國立臺灣師範大學博碩士論文全文系統

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

回結果列表

研究生：	汪宜璇 Yi-xuan Wang
論文名稱：	臺灣中學生英文名詞可數性質學習成效之研究 Countability of Nouns in English: A Study of Its Performance among High School Students in Taiwan
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：	2005
畢業學年度：	93
語文別：	英文
論文頁數：	141
中文關鍵詞：	可數性質、名詞、學習成效、中學生、語境
英文關鍵詞：	countability, nouns, performance, high school students, context
論文種類：	學術論文
相關次數：	點閱：456 下載：17
分享至:	分享至facebook 分享至twitter

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

本研究的目的是要探討臺灣中學生英文名詞可數性質的學習成效。主要議題是傳統文法書中名詞可數性質的說明對於學習者的影響。四十位國三學生和四十位高三學生參加本實驗。他們依指示完成判斷可數性質的測驗。
整體而言，由於傳統文法中強調制式名詞分類教學的影響，受試者依此分類在普通名詞、普通可數名詞、特指用法的專有名詞的表現較佳，然而受試者亦因此種名詞分類，而在一些有明顯可數性質線索，但違反該分類的試題中，正確率偏低。其他因素像是集合名詞的特殊型式、該用語常用與否、在真實世界中的外觀、母語的影響、以及名詞前的量詞等，都是可能影響可數性判斷結果的因素。
比較高中生和國中生，高中程度者對於可數性質的判斷優於國中程度者。可能是因為他們閱讀的內容較廣，而有更多機會做可數性質判斷的練習。然而進一步探究則發現，高中生傾向於過度把普通名詞當作可數名詞使用，而過度把專有名詞和物質名詞當不可數名詞使用。高中生在這些名詞次類的表現不佳很可能是受到傳統文法書中制式名詞分類法的影響。
此外，國中和高中生在不同名詞類別中可數和不可數名詞的使用亦顯示高中生受到制式分類法的影響較國中生深。國中生傾向於把普通名詞當作可數，專有名詞當不可數，但在意料之外的是他們過度把物質名詞當可數名詞使用, 但亦較能接受物質名詞當可數名詞的正確用法。相較之下，高中生傾向於過度把普通名詞當作可數，而專有、物質和抽象名詞則都當不可數用，而常常導致用法的錯誤。這種現象可能是因為高中生學習文法規則較久，所以受到的影響較深；國中學生，相反地，受到傳統可數類別劃分規定的影響就沒有那麼深，因而制式用法還並未建立得那麼僵化。

The purpose of the study is to investigate the performance of countability of nouns in English among high school students in Taiwan. The major issue is the influence of instruction for countability in traditional grammar books on learners. Forty third-year junior high school students and forty third-year senior high school students participated in the experiment. They were directed to complete a countability judgment test.
Overall, the influence of emphasizing the rigid noun classification in traditional grammar is manifested in the better results of common nouns, count common nouns, proper nouns for unique reference, and low accuracy of some individual items with clear cues of individuation. Other factors like special patterns of collective nouns, frequency of occurrence, perceivable forms in the real world, L1 transfer, and pre-nominal quantifiers, are also possible factors that influence the results of learner’s countability judgment.
Between different levels, the accuracy results show a tendency for the third-year senior students to perform better than the third-year junior students in countability judgment. The senior-level group’s better performance may be due to their exposure to more reading materials, which provided them with more opportunities of countability judgment practice. Further investigation shows that the senior group tended to overuse individuated common nouns, unindividuated proper nouns, and unindividuated material nouns. Poor performance in these sub-type noun classes is possibly due to their longer exposure to the strict classification instruction they have received in traditional grammar books.
Accuracy results of individuated and unindividuated noun classes of the junior and senior groups separately further clarify that the senior level is influenced by the rigid noun classification more deeply than the junior level. The junior subjects show a tendency to overuse common nouns as count, proper nouns as non-count, but an unexpected tendency to overuse material nouns as count. Meanwhile, they are more ready to correctly use material nouns as count. Contrastively, the senior subjects show a tendency to overuse common nouns as count, and proper, material, and abstract nouns as non-count. It is possible that the senior group have been exposed to the grammatical rules longer, so they were influenced by the rigid instructional material more deeply. The junior learners, on the contrary, were not influenced by the traditional rules of countability as much, and thus the rigid classification instruction has not been established as firmly yet.

