acquisition and foreign language teaching. (pp. 55-76) Amsterdam: Benjamins.
     Altenberg, B., & Granger, S. (2001). The grammatical and lexical patterning of MAKE in native and non-native student writing. Applied linguistics, 22, 173-195.
     Brugman, C. (2001), Light verbs and polysemy. Language science, 23, 551-578.
     Butt, M., & Geuder, W. (2001). On the (semi)lexical status of light verbs. In N. Corver & H. van Riemsdijk (Eds.), Semilexical Categories: On the content of function words and the function of content words (pp.323–370). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
     Bybee, J., Perkins, R. & Pagliuca, W. (1994). The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect and Modality in the Language of the World. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
     Chi, M. A., Wong, P. K. & Wong, C. M. (1994) Collocational problems amongst ESL learners: a corpus-based study. In Flowerdew, L. and A. K.K. Tong (Eds.) Entering Text (pp. 157-165). Hong Kong: The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology Language Centre.
     Cheung, H., Chung, S.F., & Skoufaki, S. (2010). Indexing Second Language Vocabulary in the Intermediate GEPT. In the Proceedings of the Twelfth Academic Forum on English Language Testing in Asia (Language Testing in Asia: Continuity, Innovation and Synergy). The Language Training and Testing Center, Taiwan. March, 5-6. 118-136.
     Cheung, H., Wu, J., Gao, Z. M., & Chung S.F. (2011). The Construction of the LTTC English Learner Corpus: Progress Report of NTU-LTTC Joint Research Project on Language Teaching and Language Testing.
     Chung, S.F. (2009). A Corpus-driven Approach to Source Domain Determination. Language and Linguistics Monograph Series. Nankang: Academia Sinica.
     Chung, S.F. & Tseng, T.Y. (2009). Distinguishing listen and hear: a corpus-based study. In the Proceedings of the 2009 International Conference on Applied Linguistics and Language Teaching (ALLT). National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Taiwan. April 16-18. 290-300.
     Connine, C., Ferreira, F., Jones, C., Clifton, C. & Frazier, L. (1984). Verb frame preference: Descriptive norms. Journal of psycholinguistic research, 13 (4), 307–319.
     Cook, V. (1999). Going beyond the native speaker in language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 33(2), 185-209.
     Crawley, R. A., & Stevenson, R. J. (1990). Reference in single sentences in texts. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 19(3), 191–210.
     Dixon, R. M. W. (1991). A new approach to English grammar, on semantic principles. New York: Oxford University Press.
     Dorney, Z. (1995). On the teachability of communication strategies. TESOL Quarterly, 29(1), 55-84.
     Dowty, D.R. (1979). Word meaning and Montague grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel.
     Ellis, R., & Barkhuizen, G. (2005). Analyzing learner language. Oxford, England:Oxford University Press.
     Fu, Z. (2006). What to follow “make” and what to follow “do”—corpus-based study on the de-lexical use of “make” and “do” in native speakers’ and Chinese students’ writing. US-China Education Review, 3(5), 42-47.
     Gilquin, G. & S.Th. Gries. (2009). Corpora and experimental methods: A state-of-the-art review. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 5(1), 1-26.
     Gilquin, G. (2007). To err is not all. What corpus and elicitation can reveal about the use of collocations by learners. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik, 55(3), 273-291.
     Granger, S. (1999). Uses of tenses by advanced EFL learners: evidence from an error-tagged computer corpus. In H. Hasselgård & S. Oksefjell (Eds.), Out of Corpora. Studies in Honour of Stig Johansson. (pp. 191-202). Amsterdam: Rodopi.
     Granger, S. & Tyson S. (1996). Connector usage in the English essay writing of native and non-native EFL speakers of English. World Englishes. 15, 17-27.
     Hasselgren, A. (1994). Lexical teddy bears and advanced learners: A study into the ways norwegian students cope with english vocabulary. In: International Journal of Applied Linguistics 4 (2), 237-258.
     Hsieh, Y. C. & S.F. Chung. (2009). Do and Make: a corpus-based study. Paper presented at the American Association for Corpus Linguistics Conference. University of Alberta - Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. October 8-11.
     Huang, C. C. (2003). Senior high students` vocabulary knowledge, content knowledge, and reading comprehension. In the Proceedings of the twelfth conference on English teaching and learning in the Republic of China. Taipei: Crane. 391-402.
     Hunston, S. (2002). Corpora in applied linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     Jespersen, O. (1965). A modern English grammar on historical principles, Part VI, morphology. London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd.
