【作者】 张会平；

【导师】 刘永兵；

【作者基本信息】 东北师范大学 ， 英语语言文学， 2013， 博士

【摘要】 长久以来，语言与思维之关系一直是学界争论不休的话题。客观主义忽视语言及其对客观事物反映的差异性，假想了一种并不存在的客观性，错误地认为只要客观存在相同，人们的语言所表达的核心概念便不会有差异。语言相对论对客观主义进行了批判，提出人类的思维并非对客观世界真真切切的反映，语言能影响人类的习惯性思维方式及其世界观的形成。这一理论历经二三百年几代学者的努力，从海曼到沃尔夫，最终发展为“萨丕尔——沃尔夫假说”。该假说因涉及语言、文化、思维等复杂的关系而受到褒贬，甚至被边缘化达二三十年，但随着近年来新认知语言学的兴起而得以复兴。一批“新沃尔夫主义者”继承了语言相对论的思想，继续在更广阔的领域验证并发展该假说（详见第二章）。使该假说得到了越来越多学者的关注和研究。受该假说影响，近年来有些学者在二语习得研究领域，建构了概念迁移理论并进行了实证研究，取得了令人瞩目的研究成果（详见第三章）。然而到目前为止，还未见有学者对我国学习者英语学习概念迁移现象进行实证研究（详见第四章）。因此本研究以语言相对论作为语言哲学基础，采用二语习得概念迁移理论，对我国英语初学者的英语学习与概念迁移规律进行探索性研究。该研究一方面基于语言相对论和概念迁移理论建构适合我国英语学习者的概念迁移理论框架，并对其进行验证，一方面探索我国学习者英语学习与概念迁移的规律，以期为提高我国英语学习者的学习效率提供有益的启示。本论文在第一章简要描述了本研究的选题背景、研究内容与研究思路及其意义、目的后，在第二章首先回顾了语言相对论假说的思想传承，为该假说的发展过程提供一个清晰的脉络，为语言相对论思想的澄清提供理论背景。具体而言，语言相对论假说自诞生之日起便引起众多学者的关注，对其褒贬不一。本研究（第二章）着重分析了该理论受到批判与重新兴起的主要原因，并在分析原因的基础上，结合新认知语言学的观点及新沃尔夫主义者的实证研究，说明沃尔夫语言相对论假说的合理性，目的在于通过分析，澄清对沃尔夫语言假说的某些误解，从而说明二语概念迁移理论的哲学基础，同时期待学界正确认识与理解该理论，从而继续拓展该理论。二语迁移研究已有六十多年历史，而以语言相对论为语言哲学基础进行的二语概念迁移研究还处于萌芽阶段（详见第三章）。本研究的第三章首先介绍了二语“迁移”术语的演变及其定义，从“迁移”的十个维度总结了二语迁移的类型，并回顾了二语迁移研究的发展历史及其最新观点。简言之，二语迁移研究经历了从基于行为主义心理学和结构主义语言学的“对比分析假设”，到基于普遍语法的“可及性假设”，再到基于“中介语”理论的“偏误分析”，发展到目前以语言相对论为语言哲学基础，在认知框架内建构二语概念迁移理论，并进行验证性的研究。在综述的基础上指出，二语概念迁移研究对我国英语教与学的研究具有重要意义及广阔的发展前景。在对语言相对论的思想和二语概念迁移理论充分综述与论证的基础上，第三章从三个维度（“语言文化概念”维度、“英语语言学习过程”维度与“中介语形式层面的表征”维度）建构了本研究的理论框架——“汉语背景的英语学习概念迁移”理论框架。在“语言文化概念”维度中，首先描述和论证了汉族文化与汉语语言范畴系统之间相互影响、相互反映的关系，同时讨论这一语言范畴系统与汉语者概念范畴系统之间影响与反映的关系。然后，分别描述意合与形合语言组织方式影响下的汉、英语言范畴系统的特征。之后描述汉语整体型思维方式影响下的概念范畴系统。在“英语语言学习过程”维度中，分别讨论并定义本研究所涉及的词汇概念范畴迁移、语法概念范畴迁移与语法隐喻概念范畴迁移，并论证意义迁移与概念迁移的关系。在“中介语形式层面的表征”维度，我们以词汇与句法为例，论证词汇概念迁移与语法概念迁移、语法隐喻概念迁移在中介语形式层面的表征。在本研究理论框架明晰后，便涉及到本研究的研究方法问题。所以，第四章首先讨论语料库在二语习得研究中的重要性，并概括语料库在二语习得研究中所能回答的研究问题。然后，对我国基于学习者语料库的二语习得研究进行较系统的综述。文献综述发现，我国基于语料库的二语研究已成为国内实证研究的主流，所研究的领域涉及词汇、语法（句法）与语篇，科研成果也逐渐增多，但目前尚未见有人从二语概念迁移理论的视角研究我国英语学习者的母语概念迁移问题。该综述为本研究基于语料库的二语概念迁移研究提供了重要的理论与实证研究背景，同时，也为本研究的研究方法选择提供了必要的支撑。在论证了二语习得语料库研究方法的重要性和可行性之后，第五章详细描述了本研究所采用的语料库研究方法，即本研究所使用的语料库、检索方法、统计方法、语料库软件，以及本研究的研究步骤。这为其他学者对本研究的发现进行重复性验证性研究（replicative study）提供了可能，而重复性验证性研究是任何理论验证研究不可或缺的。通过基于语料库的量化和质化分析（见第六章、第七章、第八章）本研究发现：1）在词汇学习过程中，词汇概念范畴的正/负迁移源于英汉词汇概念意义/概念属性的同中有异，语法概念范畴的负迁移源于英汉语法概念范畴系统的本质区别。（1）在动词、介词学习上，我国英语初学者概念迁移偏误频率很高，涉及词汇概念范畴迁移和语法概念范畴迁移两个方面。（2）在副词学习上，我国英语初学者语法概念范畴迁移偏误频率较高，主要在[位置]、[肯定性]、[主系表结构]这三个语法概念范畴/概念表征上发生迁移偏误。（3）在冠词学习上，我国初学者时常忽略单数可数名词前的定冠词或不定冠词。该偏误的根本原因在于母语“缺乏[冠词]语法概念范畴系统”这一概念表征的负迁移。（4）表现在动词、介词、副词与冠词上的概念迁移偏误均具有系统性、规律性特征。2）在句法学习过程中，我国英语初学者在七类句法上出现偏误较多：如连缀句、时态偏误、语序偏误、数的偏误、“Be sentence”中“be”的缺失、主谓不一致、主/谓/宾缺失。根据每类英语句法偏误与学习者母语（汉语）在相应句法形式、意义上的相似性，可以推断学习者句法偏误的原因为母语语言形式与意义的负迁移，而从认知层面上看，避免或减少这七类偏误均涉及学习者语法概念范畴系统的调整或重构，因此，这七类偏误的认知根源在于母语语法概念范畴系统的负迁移。这七类偏误是初学者最常犯的偏误，已具有系统性、规律性特征。3）在语法隐喻学习过程中,概念迁移具有阶段性发展特征。（1）学习者高中时隐喻使用水平较低，使用高级隐喻的类型较少，频次较低，偏误较多；心理过程内部隐喻没有使用，外在经验向内在经验映射的隐喻少有使用，表征方式内的隐喻使用更少，双重隐喻或多重隐喻也未使用，更未出现名词化隐喻。（2）英语专业一、二年级与高中时的隐喻使用相比没有显著提高；但三、四年级较前两个时期已有显著提高。在报告这些发现的同时，我们还在部分研究中（第六章）以母语为德语的奥地利英语初学者语料和新加坡双语者语料为参照系，对我国英语学习者的词汇习得/误用与概念迁移的关系进行了讨论。通过比较，发现我国学习者的很多语言误用属于我国学习者所独有的习得特征，母语为德语的奥地利英语初学者未见出现同样迁移问题，其英语学习产出更接近英语本族语特征。所以，本研究有理由认为我国学习者的很多语言误用均受母语（汉语）的概念系统影响，具有系统性、阶段性与独特性特征，从而揭示了该学习者群体的认知规律与发展历程。本研究的发现一方面在很大程度上支持并验证了“汉语背景的英语学习概念迁移理论框架”，为二语概念迁移的进一步研究奠定了理论基础；另一方面对我国英语学习者英语词汇、语法、语法隐喻的教与学，以及二语概念迁移的研究方法也具有重要的启示意义。更多还原

