No description available.

Research in communication disorders suggests that training linguistically complex forms will generalize to untrained, simpler forms with similar structural properties (see Thompson, 2007 for review). The present study investigated generalization patterns from transitive verbs to two classes of intransitive verbs following administration of Verb Network Strengthening Treatment (VNeST; Edmonds, Nadeau & Kiran, 2009). Based on the Argument Structure Complexity Hypothesis (ASCH; Thompson, 2003), it was predicted that greater generalization would occur to unergatives because unergatives bear a structural relationship to transitive verbs and unaccusatives do not. Results at post-treatment supported the hypothesis with both intransitive verb types showing generalization and slightly higher effect sizes observed for unergative than for unaccusative verbs. At maintenance, this pattern was not maintained due to improvements in production of unaccusative verbs. Results support the findings of Edmonds et al. (2009) that administration of VNeST results in gains on measures of untrained, semantically related verbs as well as standardized measures of lexical retrieval and connected speech. These results also suggest that training transitive verbs results in slight generalization to untrained intransitive verbs; however, it is inconclusive whether unergative and unaccusatives intransitives show differential improvement. / Communication Sciences

This thesis investigates the gradient behaviour of monadic intransitive verb classes in Turkish, under an aspectual classification of the unaccusative/unergative verb types, namely The Split Intransitivity Hierarchy. This Hierarchy claims that intransitive verb types are subject to gradient acceptability in certain syntactic constructions. The methods used in judgment elicitation studies in psychophysics, such as the magnitude estimation technique have recently been adapted to be used in capturing gradient linguistic data. Also, the practical benefits of the Internet directed researchers to design and conduct web-based experiments for linguistic data elicitation. Research on Human Computer Interaction offers suggestions for the design of more usable user interfaces. Considering these developments, in this thesis, a web based experiment interface has been designed as an extension to the magnitude estimation technique to elicit acceptability judgments on two syntactic constructions, i.e. the -mIS participle (the unaccusative diagnostic) and impersonal passivization (the unergative diagnostic) for different verb types on the Split Intransitivity Hierarchy. The experiment was conducted on the Internet. The results show that in the two diagnostics, the verb types receive categorical or indeterminate acceptability judgments, which allows us to specify the core or peripheral status of the verbs. Within the classes we have examined, change of state verbs constitute the core unaccusative verbs, and controlled (motional and non-motional) process verbs constitute the core unergative verbs. Stative verbs and uncontrolled process verbs are peripheral unaccusatives and unergatives, respectively. Change of location verbs (with an animate subject) are close to the unergative end.

