本研究旨在探討18位台灣英語外語學習者口說中介語(interlanguage)裡If假設條件句的使用，透過質性分析的方式，研究重點可分為三大部分：(1) 針對學生在If假設條件句的結構使用(form-construction)上做錯誤分析(error analysis)；(2) 探索學生如何應用If假設條件句的言談語用功能(discourse-pragmatic functions)；(3) 探究可能影響學生使用If假設條件句的因素。本研究之語料來自於學生針對3個情境式對話題目所做的會話，這些題目包括一、「樂透彩」，二、「寒假/暑假計畫」，和三、「921大地震」，所蒐集的語料顯示出許多值得注意的發現。

第一、對學生而言，使用與事實相反之假設句(counterfactuals)比開放預測性的假設句(open if-conditionals)困難，研究發現多數錯誤類型導因於If假設條件句裡的If子句與主要子句的假設程度(hypotheticality level)或認知觀點(epistemic stance)不一致，由此可見，學生並不清楚If假設條件句在結構與意義上的對應關係(form-and-function mappings)；再者，學生會運用各種策略以避免使用If假設條件句，例如：簡化句法結構、或用其他結構或詞彙來代換等，這些都間接反應出If假設條件句在英語外語學習者中介語的發展過程中的困難性。

第二、研究結果顯示學生會運用三種If假設條件句的言談語用功能，包括：假定(assuming)、對比(contrasting)、和可能性探索(exploring of options)，這些功能大致與英語母語者的使用情況相符；然而，研究語料中並未發現If假設條件句的互動用法(interactional use)如緩和(mitigation)，此類用法於真實溝通情境中卻是很常見的，這個結果可能是受制於指定的對話題目、或受學生先前所接受的語言輸入(input)的影響、亦或是因為學生不擅長用第二外語(L2)進行較人際互動式的對話(interactional talks)。

第三、研究發現兩個可能影響學生If假設條件句使用表現的因素，其一是母語–也就是中文–的移轉(L1 transfer)，學生在If假設條件句結構使用上的缺失可能來自於母語和第二外語在詞句結構上的差異(morphosyntactic differences)；相反地，學生會適當運用If假設條件句的言談語用功能，這可能與母語和第二外語的假設句在這些功能上非常相似有關。另一原因則是語言輸入(input)的影響，藉由分析高中英文教材發現，學生並沒有獲得與事實相反之假設句(counterfactuals)的充分語言輸入，不過，教材的確顯示出If假設條件句在言談語用功能上的多樣性；教材的語言輸入大致反映在學生的語言輸出(output)表現裡，除了If假設條件句的互動用法廣泛應用於教材中卻沒有出現在學生語料裡之外，而此發現則透露出現行英語教育的不足之處。

有鑒於上述研究發現，文末提出一些教學建議與課堂活動以供教師參考。

This study investigates the use of English if-conditionals in 18 Taiwanese EFL learners’ spoken interlanguage. By means of a qualitative analysis, the research focus on (1) error analysis in the form-construction of if-conditionals, (2) exploration of the discourse-pragmatic functions of if-conditionals, and (3) possible reasons for the learners’ performance. The natural spoken data produced by the participants within 3 situated conversation topics – Lottery, Winter/Summer Vacation and the 921 Earthquake – spell out several intriguing findings and implications.

First of all, counterfactuals are rendered more difficult than open if-conditionals for the learners to produce. The general tendency of error types is argued to be attributed to the inconsistency of hypotheticality level/epistemic stance between the protasis and the apodosis of an if-conditional. Such deficiency suggests that the learners are unaware of the mapping between the forms of if-conditionals and hypotheticality/epistemic stance. Furthermore, the learners’ strategies to avoid if-conditionals, such as simplifying the syntactic structure or substituting with other structures or lexicon, are observed to indirectly reflect the difficulty of if-conditionals in the development of EFL learners’ interlanguage.