中文摘要    I
ABSTRACT    III
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS    V
TABLE OF CONTENTS    VII
LISTS OF TABLES    IX
LISTS OF FIGURES    XI
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION    1
1.1 MOTIVATION AND GOALS    1
1.2 ORGANIZATION OF THE THESIS    7
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW    8
2.1 MORPHOLOGICAL SHAPES OF COUNT AND NON-COUNT NOUNS    8
2.2 SYNTACTIC BEHAVIORS OF COUNT AND NON-COUNT NOUNS    10
2.3 A SEMANTIC ACCOUNT OF COUNTABILITY    12
2.4 A PRAGMATIC ACCOUNT OF COUNTABILITY    15
2.4.1 Literature in Descriptive Research    15
2.4.2 Literature in Empirical Research    23
2.5 LANGUAGE-SPECIFIC FEATURES    26
2.6 SUMMARY    30
CHAPTER 3 EVALUATION OF GRAMMAR INSTRUCTIONS FOR LEARNERS IN TAIWAN    32
3.1 COMMON NOUNS    37
3.2 COLLECTIVE NOUNS    44
3.3 PROPER NOUNS    46
3.4 MATERIAL NOUNS    50
3.5 ABSTRACT NOUNS    53
3.6 SUMMARY    56
CHAPTER 4 EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN    58
4.1 SUBJECTS    58
4.2 METHOD    59
4.3 RESEARCH QUESTIONS    61
4.3.1 Countability Judgment for Noun Classes    64
4.3.2 Comparison between Junior and Senior High School Groups    73
CHAPTER 5 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION    74
5.1 COUNTABILITY JUDGMENT FOR NOUN CLASSES    74
5.1.1 Common nouns    79
5.1.2 Collective nouns    86
5.1.3 Proper nouns    90
5.1.4 Material nouns    94
5.1.5 Abstract nouns    98
5.2 COMPARISON BETWEEN JUNIOR AND SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL GROUPS    103
5.3 SUMMARY    109
CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION    114
6.1 PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATION    114
6.1.1 Principles of Teaching English Noun Countability    115
6.1.2 Contextualized Exercises for Countability Instruction    119
6.2 LIMITATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH    128
REFERENCE    131
APPENDIX A  TEST QUESTIONS OF THE PRESENT STUDY    135
APPENDIX B  SOURCES OF THE TEST QUESTIONS    140