本研究，基於分辨非賓存現動詞及瞭解二語學習者如何讓習得此類動詞之需求，旨在分析一個高頻率之非賓格存現動詞 HAPPEN與其三個同義字(OCCUR，APPEAR，與EXIST)和中文同義字「發生」從語言使用者角度作比較。採用了母語語料庫 (英文採用英國國家語料庫 BNC；中文採用十億詞語料庫 GW 2.0)及學習者語料庫(含語言訓練與測驗中心學習者語料庫the LTTC，國際英語學習者語料庫the ICLE，及政治大學外語學習者語料庫the NCCU)作為第一部分的語料庫分析。此外，為了探索二語英文錯誤及母語中文遷移的關係，我們也進行了以語料庫為基礎的心理語言學實驗(兩個關於中英文HAPPEN句子結構的接受度判斷測驗)。 本研究結果發現，其一，就語料庫中的文法形式(Grammatical form)來分析HAPPEN、OCCUR、APPEAR與EXIST，英文母語語料庫中的高頻文法形式(例如：happened或happen)與學習者語料庫中有相同的現象。然而大部份的高頻文法形式都是二語學習者經常誤用之處，且容易與兩個常見非賓動詞錯誤—過度被動化錯誤(Overpassivization)和及物化錯誤(Transitivization)—共現(Collocated)。其二，從語料庫錯誤分析各種錯誤類型得知， HAPPEN與OCCUR較常出現過度被動化錯誤；APPEAR與 EXIST較常有及物化錯誤。此結果顯示每個非賓存現動詞可能會犯不同錯誤，也因此造成其錯誤的原因有所不同。其三，從分析心理語言實驗結果得知，我們發現母語中文文法句型(L1 Chinese grammatical patterns)，例如：「V-了」－「出現了」；抑或是「V+N」－「發生車禍」、「發生戰爭」、「存在缺失」，都影響了二語學習者對英文非賓動詞之文法形式的正確判定。由此揭示了母語中文大多都對二語英文非賓動詞習得有所干擾。 基於所得結果，我們提出「完成體」(Perfectivity)及「及物性」(Transitivity)之不同來探討中英文間存現動詞用法之異同，並試著解釋造成二語非賓動詞學習複雜化的原因。 此研究克服了過去文獻中比較非賓存現動詞之困難也透過語料庫結合心理實驗研究法提供對非賓動詞習得之解釋方法。這些發現可進一步作為詮釋非賓動詞的假說，並將其應用於語言教材設計或被視為未來跨語言分析研究之基石。 / Owing to the necessity to identify unaccusative existence/appearance verbs and realize how they are acquired by L2 learners, this present thesis aims to analyze a highly frequent English unaccusative verb HAPPEN and compare it with its three other synonyms (OCCUR, APPEAR, and EXIST), as well as its Chinese counterpart發生 fāshēn ‘happen.’ Native speaker corpora (the British National Corpus (BNC) for English and Chinese Gigaword 2 Corpus (GW 2.0) for the Chinese), and L2 learner corpora (the Language Training and Testing Learner Corpus (the LTTC), International Corpus of Learner English 2.0 (the ICLE), and the National Chengchi University Foreign Language Learner Corpus (the NCCU)) are utilized to analyze the unaccusative verbs in the first main section. In addition, in order to discover the relationship between L2 English errors and L1 Chinese transfer, psycholinguistic experiments (two acceptability judgments tasks with comparable Chinese and English HAPPEN sentence constructions) based on the corpora data were conducted in this thesis. The results in this thesis showed that, first, the highly frequent grammatical forms of unaccusative verbs (e.g., happened or happen) in the English native speaker corpus share some similarities with those of L2 learner corpora. However, these grammatical forms were usually misused by L2 learners and were frequently collocated with the two common unaccusative errors (overpassivization, e.g., *What is happened? and trasitivization, e.g., *I happen a car accident.). Second, as for the distributions of unaccusative error types, HAPPEN and OCCUR were found to mainly co-occur with overpassivization errors, whereas APPEAR and EXIST were found to mainly co-occur with transitivization errors. This indicates that each unaccusative verb may have different potential for L2 unaccusative errors, and therefore the causes of these errors with different verbs may vary. Third, from the analysis of psycholinguistic experiments, we discover that the L1 Chinese grammatical patterns, such as the V-le grammatical pattern (e.g., 出現了chūxiànle ‘appear-le’) and the V+N grammatical pattern (e.g., 發生車禍fāshēngchēhuò ‘The car accident happened’, 發生戰爭 fāshēngzhànzhēng ‘The war occurred’, and存在缺失 cúnzàiquēshī ‘The pitfalls existed’) may influence L2 learners’ correct judgment as to the grammatical forms of unaccusative verbs. This reveals that generally L1 Chinese might have some interference with L2 unaccusative acquisition. Based on the results, we proposed that the perfectivity and transitivity differences between English and Chinese unaccusative existence/appearance verbs could distinguish the uses among the English HAPPEN and the Chinese發生 fāshēn ‘happen’ with their synonyms. These differences could also provide a possible reason for the cause of the problematic L2 unaccusative acquisition. This thesis overcomes the difficulties of comparing unaccusative existence/appearance verbs in the previous studies and attempts to unravel the enigma of acquiring this verb type from the integrated corpus-based and empirical findings. These findings in turn serve as the suggested assumptions to interpret unaccusative verbs, which can be applied to the design of language teaching materials or can be viewed as the basis of cross-language analysis in the future studies.