As for the discourse-pragmatic functions, the results display three types in the learners’ if-conditionals– assuming, contrasting, and exploring of options. These are roughly compatible to English native speakers’ use of if-conditionals. Yet, the findings indicate no if-conditionals for interactional use such as mitigation, which is supposed to be commonly-used in communication. This can be attributed to the confinement of the assigned conversation topics, the input received by the learners, or the learners’ unfamiliarity with interactional talks in L2.

With regard to possible influences on the learners’ performance, the first one is L1 (i.e. Chinese) transfer. The learners’ deficiency in the form-construction of if-conditionals is correlated to the morphosyntactic differences in L1 and L2. In contrast, their ability to perform appropriate discourse-pragmatic functions conforms to the similarities shared by Chinese and English conditionals. Second, an analysis of the if-conditionals in a senior-high school textbook reveals insufficient input of counterfactuals students have received but the textbook does provide varieties of discourse-pragmatic functions. This is reflected in the learners’ output except that there are many if-conditionals for interactional use in the textbook but none in the spoken data. This implies the defect of the current EFL pedagogy.

In view of these observations, the study suggests some teaching guidelines and activities for EFL teachers to teach the use of if-conditionals effectively.

REFERENCES

Akatsuka, Noriko. (1985). Conditionals and the epistemic scale. Language, 61(3), 625-639.

-----. (1986). Conditionals are discourse-bound. In E. C. Traugott, A. t. Meulen, J. Reilly & C. Ferguson (Eds.), On conditionals (pp. 333-351). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Akatsuka, Noriko, & Strauss, Susan. (2000). Counterfactual reasoning and desirability. In E. Couper-Kuhlen & B. Kortmann (Eds.), Cause, condition, concession, contrast: Cognitive and discourse perspectives (pp. 205-234). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Athanasiadou, Angeliki, & Diven, Rene. (1997). Conditionality, hypotheticality, counterfactuality. In A. Athanasiadou & R. Diven (Eds.), On conditionals again (pp. 61-96). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Au, T. K.-F. (1983). Chinese and English counterfactuals: The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis revisited. Cognition, 15, 155-187.

-----. (1984). Counterfactuals: In reply to Alfred Bloom. Cognition, 17, 289-302.

Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen, & Dornyei, Zoltan. (1998). Do language learners recognize pragmatic violations? Pragmatic versus grammatical awareness in instructed L2 learning. TESOL Quarterly, 32(2), 233-262.

Berent, Gerald P. (1985). Markedness considerations in the acquisition of conditional sentences. Language Learning, 35(3), 337-372.

Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.

Bloom, Alfred H. (1981). The linguistic shaping of thought: A study in the impact of language on thinking in China and the West. Hillside, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Borg, Simon. (1999). Teachers' theories in grammar teaching. ELT Journal, 53(3), 157-167.

Brown, H. Douglas. (2000). Principles of language learning and teaching. New York: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.

Brown, Penelope, & Levinson, Stephen C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bull, William. (1968). Time, tense and the verb. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Canale, Michael. (1983). From communicative competence to communicative language pedagogy. In J. C. Richards & R. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and communication (pp. 2-27). London: Longman.

Canale, Michael, & Swain, Merrill. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1-47.

Celce-Murcia, Marianne, & Diane, Larsen-Freeman. (1999). The grammar book: An ESL/EFL teacher's course (2nd ed.): Heinle & Heinle.

Chafe, Wallace L. (1984). How people use adverbial clauses. Paper presented at the 10th annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society.

-----. (1987). Cognitive constraints on information flow. In R. Tomlin (Ed.), Coherence and grounding in discourse (pp. 21-51). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Chang, Stan Teng-yao. (2004). A study of the learning of English "counterfactual" conditionals by high school students in Taiwan. Unpublished M. A. thesis, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan.

Chao, Yen-ren. (1968). A grammar of spoken Chinese. Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Chen, Ling-xia. (2005). Sanmin english (Vol. Book IV). Taipei: Sanmin Publishing Co.

