英语论文网

VC) are conducted respectively from the perspectives of theTransformational-Generative Grammar Approach, Systematic Functional GrammarApproach and Cognitive Grammar Approach. Transformational-Generative Grammarholds the view that the intrinsic characteristic of EMVC is active in form and passivein meaning and therefore regards it as a kind of PV called pseudo-passive. Besides,Systematical Functional Grammar has elaborated a lot on MV. And according toHalliday (1994), voice is divided into MV and effective voice. And the latter includesAV and PV. However, these two approaches both fail to take MV as a result of humanconceptualization when seeing the reality from different perspectives. Based on theabove two approaches, MV are usually taught as a pure grammatical phenomenonwithout considering the cognitive process, which may be one of the important reasonsfor students not able to grasp this grammatical phenomenon well.
In addition, Cognitive Grammar has elaborated a powerful explanation for MVby regarding it as an independent construction—a pair of form and meaning as well asa result of human conceptualization. Therefore, in English, MV is seen as aconstruction, namely English middle voice construction. Up to now, theoreticalstudies on EMVC are mostly conducted with a very small number of empirical studieson the acquisition of it. Besides, previous studies on EMVC acquisition have notprovided a comprehensive classification of it. What is more, there have not beenstudies on acquisition of the three components including the middle verb, the implicitagent and adverbial modification of EMVC. Finally, no studies have adoptedcognitive Reference point-based action chain model (shortened as RACM).Thus, to make up for the gap of the previous studies on EMVC, we are going tocarry out an empirical study on the acquisition of it from perspectives of prototypetheory (shortened as PT) and RACM.

Chapter Two Literature Review

2.1 Definition and Classification of EMVC
Previous discussions on EMVC are relatively wide and profound, ranging fromthe definition to syntactic and semantic constraint as well as other features. Theseresearchers include Keyser & Roeper (1984), Klaiman (1988, 1991), Fagan (1992),Stroik (1992), Hoekstra & Robert (1993), Halliday (1994), Iwata (1999), Saeed (2001)and so on. Despite the wide interest in and the abundant study of the construction,EMVC has seldom been defined whether accurately or roughly. Fagan (1992) statesthat,
However, definitions of EMVC given by the above scholars are notcomprehensive enough, since they only focus on discussion at the syntactic levelwithout considering its semantic characteristics. Even though some other scholarshave also put forward some definitions, however, they usually either focus on thesyntactic features or semantic features with little discussion about the combination ofboth syntactic and semantics of EMVC. Here comes another definition provided byHe Wenzhong (2007, p. 6). According to him, previous studies usually refer to a description of the syntactic and semantic features of the construction. The descriptionof middles is partially syntactic and partially semantic. Therefore, He Wenzhong(2007, pp. 4-7) concludes that so far, clear and definite definition has not been putforward in the linguistic field.

Chapter Three Theoretical Basis.......... 47-61
    3.1 Prototype Theory ....本论文由英语论文网提供整理，提供论文代写，英语论文代写，代写论文，代写英语论文，代写留学生论文，代写英文论文，留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。