【Abstract】 The relationship between language and cognition (thought) is perhaps the most debatedand controversial topic in linguistic studies. Some linguists believe that language is anarbitrary symbolic system that truthfully reflects the real objective world. Consequently, thethought expressed by a human language would be the same as long as the object in the naturalworld is the same. However, some others argue that human language could not exactly reflectthe objective world, but it could influence people’s habitual thought and world view. Thisbelief has been argued and studied by many scholars for several generations during the pasttwo hundred years, and has been developed into “Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis” through Hamannto Whorf. Though the “Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis” has encountered much criticism and it wassilent for more than two decades, it has been recently rerecognized by many scholars. Forexample, the new cognitive linguistics has carried out many experimental studies which haveyielded convincing results to support the Neo-Whorfianist hypothesis of linguistic relativity.Influenced by the Neo-Whorfianist hypothesis of linguistic relativity, some scholars haverecently constructed a L2conceptual transfer theory in L2acquisition studies and carried outsome studies to verify the theory. However, up till now there are no theoretical and empiricalstudies that have been done in this area in China. Therefore, this study intends to examine therelationship between English learning and conceptual transfer in the English production ofChinese learners of English as a L2/foreign language. Specifically, the study identifies thesystematic features of the most frequently used English lexicon, grammar and grammaticalmetaphors in ICCI and its extended corpus by Chinese learners of English compared withthose of the beginning German-speaking learners of English from a conceptual transferperspective. The identified systematic features of these most frequently used English words,sentence structures and grammatical metaphors are analyzed by a corpus-based approach, anddiscussed in terms of conceptual or categorization system within the conceptual transfertheory in SLA.After having highlighted the research background, research questions, research methodand significance (Chapter1), I review the theoretical foundations of this study (see Chapter2).In the review, I trace the development of the Neo-linguistic relativity hypothesis and discussthe understanding and misunderstanding of it. More specifically, Linguistic RelativityHypothesis has been criticized by many scholars since its birth. The current theoreticalreview (Chapter2) examines its ups and downs, and analyzes the main reasons for thecontroversies. In the examination, it is pointed out that some empirical studies have largelytestified the hypothesis and more studies should be carried out to further validate the hypothesis. In the review I argue that the hypothesis is rationale in relation to the review ofrecent findings/works of cognitive linguists and the Neo-Whorfianists. In the review I alsoargue that this hypothesis has provided a philosophical foundation and background for thenewly developed conceptual Transfer theory in SLA studies.Based upon the review of the hypothesis and the conceptual transfer theory, I develop atheoretical framework for the current study in relation to the context of English learning inChina, and at the same time for a better understanding of this theory in order to carry outmore extended empirical studies in the cultural context of China.Language transfer has long been regarded as one of the most important areas in SLA,but most of the studies in this area are UG driven and formal error analysis based with a focuson the L2forms rather than meaning and cognition. As