     Juffs, A. (1996). Learnability and the lexicon. Theories and second language acquisition research. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
     Kearns, K. (2002). Light verbs in English. http://www.ling.canterbury.ac.nz/kate/lightverbs.pdf.
     Lee, D. Y.W. & Chen Sylvia Xiao. (2009). Making a bigger deal of the smaller words: function words and other key items in research writing by Chinese learners. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18, 281-296.
     Levin, B. (1993). English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
     McKoon, G., & Macfarland, T. (2000). Externally and internally caused change of state verbs. Language, 76, 833–858.
     Miyamoto, T. (2000). The light verb construction in Japanese: the role of the verbal noun. John Benjamins.
     Nesselhauf, N. (2005). Collocations in a learner corpus. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
     Nunan, D. (1995). Language teaching methodology. New York: Prentice Hall.
     Palmer, F. R. (1987). The English verb. (3rd ed.). Longman, London.
     Pickering, M. J., & Branigan, H. P. (1998). The representation of verbs: Evidence from syntactic priming in language production. Journal of memory and language, 39, 633-651.
     Prince, P. (1996). Second language vocabulary learning: The role of context versus translations as a function of proficiency. The Modern Language Journal, 80 (4), 478-493.
     Ringbom, H. (1998). High-frequency verbs in the ICLE corpus. In A. Renouf (Ed.), Explorations in corpus linguistics (pp. 191 – 200). Rodopi, Amsterdam.
     Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 10(3), 209-231.
     Shen, Y.Y. (2010). EFL learners` synonymous errors: a case study of glad and happy. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 1(1), 1-7.
     Stevenson, S., Fazly, A., & North, R. (2004). Statistical measures of the semi-productivity of light verb constructions. In the Proceedings of the ACL-04Workshop on multiword expressions: Integrating processing. 1-8.
     Talmy, L. (1985). Force dynamics in language and thought. In the Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago Linguistic Society, Chicago. 293-337.
     Talmy, L. (1988). Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science, 12, 49-100.
     Tono, Y. (2005). The potential of learner corpora for pedagogical lexicography. Words in Asian cultural contexts: 315-321.
     Tsui, A. B. M. (2004). What teachers have always wanted to know – and how corpora can help. In J. Sinclair (Ed.), 2004. How to use corpora in language teaching, (pp. 39-61). Amsterdam: Benjamins. Stefan Diemer.
     Van Roey, J. (1990). French-English Contrastive Lexicology: An Introduction. Peeters, Louvain-la-Neuve.
     Verkuyl, H. J. (1972). On the compositional nature of the aspects. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: D. Reidel Publishing Company.
     Viberg, A. (1993). Crosslinguistic perspectives on lexical organization and lexical progression. In Hyltenstam, K. & Viberg, A. (Eds.), Progression and regression in language (pp. 340-385). Cambridge: Cambridge U.P.
     Wierzbicka, A. (1982). Why can you “have a drink” when you can’t *“have an eat”? Language, 58(4), 753–799.
     Wong, S. (1983). Overproduction, underlexicalisation, and unidiornatic usage in the “make” causatives of Chinese speakers: a case for flexibility in interlanguage analysis. Language learning and communication, 2, 151-63.
     Zyzik, E. (2006). Learners’ overgeneralization of dative clitics to accusative contexts: evidence for prototype effects in sla. In Klee, C. A. & Face, T. L. (Eds.), Selected Proceedings of the 7th Conference on the Acquisition of Spanish and Portuguese as First and Second Languages (pp. 122-134). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
描述 碩士
國立政治大學
英國語文學研究所
96551016
99
資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0096551016
資料類型 thesis
dc.contributor.advisor 鍾曉芳zh_TW
dc.contributor.advisor Chung, Siaw Fongen_US
dc.contributor.author (作者) 謝怡箴zh_TW
dc.contributor.author (作者) Hsieh, Yi Chenen_US
dc.creator (作者) 謝怡箴zh_TW
dc.creator (作者) Hsieh, Yi Chenen_US
dc.date (日期) 2010en_US
dc.date.accessioned 24-十月-2012 16:32:39 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.available 24-十月-2012 16:32:39 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 24-十月-2012 16:32:39 (UTC+8)-
dc.identifier (其他 識別碼) G0096551016en_US
dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/54092-
dc.description (描述) 碩士zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 英國語文學研究所zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 96551016zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 99zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) 大多數台灣英語學習者在進入大學前已經習得相當數量的英文字彙，即便如此，他們仍然會誤用常見的搭配詞 (例如: [do/make+noun])。本論文藉用兩種語料庫 (分別為台灣英語學習者語料庫及英國國家語料庫)來分析、觀察[do+noun]和[make+noun]的異同以及英語母語人士及台灣英語學習者使用[do/make+noun]狀況。結果顯示台灣英語學習者和英語母語人士最大的不同在[make+noun]：就語意層面而言，最常被英語母語人士使用的[make+noun]為 ‘to perform, to carry out’ (例如: make a speech, make a fine judge, etc.) 而台灣英語學習者偏好 ‘to create’ (例如: make a sushi, make a robot, etc.)；就名詞特性而言，母語人士偏向使用抽象的名詞 (例如: comment, progress, etc.) 而學習者習慣使用具體的名詞 (例如: robot, sushi, etc.)。除了語料庫語料分析，本論文還透過心理語言學實驗測驗 (即圖片引述實驗－受試者描述他們不熟悉的動作) 觀察母語人士和學習者使用常見的搭配詞－[do/make+noun]－的差異。