Contents 致谢 前言 List of Abbreviations List of Tables List of Figures Chapter 1 Introduction 1 1.1 English C&M Nouns in a Nutshell 4 1.2 Perspectives in C&M Distinctions: English vs. Chinese 7 1.3 Perspectives in English C&M Nouns: Inherent and Dynamic 9 1.4 Effect of Acquired C&M Knowledge on Perspective-taking in Construing Real-world Entities 11 Chapter 2 Empirical and Theoretical Studies of English C&M Nouns 16 2.1 Introduction 16 2.2 Empirical Evidence of L2-English C&M Learning 17 2.3 Theoretical Accounts of C&M Nouns 29 2.4 A Critique of the Theoretical Account of C&M Distinctions 37 2.5 Summary 41 Chapter 3 English C&M Distinctions: The Perspective Account 43 3.1 Introduction 43 3.2 Basic Notions of the Cognitive Linguistics 44 3.3 Defining Perspective 48 3.4 Perspectives in C&M Distinctions: A Tripartite Framework 51 3.5 Classifying English C&M Nouns: Inherent Perspectives 66 3.6 Classifying English C-M Mutual Conversions: Dynamic Perspectives 69 3.7 Perspective Encoded in Chinese C&M Distinctions 79 3.8 Perspectives Involved in C&M Distinctions: A Cross-linguistic Comparison 85 3.9 Summary 88 Chapter 4 Constraints on L2 Acquisition of English Nouns 90 4.1 Introduction 90 4.2 Constraints on L2 Acquisition of English C&M Nouns 91 4.3 Constructing an L2 Acquisitional Trajectory of English C&M Nouns 97 4.4 Constraints on L2 Acquisition of English C-M Mutual Conversions 99 4.5 Operationalizing Perspective Shifting in C&M Learning 107 4.6 Issues Being Addressed in This Book 110 4.7 Variables Being Investigated in This Book 113 4.8 Summary 114 Chapter 5 Perspective Shifting in L2 Learners: Empirical Studies 116 5.1 Introduction 116 5.2 Preliminaries for Target Word Selection 118 5.3 Study 1: Inherent C-M Perspective in L2 Learners 120 5.4 Study 2: Dynamic C-M Perspective in L2 Learners 137 5.5 Study 3: C-M Knowledge and Perspective in Entity Construal 161 5.6 Summary 172 Chapter 6 Concluding Words 173 6.1 Introduction 173 6.2 Characterizing English C&M Distinctions in L2 Production 173 6.3 A Unified Account of C&M Learning: Perspective as Mechanism and Outcome 195 6.4 Major Findings 199 6.5 Implications 203 References 209 Appendix A 223 Appendix B 225 Appendix C 230 Appendix D 239 Appendix E 244 Appendix F 246 List of Abbreviations AI Abstract Individuates AN Abstract Non-individuates AOE Age of starting English learning AR Accuracy Rate As-T Abstract substance-Type Conversions CA Count Aggregates CI Concrete Individuates CL Classifier C&M Count and Mass C/M Count or Mass CN Concrete Non-individuates Cs-T Concrete substance-Type Conversions EFL English as a Foreign Language ET Editing Task GSL General Service List L1 First Language L2 Second Language LTUT Learn Together， Use Together MA Mass Aggregates M&C Mass and Count M/C Mass or Count MS Mass Superordinates NS Native Speakers NNS Non-native Speakers I-C Individuate-Content Conversions O-S Object-Substance Conversions O-A Object-Abstract Conversions S-O Substance-Object Conversions SLA Second Language Acquisition S-I Substance-Instance Conversions P-I Proper-Individuate Conversions PT Pluralia Tantum VKS Vocabulary Knowledge Scale List of Tables Table 2.1 Morpho-syntactic Criteria for English C&M Constructions 30 Table 3.1 Perspectives Encoded in English Count and Mass Nouns 58 Table 3.2 Reclassifying English C&M Nouns Based on Inherent Perspectives 66 Table 3.3 Perspectives Coded in C&M Distinctions between English and Chinese 86 Table 4.1 Perspectives Encoded in English C&M Nouns， Their Complexity， and the Degree of Perspectival Overlap with Chinese Countifiers 98 Table 4.2 Variables and Their Operational Definitions Involved in the Research Hypotheses 113 Table 5.1 Grouping of Participants Based on EFL Years， Scores on English Proficiency Test and Self-evaluation of English Proficiency 122 Table 5.2 Basic Information of the Words used in Study 1 124 Table 5.3 Taxonomy and Token Numbers of the Nouns in ET 124 Table 5.4 Example Tabular Presentation of Scoring， Tagging and the Corresponding Legends 127 Table 5.5 Three-way ANOVA (Repeated Measures) Results for Count Nouns 131 Table 5.6 Three-way ANOVA (Repeated Measures) Results for Mass Nouns 132 Table 5.7 Two-way ANOVA (Repeated Measures) Results for Count Nouns 133 Table 5.8 Two-way ANOVA (Repeated Measures) Results for Mass Nouns 133 Table 5.9 Pairwise Comparisons of the Mean Differences between Different Noun Types with the Averaged Data from Error-free and Deviant Testing Conditions (LSD) 134 Table 5.10 Basic Information of the Words Used in Editing Task 1 138 Table 5.11 Two-way ANOVA (Rep
摘要
Chapter 1
Introduction