mentioned earlier, recently informedby the Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis, scholars in SLA have developed the ConceptualTransfer Theory. Therefore, in Chapter3, I firstly review the development of languagetransfer studies with a focus on its definitions and relevant empirical studies. Languagetransfer studies have been developed from behavioral psychology and structurallinguistics-based contrastive analysis to interlanguage theory-based error analysis, and to theNeo-linguistic relativity hypothesis-informed conceptual transfer framework.Based on the review, it is pointed out that the Conceptual Transfer Theory can providean important theoretical perspective for the current study. Drawing upon the conceptualtransfer theory in SLA, I develop the theoretical framework (“Conceptual TransferTheoretical Framework in English Learning”) in consideration of the context of Englishlearning in China. The theoretical framework consists of three dimensions, namely thedimension of “language, culture and thought”; the dimension of “English learning process”;the dimension of “representations on linguistic level”.The dimension of “language, culture and thought” refers to the complicated relations attwo levels, one is the relationship of mutual influence and reflection between Chinese cultureand Chinese language category systems, and the other is the relationship between Chineselanguage category systems and conceptual category systems. In the discussion of thedimension, it is argued that the characteristics of the Chinese and English language categorysystems are influenced by the paratactic or hypotactic way of language organization, andtherefore the acquisition of Chinese conceptual categories are influenced by Chinese integralway of thinking.The dimension of “English learning process” refers to the learning process where certainChinese lexicalized concepts, grammatical concepts and grammatical metaphoricalizedconcepts might be automatically transferred into the second language (English). In thediscussion of the dimension, the relationship between meaning transfer and conceptualtransfer are distinguished with examples. The dimension of “Representations on linguistic level” refers to the characteristics oflearners’ errors committed in their interlanguage in terms of lexicon morphosyntactics andgrammatical metaphors. In the discussion of the dimension, how the transfer of theseconcepts is analyzed is discussed in relation to their linguistic representations or realizations.After the theoretical framework is established, I review the previous corpus basedresearch in SLA in order to provide a rationale for the corpus approach adopted by the currentstudy (Chapter4). The review starts with why a corpus-based approach is important and whatresearch questions that corpus can answer in SLA studies. And then the corpus-based SLAstudies are summarized with comments. The literature review shows that corpus has becomethe most widely used research method in the SLA empirical studies. Although thecorpus-based studies are involved with a wide range of research domains, such as lexicon,grammar/syntax and discourse, there has been no study on Chinese learners of English from aconceptual transfer perspective. The detailed review not only provides a necessary academicbackground for this study, but it also supports the corpus approach this study has chosen as aresearch method. After the discussion of the rationale for the corpus-based approach, Idescribe in detail (Chapter5) the corpora, retrieval