Chiu, Shelly Shin-hsien, & Chen, Alvin Cheng-hsien. (2005). Etymological reflection of grammaticalization: Conditional constructions in Mandarin Chinese. Paper presented at the 9th International Cognitive Linguistics Conference, Seoul, Korea.

Comrie, Bernard. (1986). Conditionals: A typology. In E. C. Traugott, A. t. Meulen, J. Reilly & C. Ferguson (Eds.), On conditionals (pp. 77-102). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Covitt, R. I. (1976). Some problematic grammar areas for ESL teachers. Unpublished M.A. thesis, UCLA.

Dancygier, Barbara. (1993). Interpreting conditionals: Time, knowledge, and causation. Journal of Pragmatics, 19, 403-434.

-----. (1998). Conditionals and predication: Time, knowledge and causation in conditional constructions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Dancygier, Barbara, & Sweetser, Eve. (1996). Conditionals, distancing, and alternative spaces. In A. Goldberg (Ed.), Conceptual structure, discourse and language (pp. 83-98). Standford: CSLI Publications.

-----. (2000). Constructions with if, since and because: Causality, epistemic stance, and clause order. In E. Couper-Kuhlen & B. Kortmann (Eds.), Cause, condition, concession, contrast: Cognitive and discourse perspectives (pp. 111-142). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Ellis, Rod. (1995). Interpretation tasks for grammar teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 29(1), 87-105.

-----. (1997). SLA research and language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Fauconnier, Gilles. (1985). Mental spaces. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Fillmore, Charles J. (1990). Epistemic stance and grammatical form in English conditional sentences. Chicago Linguistics Society, 26, 137-162.

Fleischman, Suzanne. (1989). Temporal distance: A basic linguistic metaphor. Studies in Language, 13(1), 1-50.

Ford, Cecilia E. (1993). Grammar in interaction: Adverbial clauses in American English conversations. New York: Cambridge University Press.

-----. (1997). Speaking conditionally: Some contexts for if-clauses in conversation. In A. a. R. Athanasiadou, Dirven (Ed.), On conditionals again (pp. 387-413). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Ford, Cecilia E., & Thompson, Sandra A. (1986). Conditionals in discourse: A text-based study from English. In E. C. Traugott, A. t. Meulen, J. Reilly & C. Ferguson (Eds.), On conditionals (pp. 353-372). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Givon, Talmy. (1993). English grammar: A function-based introduction (Vol. 2). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Green, Christopher F. (1996). The origins and effects of topic-prominence in Chinese-English interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 34(2), 119-134.

Haiman, John. (1978). Conditionals are topics. Language, 54, 564-589.

Huang, J. (1984). On the typology of zero anaphora. Language Research, 20(2), 85-105.

Ishihara, Noriko, & Chi, Julie C. (2004). Authentic video in the beginning ESOL classroom: Using a full-length feature film for listening and speaking practice. English Teaching Forum, 42(1), 30-35.

James, Deborah. (1982). Past tense and the hypothetical: A cross-linguistic study. Studies in Language, 6, 375-403.

Ke, Yu-shan. (2004). Form-function mapping in the acquisition of if-conditionals: A corpus-based study. Paper presented at the First Online Conference on Second and Foreign Language Teaching and Research.

Klein-Andreu, Flora. (1986). Speaker-based and reference-based factors in linguistic explanation: Non-past conditional sentences in Spanish. In O. Jaeggli & C. Silva-Corvalan (Eds.), Studies in romance linguistics (pp. 99-119). Dordrecht/Riverton: Foris.

Koike, Dale April. (1989). Requests and the role of deixis in politeness. Journal of Pragmatics, 13, 187-202.

Krashen, Stephen. (1983). Newmark's ignorance hypothesis and current second language acquisition theory. In S. Gass & L. Selinker (Eds.), Language transfer in language learning (pp. 135-153). Rowley, MA: Newburry House.

Lai, Shu-jing. (2004). High school English teachers' beliefs on grammar instruction in Taiwan. Unpublished M.A. Thesis, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan.

Lakoff, Robin. (1973). The logic of politeness; or, minding your p's and q's. Paper presented at the Ninth Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society.