LISTS OF TABLES
TABLE 1 EIGHT LEVELS OF COUNTABILITY (ADAPTED FROM ALLAN 1980, TABLE 1 & 2)    11
TABLE 2: ALLOCATION OF TEST ITEMS FOR EACH NOUN CLASS    63
TABLE 3: ACCURACY OF THE FIVE NOUN CLASSES    75
TABLE 4: ONE-WAY ANOVA FOR MEAN ACCURACY OF THE FIVE NOUN CLASSES    75
TABLE 5: MULTIPLE COMPARISONS FOR MEANS OF THE FIVE NOUN CLASSES    76
TABLE 6: MEANS FOR THE FIVE NOUN CLASSES IN HOMOGENEOUS SUBSETS    76
TABLE 7: ACCURACY RESULTS OF THE INDIVIDUATED AND UNINDIVIDUATED NOUNS OF NOUN CLASSES    78
TABLE 8: ACCURACY RESULTS OF DIFFERENT ITEMS OF COMMON NOUNS    80
TABLE 9: ONE-WAY ANOVA FOR THE RESULTS OF ITEMS OF COMMON NOUNS    81
TABLE 10: MULTIPLE COMPARISONS FOR THE RESULTS OF ITEMS OF COMMON NOUNS    82
TABLE 11: MEANS FOR ITEMS OF COMMON NOUNS IN HOMOGENEOUS SUBSETS    84
TABLE 12: ACCURACY RESULTS OF DIFFERENT ITEMS OF COLLECTIVE NOUNS    87
TABLE 13: ONE-WAY ANOVA FOR THE RESULTS OF ITEMS OF COLLECTIVE NOUNS    87
TABLE 14: A POST HOC TEST FOR THE RESULTS OF ITEMS OF COLLECTIVE NOUNS (SCHEFFE: HOMOGENEOUS SUBSETS)    88
TABLE 15: POST HOC TEST (BONFERRONI: MULTIPLE COMPARISONS) FOR ITEMS OF COLLECTIVE NOUNS    89
TABLE 16: ACCURACY RESULTS OF DIFFERENT ITEMS OF PROPER NOUNS    91
TABLE 17: ONE-WAY ANOVA FOR THE RESULTS OF ITEMS OF PROPER NOUNS    91
TABLE 18: MULTIPLE COMPARISONS FOR THE ITEMS OF PROPER NOUNS    92
TABLE 19: MEANS FOR ITEMS OF PROPER NOUNS IN HOMOGENEOUS SUBSETS    92
TABLE 20: ACCURACY RESULTS OF ITEMS OF MATERIAL NOUNS    95
TABLE 21: ONE-WAY ANOVA FOR THE ITEMS OF MATERIAL NOUNS    95
TABLE 22: MULTIPLE COMPARISONS FOR THE ITEMS OF MATERIAL NOUNS    96
TABLE 23: MEANS FOR ITEMS OF MATERIAL NOUNS IN HOMOGENEOUS SUBSETS    96
TABLE 24: ACCURACY RESULTS OF DIFFERENT ITEMS OF ABSTRACT NOUNS    99
TABLE 25: ONE-WAY ANOVA FOR THE RESULTS OF ITEMS OF ABSTRACT NOUNS    99
TABLE 26: POST HOC TEST (SCHEFFE) FOR THE RESULTS OF ITEMS OF ABSTRACT NOUNS    100
TABLE 27: MEANS FOR ITEMS OF ABSTRACT NOUNS IN HOMOGENEOUS SUBSETS    101
TABLE 28: MEAN SCORES BETWEEN LEVELS    103
TABLE 29: INDEPENDENT SAMPLES TEST FOR MEAN SCORES    104
TABLE 30: ACCURACY RESULTS OF NOUN CLASSES BETWEEN LEVELS    105
TABLE 31: ACCURACY RESULTS OF INDIVIDUATED AND UNINDIVIDUATED NOUN CLASSES BETWEEN LEVELS    106
TABLE 32: ACCURACY RESULTS OF INDIVIDUATED AND UNINDIVIDUATED NOUN CLASSES OF THE JUNIOR GROUP    107
TABLE 33: ACCURACY RESULTS OF INDIVIDUATED AND UNINDIVIDUATED NOUNS OF NOUN CLASSES OF THE SENIOR GROUP    108

LISTS OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1: TRADITIONAL NOUN CATEGORIZATION FOR TAIWANESE LEARNERS    33
FIGURE 2: HOMOGENEOUS SETS OF PROPER NOUNS WITH EXAMPLES    93
FIGURE 3: HOMOGENEOUS SETS OF MATERIAL NOUNS WITH EXAMPLES    97
                                