台灣英語學習者使用為數不少廣義的[do+noun] (例如：do exercise 或 do sports) 而英語母語人士傾向使用帶有具體意義的動詞 (例如:sit-up) 或搭配詞 (例如: do sit-up)。幾乎沒有母語人士使用[make+noun]而大多數學習者使用的是[make+noun]－當make做為causative的用法。根據此實驗分析，本論文提出一個模型來探討英語母語人士和英語學習者對[do/make+noun]的使用異同。zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) Learners of English in Taiwan are estimated to reach a certain command of vocabulary size before they enter colleges. However, they still differ from native speakers in producing the commonly-used patterns, such as [do/make+noun]. In order to observe the similarities and differences of [do+noun] and [make+noun], as well as their uses by EFL learners, this paper inspects their senses using two types of corpus data, namely a Taiwan-based learner corpus and the British National Corpus. The results show that learners differ from native speakers mainly in their use of [make+noun]. For example, the most frequent sense used by native speakers is ‘to perform, to carry out,’ as in make a speech, make a fine judge, etc., whereas that used by Taiwanese learners is ‘to create’ as in make a sushi, make a robot, etc. With respect to the characteristic of the noun following make, native speakers tend to choose abstract nouns, such as comment, progress, etc., whereas learners prefer concrete nouns, such as robot, sushi, etc. A psycholinguistic experiment is also included in order to see whether learners use language with general meanings, such as [do/make+noun], more in describing situations unfamiliar to them. Results show that [do+noun] patterns with a more general meaning (e.g., do exercise or do sports) are more often used by the learners in our experiment while native speakers prefer language with a more precise meaning (e.g., sit-up or do sit-up). Few [make+noun] constructions are found in native speakers’ language whereas learners produce numerous [make+noun] constructions, mostly the causative uses of make.en_US
dc.description.tableofcontents Acknowledgements................................................................................................................iii
     ChineseAbstract......................................................................................................................ix
     English Abstract…..................................................................................................................x
     Chapter One: Introduction 1
     1.1 Background and Motivation 1
     1.2 Research Questions and Hypotheses 5
     1.3 Significance of the Study 6
     1.4 Summary of Each Chapter 6
     Chapter Two: Literature Review 7
     2.1 Semantics of Do and Make 8
     2.2 Light Verbs 12
     2.3 Corpora 17
     2.4 Psycholinguistic Experiments 21
     2.5 Summary of Chapter 25
     Chapter Three: Methodology for Corpus Data Analysis 27
     3.1 Corpora 27
     3.2 Extraction Procedure for [Do/Make+noun] 29
     3.3 Corpus Data Analysis Procedure 34
     3.4 Summary of Chapter 36
     Chapter Four: Results of Corpus-based Analyses 37
     4.1 Frequency distribution of Do/Make 37
     4.2 Re-categorizing senses for Do/Make 40
     4.3 Senses of do/make in the BNC and the LTTC ELC 47
     4.4 Sense Distributions in the BNC and the LTTC ELC 51
     4.5 Top 25 Noun Collocates Following Do/Make 55
     4.6 Summary of Chapter 66
     Chapter Five: Methodology for Self-drawn Elicitation Pictures Experiment 68
     5.1 Materials 70
     5.2 Participants 74
     5.3 Data Collecting and Coding Procedures 75
     5.4 Data Analysis Procedures 77
     5.5 Summary of Chapter 78
     Chapter Six: Results of Psycholinguistic Experiments 79
     6.1 Quantitative Analysis of the Experimental Data 79
     6.2 Qualitative Analysis of the Experimental Data 85
     6.3 Summary of Chapter 101
     Chapter Seven: Discussion 106
     7.1 Conjured Thinking Flow of Native Speakers and Taiwanese EFL Learners based on the Psycholinguistic Experiment 103
     7.2 Causative Uses of Make 104
     7.3 Differences between [Do+noun] and [Make+noun] 105
     Chapter Eight: Conclusion 114
     8.1 Summary of the Major Findings 107
     8.2 Significance and Implications 107
     8.3 Limitations and Suggestions 109		zh_TW
dc.language.iso en_US-
dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0096551016en_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 搭配詞zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 輕動詞zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 語料庫zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 心理語言學實驗zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) collocationen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) light verbsen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Corporaen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) psycholinguistic experimenten_US
dc.title (題名) 語料庫及心理語言學為基礎之研究： 以[Do/Make+Noun] 為例zh_TW
dc.title (題名) Investigating [Do/Make+Noun] constructions: a study based on corpora and psycholinguistic experimentsen_US
dc.type (資料類型) thesisen
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Aijmer, K. (2002). Modality in advanced Swedish learners’ written interlanguage. In S. Granger, J. Hung & S. Petch-Tyson (Eds.), Computer learner corpora, second language acquisition and foreign language teaching. (pp. 55-76) Amsterdam: Benjamins.