Lardiere, D. (1992). On the linguistic shaping of thought: Another response to Alfred Bloom. Language in Society, 21, 231-251.

Li, Charles N., & Thompson, Sandra A. (1982). Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar. Taipei: The Crane Publishing Co., LTD.

Li, Cherry Ing. (1996). Cong yu yong xue de guan dian tou shi ying yu shi shi de yong fa (從語用學的觀點透視英語時式的用法). English Teaching and Learning, 21(2), 39-53.

Liu, L. G. (1985). Reasoning counterfactually in Chinese: Are there any obstacles? Cognition, 21, 230-270.

Liu, Yi. (1987). Wen fa bao dian (文法寶典). Taipei: Learning Publishing Co.

McCarthy, Michael. (1991). Discourse analysis for language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Norris, R. W. (2003). How do we overcome the difficulties of teaching conditionals? Bulletin of Fukuoka International University, 9, 39-50.

Quirk, R., Greenbaun, S., Leech, G., & Svarvtik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. New York: Longman.

Randriamasimanana, Charles. (1987). Tense/aspect and the concept of displacement. Journal of Pragmatics, 11, 193-209.

Reiter, Rosina M., Rainey, Isobel, & Fulgher, Glenn. (2005). A comparative study of certainty and conversational indirectness: Evidence from British English and peninsular Spanish. Applied Linguistics, 26(1), 1-31.

Schwenter, Scott Alan. (1998). The pragmatics of conditional marking: Implicature, scalarity, and exclusivity. Unpublished Dissertation, Stanford University, San Francisco.

Selinker, Larry. (1972). Interlanguage. IRAL, 10(3), 209-231.

Shi, Y., Lin, M., & Brooks, S. (Eds.). (2002). Far East English reader (Vol. Book I~VI). Taipei: Far East Book Co.

Su, I-wen Lily. (2004). Conditional reasoning as a reflection of human mind. Paper presented at the IsCLL-9, Taipei.

Sun, Chen-chen. (2003). Acquisition of English counterfactual conditional sentences by Chinese speakers in Taiwan. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Arizona State University.

Sweetser, Eve E. (1990). From etymology to pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Takahashi, Satomi. (2005). Pragmalinguistic awareness: Is it related to motivation and proficiency? Applied Linguistics, 26(1), 90-120.

Tao, Liang. (1996). Topic discontinuity and zero anaphora in Chinese discourse: Cognitive strategies in discourse processing. In B. Fox (Ed.), Studies in anaphora (pp. 487-513). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Thomas, J. (1995). Meaning in interaction: An introduction to pragmatics. London: Longman.

Van der Auwera, Johan. (1986). Conditionals and speech acts. In E. C. Traugott, A. t. Meulen, J. Reilly & C. Ferguson (Eds.), On conditionals (pp. 197-214). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wang, Yu-fang. (1996). The information sequences of adverbial clauses in Chinese spoken and written discourse. Unpublished Dissertation, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan.

-----. (1999). The information sequences of adverbial clauses in Mandarin Chinese conversation. Journal of Chinese Linguistics, 27(2), 45-89.

Werth, Paul. (1997). Conditionality as cognitive distance. In A. Athanasiadou & R. Dirven (Eds.), On conditionals again (pp. 243-271). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Wu, Chao-mei. (2003). A study of the comparative effect of input-based grammar instruction and output-based instruction on the acquisition of the English subjective mood. Unpublished M. A. thesis, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan.

Wu, Hsin-feng. (1994). "If triangles were circles." ─ a study of counterfactuals in Chinese and in English. Taipei: Crane Publisher.

-----. (1997). Zhong guo ren de jia she si wei: bao zhi wen zi fen xi yan jiu (中國人的假設思維：報紙文字分析研究). In Yang, G. S. (ed.), Zhong guo ren de si wei fang shi (中國人的思維方式) (pp. 69-125). Taipei: Laureate Publisher.

Yule, George. (2000). Pragmatics. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Publisher.