簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

回結果列表
研究生： 許雅惠
Hsu Yahui
論文名稱： 認知語義教學法對台灣高中生學習英文介詞in, on 和 at 的效益研究
A Cognitive Semantic Approach to Teaching English Prepositions in, on and at for Senior High School Students in Taiwan—An Evaluation
指導教授： 李櫻
Li, Ing
學位類別： 碩士
Master
系所名稱： 英語學系
Department of English
論文出版年： 2006
畢業學年度： 94
語文別： 英文
論文頁數： 111
中文關鍵詞： 隱喻 、認知語義學 、單一方向性 、介詞
英文關鍵詞： metaphor, cognitive semantics, unidirectionality, English prepositions
論文種類： 學術論文
相關次數： 點閱：218  下載：15 
分享至:
查詢本校圖書館目錄 查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統 勘誤回報
  •  上一筆

    • 摘要

    本研究旨在探討認知語義教學法運用於英語介詞教學之情形，並以傳統教學法為對照，比較兩者在此項教學之成效。同時，學生在學習介詞時所遭遇的困難，也是探討的重點。
    本研究以兩班竹北高中二年級英文文法選修班的學生為對象，隨機指定為實驗組和控制組。實驗組接受認知語義教學法，而控制組接受傳統教學法，兩組分別以不同的教學法進行介詞教學，並接受前測及後測以比較其教學效果。同時，本研究也實施問卷調查，藉此了解學生對此項教學之反應。
    研究結果顯示，傳統教學法和認知語義教學法皆有助於介詞的學習，但兩種教學法所產生之效果並無顯著差異。研究結果也顯示，不同意指的介詞用法呈現不同難易度，學生對於意義較抽象的介詞題目得分普遍低於意義較具體的用法。而問卷結果則反映，比起控制組學生對於傳統教學法的認同度，實驗組對認知語義教學法的接受度顯得略低。

    Abstract

    The present study investigates the effect of the cognitive semantic approach to English preposition instruction in comparison with that of the traditional approach. Besides, the learner difficulty with the various senses of prepositions in, on and at is analyzed. Moreover, the students’ responses to the preposition instruction in this study are also explored.
    Two classes of English grammar as an elective course in Chupei Senior High School (n = 70) participated in the study. The two classes were randomly assigned to be the control group and the experimental group. After the pretest that showed no significant difference between them, the two groups received the preposition instruction that adopted different approaches, i.e. the traditional approach for the control group and the cognitive semantic approach for the experimental group. Two posttests were then administered to determine and compare the effects of the two approaches as well as the students’ difficulties with preposition in, on and at. The students’ responses to the preposition instruction were also examined through a questionnaire.
    The results indicate that both the traditional approach and the cognitive semantic approach are effective in preposition instruction for the students. However, no significant difference is yielded between the effects of the two approaches. The results further show that abstract senses of prepositions in, on and at pose more difficulty than do concrete senses. Finally, an examination of the questionnaire reveals that the group adopting the traditional approach has more positive responses to the instructional materials than the group using the cognitive semantic approach.

    Abstract (Chinese)…………………………………………………….i Abstract (English)……………………………………………………ii Acknowledgements…………………………………………………...iii Table of Contents.........................................iv List of Tables …………………………………………vii Chapter One Introduction…1 1.1 Motivation…1 1.2 Research questions…6 1.3 Organization of the thesis…6 Chapter Two Literature Review…7 2.1 Previous research on functions and uses of English prepositions in, on and at...7 2.1.1 The traditional approach…7 2.1.2 The cognitive semantic approach…11 2.1.2.1 Linguistic accounts…11 2.1.2.2 Pedagogical grammar…15 2.2 L1/L2 differences and learner difficulty…25 2.2.1 Chinese locative marker zai '在'…26 2.2.2 Learner difficulty…30 2.3 Summary…31 Chapter Three Methodology…33 3.1 Subjects…33 3.2 Instruments…34 3.2.1 Materials for the preposition instruction…34 3.2.2 Pretest, posttest I and posttest II on comprehension and use of prepositions…38 3.2.3 Questionnaire on students’ responses to preposition instruction…39 3.3 Treatment …40 3.3.1 The first hour…40 3.3.2 The second hour…42 3.4 Procedures of the study…48 3.5 Data analysis…49 Chapter Four Results and Discussion…51 4.1 Effects of traditional approach and cognitive semantic approach on the preposition teaching and learning …51 4.2 Subjects’ difficulties with the various senses of prepositions in, on and at …57 4.2.1 The pretest…58 4.2.2 The posttest I…63 4.2.3 The posttest II…66 4.2.4 The students’ difficulty with various senses of in, on and at…68 4.2.5 The students’ difficulty from negative L1 transfer.75 4.3 Students’ response to the preposition instruction…77 4.3.1 The first item…77 4.3.2 The second item…79 4.3.3 The third item…81 Chapter Five Conclusion…84 5.1 Summary of the major findings…84 5.2 Pedagogical Implication …85 5.3 Limitations to the study and suggestions for further research …86

