英语论文网

firstly analyzed into NP (The boy) and VP (ate the the apple), andthen NP is further analyzed as Det. (The) and N (boy), NP as V (ate)and NP (theapple). This way to deconstruct sentences is called Immediate Constituent Analysis(ICA), and NP, VP, Det. and N are called Immediate Constituent (IC) in differentlevels.However, the ideas that they hold have difficulty in analyzing DCs. In aditransitive structure (NP+V+NP1+NP2), there will be such three kinds of possibleimmediate constituents as V NP1+NP2, V+NP1NP2and V+NP1+NP2. Alsostructuralists, like Fries (1952), think that DCs express the same meaning as theircorrespondent dative constructions, which is unacceptable in terms of semantics.Chinese scholars also have problems in studying Chinese DCs from theperspective of structuralism. Ma Qingzhu (2005), one of the most influential Chinesestructuralists, classifies Chinese DCs into 14 kinds based on the semantics of objects,but his classification is criticized for lacking a unified criterion, since one expressionmay be analyzed into different categories.
........

2.2 Cognitive Approach to Ditransitive Construction
Compared with previous linguistic schools, cognitive linguistics has itsuniqueness in introducing human cognition and physical world into language study. Itclaims that language is the result of human experiencing the physical world and thencognitively processing it. Thus it initially relates language to human cognition andphysical world. Reflecting on the shortcomings of traditional theory study, cognitive linguists (Goldberg, 1995, 2006; Ungerer and Schmid, 2001; Croft and Cruse, 2004;Evans and Green, 2006) advocate the research on this construction from theperspective of CG with Goldberg as one of salient representatives. They share thesame point that constructions are the basic units of language, the form-meaning pairswith their unique schematic meanings. Therefore, they fundamentally deny theinterrelation between DCs and dative constructions. Goldberg (1995) thinks that DCconceptualizes the daily events of transferring objects and has its unpredictableconstructional meaning (X Causes Y to Receive Z) and special form(NP+V+NP1+NP2). She focuses on the constructional meaning of this construction,and the interaction between verbs and DCs. Her approach, serving as the theoreticalframework of the present study, will be elaborated on in the next chapter.Under the theoretical framework of CG, Xu Shenghuan (2001) analyzes EnglishDCs, and other domestic scholars additionally study Chinese DCs and the differenceand similarity existing between Chinese and English DCs. According to XuShenghuan (2001), the ditransitive verbs can be classified into three categories: verbsexpressing inherently sense of giving, such as, give, hand, pay and offer etc.; verbshaving no explicit meaning of giving, but being featured as the fulfillment of theaction and indicated by the verb followed by two objects, such as, tell, show, promiseand ask, etc.; verbs having no senses of giving, and with their semantic space notrequiring two objects necessarily, but the appearance of one ditransitive object N2implying the existence of the other ditransitive object N1, and thus the entitling themeaning that NIpossessing N2, such as, bake, sing, knit and cook and so on. AndZhang Bojiang (1999) studies Chinese DCs. Wang Yin (2011) in his two-volumemonograph titled Researches on Construction Grammar: Theoretical Explorationstudies English and Ch