Este trabalho trata sobre os verbos inacusativos e a livre inversão do sujeito em sentenças declarativas do português brasileiro (PB). É um estudo, com base em revisão bibliográfica, à luz da Sintaxe Gerativa, sob a perspectiva da Teoria da Regência e da Ligação (TRL), proposta por Chomsky (1981), em conformidade com o modelo Princípios e Parâmetros. Primeiramente, é feito um apanhado de tópicos fundamentais (Léxico, Subcategorização Verbal, Teoria do Caso, Teoria Theta, Estrutura de Argumentos) para a TRL, bem como relacionados ao assunto a ser discutido. Após essa exposição, são apresentados os verbos inacusativos (monoargumentais) e as suas especificidades. É feita uma comparação entre os verbos inacusativos e os inergativos, tendo em vista serem ambos monoargumentais. Apesar disso, apresentam estruturas sintáticas completamente distintas. Suas estruturas-D mostram tais diferenças. Os inacusativos subcategorizam um Determiner Phrase (DP) complemento (posição de objeto). Os inergativos selecionam somente argumento externo. Quando ocorre a inversão do DP sujeito, este permanece em sua posição de base, dentro do V(erb)P(hrase). De acordo com autores relevantes (Pontes, 1986; Kato, 2000; Menuzzi, 2003) para este trabalho, os verbos inacusativos são compatíveis com a ordem V(erbo)S(ujeito) no PB. Nas sentenças VS com inacusativos, são verificadas duas possibilidades de concordância. Quando o verbo concorda com o DP sujeito pós-verbal ([pro] Chegaram as visitas), a concordância resulta da cadeia entre o DP sujeito pós-verbal e o expletivo nulo pro pré-verbal. Quando o verbo permanece na 3ª pessoa do singular ([pro] Chegou as visitas), a concordância é realizada com o expletivo nulo pro pré-verbal, que, de acordo com Mioto et al. (2007), é singular. A concordância com o expletivo pré-verbal é como no francês, por exemplo. Porém, no francês, o expletivo pré-verbal não é nulo, é lexical (Il). / This academic work deals with the unaccusative verbs and the free inversion of the subject in declarative sentences in Brazilian Portuguese (BP). This study is based on a bibliographic review, in the light of the Generative Syntax, under the Government-Binding (GB) Theory. It is proposed by Chomsky (1981), in accordance with the Principles and Parameters model. Firstly, a summary of the fundamental topics (Lexicon, Verb Subcategorization, Case Theory, θ-Theory, Argument Structure) within the GB is made, not to mention that these topics are absolutely related to the main subject. Thereafter, the unaccusative verbs (monoargumental) and their particularity are presented. A comparison is made between the unaccusative and the inergative verbs. Although they are both monoargumental verbs, they have different syntactic structures from each other. Their Dstructures show such differences. The unaccusative verbs subcategorize a Determiner Phrase (DP) complement (in the object place), while the inergative ones select an external argument. When the inversion of the DP subject occurs, it remains in its original position within the Verb Phrase (VP). According to relevant authors (Pontes, 1986; Kato, 2000; Menuzzi, 2003) to this work, the unaccusative verbs are compatible with the V(erb)S(ubject) order in BP. The occurance of two kinds of agreement is verified in the sentences when the DP subject occupies the post-verbal position. When the verb agrees with the post-verbal DP subject ([pro] Chegaram as visitas), the agreement results from a chain between the post-verbal DP subject and the null expletive pro. When the verb remains in the 3rd person of singular ([pro] Chegou as visitas), it reveals that the agreement is with the pre-verbal null expletive pro, singular according to Mioto et al. (2007). The agreement with the pre-verbal expletive is likewise in French. However in French the pre-verbal expletive is not null; it is the lexical one il.