    Bibliography
    Basic English Vocabulary for Elementary and Junior High School Students. 2003. Taipei: Ministry of Education.
    Boers, Frank and M. Demecheleer. 1997. ‘A few metaphorical models in (western) economic discourse’ in W. A. Liebert, G. Redeker and L. Waugh (eds.): Discourse and Perspective in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 115-129.
    Boers, Frank and Murielle Demecheleer. 1998. A cognitive semantic approach to teaching prepositions. ELT Journal. 52 (3): 197-204.
    Boers, Frank. 1996. Spatial Prepositions and Metaphor: A Cognitive Semantic Journey along the Up-down and the Front-back Dimensions. Tbingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.
    Boers, Frank. 1997. No Pain, no gain in a free market rhetoric: a test for cognitive semantics? Metaphor and Symbol. 12 (4): 231-241.
    Boers, Frank. 1999. ‘When a bodily source domain becomes prominent: the joy of counting metaphors in the socio-economic domain’ in R. W. Gibbs and G. Steen (eds.): Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 47-56.
    Boers, Frank. 2000. Enhancing metaphoric awareness in specialised reading. English for Specific Purpose. 19: 137-147.
    Boers, Frank. 2000. Metaphor awareness and vocabulary retention. Applied Linguistics. 21 (4): 553-571.
    Brala, M. M. 2002. Prepositions in UK monolingual learners’ dictionaries: Expanding on Lindstromberg’s problems and solutions. Applied Linguistics. 23: 134-140.
    Cadiot, Pierre. 2002. ‘Schematics and Motifs in the Semantics of Prepositions’ in S. Feigenbaum & D. Kurzon (eds.): Prepositions in their Syntactic, Semantic and Pragmatic Context. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 41-55.
    Cambridge International Dictionary of English. 1995. Paul Procter, editor-in-chief. Cambridge University Press.
    Celce-Murcia, Marianne and Diane Larsen-Freeman. 1983. The Grammar Book: An ESL/EFL Teacher’s Course. Massachusetts: Newbury House.
    Chen, Paochen. 2002. A corpusbased study of the collocational errors in the writings of the EFL learners in Taiwan. Thesis.
    Collins Cobuild English Dictionary. 1995. John Sinclair, editor-in-chief. London: Harper Collins.
    Coventry, K. R., S. F. Venn, G. D. Smith and A. M. Morley. 2003. Spatial problem solving and functional relations. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology. 15 (1): 71-99.
    Coventry, Kenny R. and Merc Prat-Sala. 2001. Object-specific function, geometry, and the comprehension of in and on. European Juornal of Cognitive Psychology. 13 (4): 509-528.
    Deignan, A., D. Gabrys, and A. Solska. 1997. Teaching English metaphors using cross-linguistic awareness-raising activities. ELT Journal. 51 (4): 352-360.
    Fauconnier, Gilles. 2003. ‘Cognitive linguistics’ in Lynn Nadel (editor-in-chief): Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science. New York: Nature Publishing Group.
    French, Robert M. 1999. Constrained connectionism and the limits of human semantics: A review essay of Terry Regier’s The human semantic potential. Philosophical Psychology. 12 (4): 515-523.
    Garrod, Simon, Gillian Ferrier, and Siobhan Campbell. 1999. In and on: Investigating the functional geometry of spatial prepositions. Cognition. 72: 167-189.
    Gibbs, R. W. 1993. ‘Why idioms are not dead metaphors’ in C. Cacciari and P. Tabossi (eds.): Idioms: Processing, Structure, and Interpretation. Hillsdale/London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 57-76.
    Givn, Talmy. 1993. English grammar: A function-based introduction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    Goddard, Cliff. 2002. On and on: Verbal explications for a polysemic network. Cognitive Linguistics. 13 (3): 277-294.
    Guerrero, M. C.M. de and Olga S. Villamil. 2002. Metaphorical conceptualizations of ESL teaching and learning. Language Teaching Research. 6 (2): 95-120.
    Heine, Bernd. 1997. Cognitive foundations of grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    Henderson, W. 1986. ‘Metaphor in economics’ in M. Coulthard (ed.): Talking about Text (Discourse Monograph No 13). Birmingham: English Language Research. 109-127.
    Huang, Shiao-ling. 2001. Error analysis and teaching composition. Thesis.