Allan, Keith. (1980). Nouns and Countability. Language, 56: 541-567. Los Angeles, CA.
Biber, D., Johansson S., Leech, G., Conrad, S. & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.
Budge, Carol. (1989). Plural marking in Hong Kong English. Hong Kong Papers in Linguistics and Language Teaching, 12, 39-48.
Butler, Yuko Goto. (1999). The role of metacognition in the development of the English article system among nonnative speakers. Dissertation Abstracts International-A 60/08: p.2837.
Cameron, C. A. and Lee, K. (1999). Emergent use of English grammatical morphemes by Chinese-speaking children. IRAL, 37(1), 43-58.
Estulin, Chaim. (2005). Hong Kong’s New Culture. Time, 111, 28-32.
Fuchs, Marjorie and Margaret Bonner. (2002). Grammar Express. Longman.
Gathercole, Virginia C. (1985). ‘He has too much hard questions’: the acquisition of the linguistic mass-count distinction in much and many. Journal of Child Language, 12, 395-415.
Givon, T. (1993). English grammar: A function-based introduction. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Pub. Co.
Gordon, P. (1985). Evaluating the semantic categories hypothesis: The case of the count/mass distinction. Cognition, 20, 209-242.
Hiki, Mitsuru. (1991). A Study of Learners' Judgments of Noun Countability. Dissertation Abstracts International-A, 52 /06, p.2127.
Ho, M.L. (1981). The Noun Phrase in Singapore English. MA thesis. Monash University, Melbourne.
Huddleston, Rodney D. and Geoffrey K. Pullun. (2003). The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University Press.
Imai, M., and Gentner, D. (1997). A cross-linguistic study of early word meaning: Universal ontology and linguistic influence. Cognition 62: 169-200.
Jespersen, Otto. (1933). Essentials of English Grammar. London: Allen & Unwin.
Kao, Kai-huang(高愷璜). (1993). On Bare Singulars in Taiwan Learners' English Writing Thesis. Dan Jiang University.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (Ed). (2000). Grammar dimensions: form, meaning, and use. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
Levy, Yonata. (1988). On the Early Learning of Formal Grammatical Systems: Evidence from Studies of the Acquisition of Gender and Countability. Journal of Child Language, 15, 179-187.
Li, Ing. (2004). 語用與句法的互動—從語用學的觀點談語法教學的幾個問題[The Interaction between Pragmatics and Syntax—On Several Problems in Grammar Teaching from a Pragmatic Perspective]. Typescripts. English Department Library, NTNU.
Liao, T. S. (1984). A study of article errors in the written English of Chinese college students in Taiwan. Dissertation Abstracts International, 45/07A, 2017. (University Microfilms No.8422624)
Lin, Chun-shan (林春山) and Chen Yong-zhu (陳永祝) (eds.). (1996). New Standard English Grammar. I. Nan Yi Bookstore.
Liz and John Soars. (2003). American Headway 3. Student Book. Oxford.
Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English. (1999). Hong Kong: Longman.
Master, P. (1987). A cross-linguistic interlanguage analysis of the acquisition of the English article system. Dissertation Abstract International, 48/06A, 1448. (University Microfilms No.8719963)
-------------(2002). Information structure and English article pedagogy. System, 30(3), 331-348.
McCawley, James D. (1975). Lexicography and the count-mass distinction. BLS I: 314-321. [Reprinted in his Adverbs, vowels, and objects of wonder, 165-173. Chicago: University Press, 1979.]
McEldowney, P.L. (1977). A teaching grammar of the English article system. IRAL, 15, 95-112.
Mervis, Carolyn B. and Kathy E. Johnson. (1991). Acquisition of the Plural Morpheme: A Case Study. Developmental Psychology, Vol.27, No.2, 222-235.
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech and Jan Svartvik. (1985). A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.
Rastall, P. (1993). On the attributive noun in English. IRAL, 31(4), 309-313.
Brown, Roger. (1958). Words and Things: An Introduction to Language. Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press.
Shih, Yi-ju (施怡如). (2004). A study of Taiwanese learners’ use of the English article system. MA Thesis. National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei.
Shih, Y., L, M. & Brooks, S. (Eds.) (2002). Far East English Reader III. Taipei, Taiwan: Far East.
Soja, N. N., Carey, S., and Spelke, E. (1991). Ontological categories guide children’s inductions of word meaning. Cognitive Development, 7: 29-45.
Taylor, J. (2002). Cognitive Grammar. Oxford.
Tian, Lin, and Hong (田維新總審訂. 林素娥, 洪宏齡主編). (2003). Long Teng English Reader for Senior High Schools, III and IV. Long Teng Culture.
Ungerer, F. & H.J. Schmid. (1996). An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics. London: Longman.
Very First Dictionary. (1996).Macmillan Publishing Company.
Vogel, Jessie. (2005). Old Fashions Made New. Studio Classroom, April: 38-43.
Wierzbicka, A. (1985). ‘Oats and Wheat: the fallacy of arbitrariness’. In John Haiman(ed.), Iconicity in Syntax, 311-42. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Yoon, K. K. (1993). Challenging prototype descriptions: Perception of noun countability and indefinite vs. zero article use, IRAL, 31(4), 269-289.

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

相關論文