Este trabalho trata sobre os verbos inacusativos e a livre inversão do sujeito em sentenças declarativas do português brasileiro (PB). É um estudo, com base em revisão bibliográfica, à luz da Sintaxe Gerativa, sob a perspectiva da Teoria da Regência e da Ligação (TRL), proposta por Chomsky (1981), em conformidade com o modelo Princípios e Parâmetros. Primeiramente, é feito um apanhado de tópicos fundamentais (Léxico, Subcategorização Verbal, Teoria do Caso, Teoria Theta, Estrutura de Argumentos) para a TRL, bem como relacionados ao assunto a ser discutido. Após essa exposição, são apresentados os verbos inacusativos (monoargumentais) e as suas especificidades. É feita uma comparação entre os verbos inacusativos e os inergativos, tendo em vista serem ambos monoargumentais. Apesar disso, apresentam estruturas sintáticas completamente distintas. Suas estruturas-D mostram tais diferenças. Os inacusativos subcategorizam um Determiner Phrase (DP) complemento (posição de objeto). Os inergativos selecionam somente argumento externo. Quando ocorre a inversão do DP sujeito, este permanece em sua posição de base, dentro do V(erb)P(hrase). De acordo com autores relevantes (Pontes, 1986; Kato, 2000; Menuzzi, 2003) para este trabalho, os verbos inacusativos são compatíveis com a ordem V(erbo)S(ujeito) no PB. Nas sentenças VS com inacusativos, são verificadas duas possibilidades de concordância. Quando o verbo concorda com o DP sujeito pós-verbal ([pro] Chegaram as visitas), a concordância resulta da cadeia entre o DP sujeito pós-verbal e o expletivo nulo pro pré-verbal. Quando o verbo permanece na 3ª pessoa do singular ([pro] Chegou as visitas), a concordância é realizada com o expletivo nulo pro pré-verbal, que, de acordo com Mioto et al. (2007), é singular. A concordância com o expletivo pré-verbal é como no francês, por exemplo. Porém, no francês, o expletivo pré-verbal não é nulo, é lexical (Il). / This academic work deals with the unaccusative verbs and the free inversion of the subject in declarative sentences in Brazilian Portuguese (BP). This study is based on a bibliographic review, in the light of the Generative Syntax, under the Government-Binding (GB) Theory. It is proposed by Chomsky (1981), in accordance with the Principles and Parameters model. Firstly, a summary of the fundamental topics (Lexicon, Verb Subcategorization, Case Theory, θ-Theory, Argument Structure) within the GB is made, not to mention that these topics are absolutely related to the main subject. Thereafter, the unaccusative verbs (monoargumental) and their particularity are presented. A comparison is made between the unaccusative and the inergative verbs. Although they are both monoargumental verbs, they have different syntactic structures from each other. Their Dstructures show such differences. The unaccusative verbs subcategorize a Determiner Phrase (DP) complement (in the object place), while the inergative ones select an external argument. When the inversion of the DP subject occurs, it remains in its original position within the Verb Phrase (VP). According to relevant authors (Pontes, 1986; Kato, 2000; Menuzzi, 2003) to this work, the unaccusative verbs are compatible with the V(erb)S(ubject) order in BP. The occurance of two kinds of agreement is verified in the sentences when the DP subject occupies the post-verbal position. When the verb agrees with the post-verbal DP subject ([pro] Chegaram as visitas), the agreement results from a chain between the post-verbal DP subject and the null expletive pro. When the verb remains in the 3rd person of singular ([pro] Chegou as visitas), it reveals that the agreement is with the pre-verbal null expletive pro, singular according to Mioto et al. (2007). The agreement with the pre-verbal expletive is likewise in French. However in French the pre-verbal expletive is not null; it is the lexical one il.

Este trabalho trata sobre os verbos inacusativos e a livre inversão do sujeito em sentenças declarativas do português brasileiro (PB). É um estudo, com base em revisão bibliográfica, à luz da Sintaxe Gerativa, sob a perspectiva da Teoria da Regência e da Ligação (TRL), proposta por Chomsky (1981), em conformidade com o modelo Princípios e Parâmetros. Primeiramente, é feito um apanhado de tópicos fundamentais (Léxico, Subcategorização Verbal, Teoria do Caso, Teoria Theta, Estrutura de Argumentos) para a TRL, bem como relacionados ao assunto a ser discutido. Após essa exposição, são apresentados os verbos inacusativos (monoargumentais) e as suas especificidades. É feita uma comparação entre os verbos inacusativos e os inergativos, tendo em vista serem ambos monoargumentais. Apesar disso, apresentam estruturas sintáticas completamente distintas. Suas estruturas-D mostram tais diferenças. Os inacusativos subcategorizam um Determiner