English count and mass (C&M) distinctions pose notorious difficulties for L2 learners， especially for those whose first language (L1) is a classifier language like Chinese. Non-nativelike use of C&M nouns can be found hither and thither in both online and offline language production， as noticed by Gally (2010) who put it that “the second most common systematic error for [Japanese] EFL learners， after articles， has seemed to involve noun countability” (p. 87)， even though they have intensively learned English for years in classroom settings. Below is an excerpt of turn-takings between a Chinese (English as a Foreign Language) (EFL) learner and an English native speaker (NS)， which I happened to overhear at an English corner three years ago. At that time they were talking about Chinese automobile industry， during which the negotiation of C&M constructions is particularly intriguing.
Chinese EFL Learner: they did many researches before cars went into mass production.
NS: Yeah， of course. Much research was needed.
Chinese EFL Learner: Much mu research [seemed to be confused]
NS: They also need to know recent developments of the automobile industry.
Chinese EFL Learner: Recent developments? Why did you say developments? I remember that development cannot be used with adding -s.
NS: Oh， developments， here I mean different aspects of car production， for example， technology， market needs Ur something like that.
In this excerpt， the Chinese EFL learner inappropriately took research as a count noun①. Moreover， she was also confused when hearing the NS using developments to refer to different aspects of car-making industry， based on the belief that development can only be used as a mass noun. Even though development is inherently mass， the NS converted it into a count sense， denoting events or incidents which had recently happened and were likely to have an effect on the present situation in this context. However， the EFL learner did not shift to the perspective taken by the NS; that is， she could not take the NS’s perspective to construe the count sense of development， let alone use such a converted count sense. Why did she take research as a count noun? And why was it difficult for her to take the English perspective to construe and use the count sense of development?
Ever since Whorf and Sapir advanced their Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis in the 1950s， relativists have contended that “language was classificatory， isolating and organizing elements of experience” (Whorf， 1956， p. 55). The basic tenet upheld by them is that languages differ from one another largely because they encode different ways in which humans experience and construe the world， a view that is in conformity with the denotation of the cognitive linguistic term “perspectives” (Croft & Cruse， 2004; Lakoff， 1987; Rocha， 2010; Ungerer & Schmid， 2006; Verhagen， 2007). Perspectival difference obtains at any level of linguistic representation both within- and cross-linguistically， particularly in grammar. The C&M distinction is a case in point. In the above excerpt， research encodes mass sense which refers to a piece of work that involves studying something and trying to discover facts about it， whereas its Chinese equivalent encodes count sense① which tends to emphasize telicity and diversity of the event proper， indicating that humans construe things from different perspectives to express intended meanings across languages (Lee， 2001; Verhagen， 2007). Development encodes a mass sense， denoting an atelic process of something growing， while developments， a converted count use， refers to bounded and diverse incidents and events， suggesting that people see the same thing from different perspectives to convey desired meanings in the same language (Langacker， 1987a， 1987b; Talmy， 1985， 1991; Verhagen， 2007).
MacWhinney’s (2005) perspective hypothesis claims that “grammar arose from perspective-taking” (p. 198). Perspective， the way people construe things and state of affairs， gives rise to disparate grammatical manifestations across languages. Being morphologically impoverished， Chinese resorts to classifiers to ground the C&M distinction， while English instantiates it exclusively depending on morphemes like singular， plural or bare forms (Lucy， 1992a)， although this distinction is semantically and contextually constrained (this point is discussed in Chapter 2 and Chapter 3). Such a contrasting perspectival difference between these two languages makes it notoriously difficult for Chinese students to acquire C&M distinctions in English.
So when learning English C&M distinctions， Chinese EFL learners are supposed to acquire the perspective encoded both in English inherent C/M nouns (e.g.， the mass status of research and development) and in converted C/M use (e.g.， the count status of developments) rather than identify them based o