    Huddleston, Rodney. 1988. English Grammar: An Outline. New York: Cambridge University Press.
    Jackendoff, Ray S. 1983. Semantics and Cognition. Cambridge: MIT Press.
    Johnson, Mark. 1987. The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and Reason. Chicago :University of Chicago Press.
    Kao, Rong-rong. 2001. Where have the prepositions gone? A study of English prepositional verbs and input enhancement in instructed SLA. IRAL. 39: 195-215.
    Kvecses, Z. and P. Szabo. 1996. Idioms: a view from Cognitive Semantics. Applied Linguistics. 17 (3): 326-355.
    Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors We Live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson. 1999. The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought. New York: Basic Books.
    Langacker, Ronald. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
    Langacker, Ronald. 1991. Concept, Image, and Symbol. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
    Langacker, Ronald. 2003. Constructional Integration, Grammaticization, and Serial Verb Constructions. Language and Linguistics. 4 (2): 251-278.
    Larsen-Freeman, Diane and Michael H. Long. 1991. An Introduction to Second Language Acquisition Research. New York: Longman.
    Lazar, G. 1996. Using figurative language to expand students’ vocabulary. ELT Journal. 50 (1): 43-51.
    Lennon, P. 1998. Approaches to the teaching of idiomatic language. Iral. 36 (1): 12-30.
    Li, Charles N. and Sandra A. Thompson. 1981. Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference Grammar. California: University of California Press.
    Lindstromberg, Seth. 1991. (Re)teaching prepositions. English Teaching Forum. April 1991.
    Lindstromberg, Seth. 1996. Prepositions: Meaning and method. ELT Journal. 50 (3): 225-236.
    Lindstromberg, Seth. 2001. Preposition entries in UK monolingual learners’ dictionaries: Problems and possible solutions. Applied Linguistics. 22 (1): 79-103.
    Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English. 1995. Della Summers, director. Harlow: Longman.
    Low, G. 1998. On teaching metaphor. Applied Linguistics. 9 (2): 125-147.
    O'Dowd, Elizabeth M. 1998. Prepositions and Particles in English: A Discourse-functional Account. New York: Oxford University Press.
    Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English. 1995. Jonathan Crowther (ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    Pullum, Geoffrey K. and Rodney Huddleston. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. New York: Cambridge University Press.
    Radden, Gnter. 2003. The Metaphor TIME AS SPACE across Languages. http://www.ualberta.ca/~german/ejournal/Radden.pdf.
    Richards, Jack C., John Platt and Heidi Platt. 1992. Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching & Applied Linguistics. England: Longman.
    Schmied, Josef. 2001. Learning English prepositions in the Chemnitz internet grammar. http://www.fineprint.com.
    Skehan, P. 1998. A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    Strauss, Anselm and Juliet Corbin. 1990. Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. California: Sage Publications.
    Tang, Yi-ting Eveline. 2004. A study of the collocation errors in the oral and written production of the college students in Taiwan. Thesis.
    Tseng, Fan-ping. 2002. A study of the effects of collocation instruction on the collocational competence of senior high school students in Taiwan. Thesis.
    Tyler, Andrea and Vyvyan Evans. 2003. The semantics of English prepositions: Spatial scenes, embodied meaning and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
    Vega, Manuel de, Maria. J. Rodrigo, Manuel Ato, Doris M. Dehn and Beatriz Barquero. 2002. How nouns and prepositions fit together: An exploration of the semantics of locative sentences. Discourse Processes. 34 (2): 117-143.
    Wierzbicka, Anna. 1993. Why do we say IN April, ON Thursday, AT 10 o’clock? In search of an explanation? Studies in Language. 17 (2): 437-454.
    呂叔湘 1992 中國文法要略 台北 文史哲
    屈承熹 紀宗仁 1999 漢語認知功能語法 台北 文鶴
    陳靜子 2004 高級漢語學習者中介語介詞「在」之使用情形研究 碩士論文 台灣師範大學
    藍純 1999 從認知角度看漢語的隱喻空間 外語教學與研究 120 (4): 7-15
    劉月華、潘文娛、故韋華 1983 實用現代漢語語法 師大書苑

    QR CODE