Phrase (DP) complemento (posição de objeto). Os inergativos selecionam somente argumento externo. Quando ocorre a inversão do DP sujeito, este permanece em sua posição de base, dentro do V(erb)P(hrase). De acordo com autores relevantes (Pontes, 1986; Kato, 2000; Menuzzi, 2003) para este trabalho, os verbos inacusativos são compatíveis com a ordem V(erbo)S(ujeito) no PB. Nas sentenças VS com inacusativos, são verificadas duas possibilidades de concordância. Quando o verbo concorda com o DP sujeito pós-verbal ([pro] Chegaram as visitas), a concordância resulta da cadeia entre o DP sujeito pós-verbal e o expletivo nulo pro pré-verbal. Quando o verbo permanece na 3ª pessoa do singular ([pro] Chegou as visitas), a concordância é realizada com o expletivo nulo pro pré-verbal, que, de acordo com Mioto et al. (2007), é singular. A concordância com o expletivo pré-verbal é como no francês, por exemplo. Porém, no francês, o expletivo pré-verbal não é nulo, é lexical (Il). / This academic work deals with the unaccusative verbs and the free inversion of the subject in declarative sentences in Brazilian Portuguese (BP). This study is based on a bibliographic review, in the light of the Generative Syntax, under the Government-Binding (GB) Theory. It is proposed by Chomsky (1981), in accordance with the Principles and Parameters model. Firstly, a summary of the fundamental topics (Lexicon, Verb Subcategorization, Case Theory, θ-Theory, Argument Structure) within the GB is made, not to mention that these topics are absolutely related to the main subject. Thereafter, the unaccusative verbs (monoargumental) and their particularity are presented. A comparison is made between the unaccusative and the inergative verbs. Although they are both monoargumental verbs, they have different syntactic structures from each other. Their Dstructures show such differences. The unaccusative verbs subcategorize a Determiner Phrase (DP) complement (in the object place), while the inergative ones select an external argument. When the inversion of the DP subject occurs, it remains in its original position within the Verb Phrase (VP). According to relevant authors (Pontes, 1986; Kato, 2000; Menuzzi, 2003) to this work, the unaccusative verbs are compatible with the V(erb)S(ubject) order in BP. The occurance of two kinds of agreement is verified in the sentences when the DP subject occupies the post-verbal position. When the verb agrees with the post-verbal DP subject ([pro] Chegaram as visitas), the agreement results from a chain between the post-verbal DP subject and the null expletive pro. When the verb remains in the 3rd person of singular ([pro] Chegou as visitas), it reveals that the agreement is with the pre-verbal null expletive pro, singular according to Mioto et al. (2007). The agreement with the pre-verbal expletive is likewise in French. However in French the pre-verbal expletive is not null; it is the lexical one il.

本論文旨在探討「掉」出現在動詞後面時的語意內涵與語法地位。我們認為當「掉」身為結果補語時，它的意思為「被往下移除」；身為動相標誌時，意思為「被移除」；身為動貌標誌時，則標示起始意。「掉」經常與及物和非作格動詞形成複合動詞：與靜態動詞、瞬間動詞及達成動詞構成達成複合動詞，與動作動詞及完成動詞則構成完成複合動詞。雖然V-掉的論元結構經常是其前置動詞與「掉」之論元結構的結合體，但在某些情況下「掉」可能會壓制前置動詞的論元、幫V-掉複合動詞增加新論元或先壓制前置動詞的論元再幫V-掉複合動詞增加新論元。最後，我們採用虛化的理論來解釋為何「掉」具有多重語意及多重語法地位。由於「掉」符合Hopper (1991)所提出的虛化原則，因此我們相信「掉」的確正處在虛化的過程中。 / There are two main questions about post-verbal diao we dealt with in the present study: one is its meanings, and the other is its syntactic status. We argue that when diao acts as a resultative complement, it means ‘to be removed in a downward direction’, when it acts as a phase marker, it means ‘to be removed’, and when it acts as an aspect marker, it bears a grammatical meaning indicating inchoative. Post-verbal diao usually co-occurs with transitive and unaccusative verbs to form compounds. When diao goes with State, Semelfactive and Achievement verbs, the V-diao compounds will be Achievements, when diao goes with Activity and Accomplishment verbs, the V-diao compounds will be Accomplishments. In most cases, the argument structure of a V-diao compound is a composition of the argument structure of the preceding verb and that of diao. However, diao will suppress the Goal argument when co-occurring with three-place transactional verbs; it will create an argument for the V-diao compound when the argument of the preceding verb and that of diao are incompatible; it will suppress an argument of the preceding verb and create a new one for the V-diao compound when occurring with verbs which have an incremental theme. Grammaticalization is taken to account for the polysemy and the multiple syntactic status of post-verbal diao. Because except specialization, diao follows all of the principles (i.e. Layering, Divergence, Persistence, and De-categorialization) proposed by Hopper (1991), we suggest it is in the process of grammaticalization.