     Altenberg, B., & Granger, S. (2001). The grammatical and lexical patterning of MAKE in native and non-native student writing. Applied linguistics, 22, 173-195.
     Brugman, C. (2001), Light verbs and polysemy. Language science, 23, 551-578.
     Butt, M., & Geuder, W. (2001). On the (semi)lexical status of light verbs. In N. Corver & H. van Riemsdijk (Eds.), Semilexical Categories: On the content of function words and the function of content words (pp.323–370). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
     Bybee, J., Perkins, R. & Pagliuca, W. (1994). The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect and Modality in the Language of the World. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
     Chi, M. A., Wong, P. K. & Wong, C. M. (1994) Collocational problems amongst ESL learners: a corpus-based study. In Flowerdew, L. and A. K.K. Tong (Eds.) Entering Text (pp. 157-165). Hong Kong: The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology Language Centre.
     Cheung, H., Chung, S.F., & Skoufaki, S. (2010). Indexing Second Language Vocabulary in the Intermediate GEPT. In the Proceedings of the Twelfth Academic Forum on English Language Testing in Asia (Language Testing in Asia: Continuity, Innovation and Synergy). The Language Training and Testing Center, Taiwan. March, 5-6. 118-136.
     Cheung, H., Wu, J., Gao, Z. M., & Chung S.F. (2011). The Construction of the LTTC English Learner Corpus: Progress Report of NTU-LTTC Joint Research Project on Language Teaching and Language Testing.
     Chung, S.F. (2009). A Corpus-driven Approach to Source Domain Determination. Language and Linguistics Monograph Series. Nankang: Academia Sinica.
     Chung, S.F. & Tseng, T.Y. (2009). Distinguishing listen and hear: a corpus-based study. In the Proceedings of the 2009 International Conference on Applied Linguistics and Language Teaching (ALLT). National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Taiwan. April 16-18. 290-300.
     Connine, C., Ferreira, F., Jones, C., Clifton, C. & Frazier, L. (1984). Verb frame preference: Descriptive norms. Journal of psycholinguistic research, 13 (4), 307–319.
     Cook, V. (1999). Going beyond the native speaker in language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 33(2), 185-209.
     Crawley, R. A., & Stevenson, R. J. (1990). Reference in single sentences in texts. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 19(3), 191–210.
     Dixon, R. M. W. (1991). A new approach to English grammar, on semantic principles. New York: Oxford University Press.
     Dorney, Z. (1995). On the teachability of communication strategies. TESOL Quarterly, 29(1), 55-84.
     Dowty, D.R. (1979). Word meaning and Montague grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel.
     Ellis, R., & Barkhuizen, G. (2005). Analyzing learner language. Oxford, England:Oxford University Press.
     Fu, Z. (2006). What to follow “make” and what to follow “do”—corpus-based study on the de-lexical use of “make” and “do” in native speakers’ and Chinese students’ writing. US-China Education Review, 3(5), 42-47.
     Gilquin, G. & S.Th. Gries. (2009). Corpora and experimental methods: A state-of-the-art review. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 5(1), 1-26.
     Gilquin, G. (2007). To err is not all. What corpus and elicitation can reveal about the use of collocations by learners. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik, 55(3), 273-291.
     Granger, S. (1999). Uses of tenses by advanced EFL learners: evidence from an error-tagged computer corpus. In H. Hasselgård & S. Oksefjell (Eds.), Out of Corpora. Studies in Honour of Stig Johansson. (pp. 191-202). Amsterdam: Rodopi.