methods, statistical methods, concordancesoftwares used in the current study in relation to the research procedures.Through the corpus-based quantitative and qualitative analysis, this study finds:1) the conceptual transfer errors in terms of lexicon such as verbs, prepositions, adverbs,and articles made by the Chinese beginning learners of English as an interlanguage are veryhigh in frequency, and the transfers are mainly involved with lexicalized conceptual transferand grammaticalized conceptual transfer.2) grammaticalized conceptual transfer errors in adverbs made by Chinese beginninglearners of English are high in frequency. They are mainly involved with threegrammaticalized conceptual categories/representations, that is,[POSITION][POSITIVITY]and [SCP STRUCTURE]. Besides, Chinese learners of English very often omit the definite orindefinite articles before singular countable nouns in the use of articles. Furthermore, theyfrequently commit some grammaticalized conceptual transfer errors represented on thesyntactic level, such as, run-on sentences, tense errors, word order errors, number errors, theomission of “be” in “be sentence”, subject-verb disagreement, the omission of subject/predicate/object. Through the detailed analyses, it is found that the syntactic errors made arequite similar with the syntactic features of Chinese, and since it involves the changing orrestructuring of the original conceptual categories to avoid or lessen the errors, all the errorsin question are due to the L1negative transfer of grammaticalized concepts, which is viewedas a proof of L1negative transfer of concepts as well as L1transfer of form and meaning.Thus generally speaking, the negative transfer of grammaticalized concepts can be attributedto the essential differences between the conceptual category systems in the two languages. 3) the use of Grammatical Metaphor (GM) by the beginning learners of English in seniormiddle schools is comparatively low and simple (most of GM types were not used or rarelyused), and the use of GM by the intermediate learners in first two grades of English-Majors asa group has no significant improvement compared with that of the middle school students.However, the use of GM by the advanced learners in the last two grades of English-Majorshas significant improvement compared with the former two groups both in terms of frequencyand diversity. This phenomenon, on the one hand, can be also attributed to the L1positiveand negative transfer of grammatical metaphoricalized concepts; and on the other itdemonstrates that learners’ conceptual transfer errors are developmental, that is, learners atdifferent developing stages might commit different errors in terms of the grammatical andmetaphoricalized concepts.Based on the findings, this study concludes:1) both the positive and negative transfersfound in interlanguage (English) of Chinese learners in terms of lexicon, grammar, andgrammatical metaphors can be attributed to the similarity and differences of theconceptualization and categorization between Chinese and English.2) all the conceptualtransfer errors are systematic, regular and unique compared with those of German beginninglearners of English.3) these findings have largely testified the “conceptual transfer theoreticalframework in English learning” and laid a foundation for a further more sophisticatedresearch of conceptual transfer in SLA. Based upon the findings and conclusions, someimplications for English learning and teaching are also offered.更多还原