     Granger, S. & Tyson S. (1996). Connector usage in the English essay writing of native and non-native EFL speakers of English. World Englishes. 15, 17-27.
     Hasselgren, A. (1994). Lexical teddy bears and advanced learners: A study into the ways norwegian students cope with english vocabulary. In: International Journal of Applied Linguistics 4 (2), 237-258.
     Hsieh, Y. C. & S.F. Chung. (2009). Do and Make: a corpus-based study. Paper presented at the American Association for Corpus Linguistics Conference. University of Alberta - Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. October 8-11.
     Huang, C. C. (2003). Senior high students` vocabulary knowledge, content knowledge, and reading comprehension. In the Proceedings of the twelfth conference on English teaching and learning in the Republic of China. Taipei: Crane. 391-402.
     Hunston, S. (2002). Corpora in applied linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     Jespersen, O. (1965). A modern English grammar on historical principles, Part VI, morphology. London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd.
     Juffs, A. (1996). Learnability and the lexicon. Theories and second language acquisition research. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
     Kearns, K. (2002). Light verbs in English. http://www.ling.canterbury.ac.nz/kate/lightverbs.pdf.
     Lee, D. Y.W. & Chen Sylvia Xiao. (2009). Making a bigger deal of the smaller words: function words and other key items in research writing by Chinese learners. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18, 281-296.
     Levin, B. (1993). English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
     McKoon, G., & Macfarland, T. (2000). Externally and internally caused change of state verbs. Language, 76, 833–858.
     Miyamoto, T. (2000). The light verb construction in Japanese: the role of the verbal noun. John Benjamins.
     Nesselhauf, N. (2005). Collocations in a learner corpus. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
     Nunan, D. (1995). Language teaching methodology. New York: Prentice Hall.
     Palmer, F. R. (1987). The English verb. (3rd ed.). Longman, London.
     Pickering, M. J., & Branigan, H. P. (1998). The representation of verbs: Evidence from syntactic priming in language production. Journal of memory and language, 39, 633-651.
     Prince, P. (1996). Second language vocabulary learning: The role of context versus translations as a function of proficiency. The Modern Language Journal, 80 (4), 478-493.
     Ringbom, H. (1998). High-frequency verbs in the ICLE corpus. In A. Renouf (Ed.), Explorations in corpus linguistics (pp. 191 – 200). Rodopi, Amsterdam.
     Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 10(3), 209-231.
     Shen, Y.Y. (2010). EFL learners` synonymous errors: a case study of glad and happy. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 1(1), 1-7.
     Stevenson, S., Fazly, A., & North, R. (2004). Statistical measures of the semi-productivity of light verb constructions. In the Proceedings of the ACL-04Workshop on multiword expressions: Integrating processing. 1-8.
     Talmy, L. (1985). Force dynamics in language and thought. In the Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago Linguistic Society, Chicago. 293-337.
     Talmy, L. (1988). Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science, 12, 49-100.
     Tono, Y. (2005). The potential of learner corpora for pedagogical lexicography. Words in Asian cultural contexts: 315-321.
     Tsui, A. B. M. (2004). What teachers have always wanted to know – and how corpora can help. In J. Sinclair (Ed.), 2004. How to use corpora in language teaching, (pp. 39-61). Amsterdam: Benjamins. Stefan Diemer.
     Van Roey, J. (1990). French-English Contrastive Lexicology: An Introduction. Peeters, Louvain-la-Neuve.
     Verkuyl, H. J. (1972). On the compositional nature of the aspects. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: D. Reidel Publishing Company.
     Viberg, A. (1993). Crosslinguistic perspectives on lexical organization and lexical progression. In Hyltenstam, K. & Viberg, A. (Eds.), Progression and regression in language (pp. 340-385). Cambridge: Cambridge U.P.
     Wierzbicka, A. (1982). Why can you “have a drink” when you can’t *“have an eat”? Language, 58(4), 753–799.
     Wong, S. (1983). Overproduction, underlexicalisation, and unidiornatic usage in the “make” causatives of Chinese speakers: a case for flexibility in interlanguage analysis. Language learning and communication, 2, 151-63.
     Zyzik, E. (2006). Learners’ overgeneralization of dative clitics to accusative contexts: evidence for prototype effects in sla. In Klee, C. A. & Face, T. L. (Eds.), Selected Proceedings of the 7th Conference on the Acquisition of Spanish and Portuguese as First and Second Languages (pp. 122-134). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.		zh_TW