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：	張登堯
論文名稱：	臺灣高中生「反事實假設」條件句學習之研究 A Study of the Learning of English “Counterfactual”Conditionals by High School Students in Taiwan
指導教授：	謝妙玲
學位類別：	碩士 Master
系所名稱：	英語學系 Department of English
論文出版年：	2004
畢業學年度：	92
語文別：	英文
論文種類：	學術論文
相關次數：	點閱：183 下載：16
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

I
文獻探討發現，對於英文來說，要表達「反事實」的想法，英文主要是使用「回溯
時態」(backshifted tenses)，而中文並無相似的結構，但在時態、邏輯等條件的配合之下，
亦可以單句的型式，脫離上下文，表達「反事實」的思維。
本研究旨在探討臺灣中學生是否會因為中文中缺乏明確表達「反事實」
(counterfactual ) 條件句的機制而導致學習英文「反事實」條件句(counterfactual
conditionals )的困難。欲驗證的假設為：對台灣中學生來說，「可能事實假設」、「與現在
事實相反假設」、「與過去事實相反假設」依序形成由簡到難的學習難度。
本研究的受試者取樣自中部某公立高中的82 位學生。受試者依他們上學期英文科的
總成績，被分為高成就組，中上成就組與低成就組。研究工具包括：情境圖(Situation
Task)、文法判斷題(Grammaticality Judgment Task) 、及翻譯題(Elicited Translation
Task)。在研究結果方面，情境圖顯示，「與現在事實相反假設」的難度高於「與過去事
實相反假設」，而文法判斷題的結果亦顯示相同的結果。翻譯題則顯示，最困難的是「與
過去事實相反假設」。在錯誤分析方面，受試者最常犯的錯誤是忽略「回溯時態」
(backshifted tenses)的使用與「過去完成式助動詞」(past perfective modal)的使用。本論
文的結論是對於台灣中學生來說，學習英文「反事實」條件句的困難可能來自這個用
法本身的複雜性，受母語的影響並不明顯。

Research finds that, in order to express counterfactual concepts, English mainly depends
on syntactical structures, namely the backshifted tenses, and thus is more likely to avoid
ambiguity. In contrast, Chinese, due to its lack of overt distinctions of tenses, uses multilevel
linguistic categories for the same purpose. The linguistic categories include contexts, time
temporal, and internal semantic logic.
This research aims to explore whether the lack of overt counterfactual linguistic
categories in Chinese causes problems for Taiwanese EFL learners at senior high school
level.
The hypothesis to be tested is that Chinese EFL learners would show fewer errors in
non-counterfactual conditionals; comparatively more errors in counterfactual conditionals
(present reference) and most important of all, counterfactual conditionals (past reference)
would be the most difficult one among the three ones.
The subjects involved in this study are divided into three groups: high, intermediate and
low achievers. The research tasks include Situation Task, Grammaticality Judgment Task and
Elicited Translation Task. The outcomes from Situation Task and Grammaticality Judgment
Task both indicate that the counterfactual conditional (present reference) is significantly
harder than the other two structures. While the outcome from Elicited Translation Task shows
that the counterfactual conditional (past reference) is the hardest among the three ones and
the two sources of errors are identified: the lack of the backshifted tenses and the incomplete
learning of the past perfective modal. This study concludes that the difficulty of the learning
of counterfactual conditionals probably arises mainly from the complexity of the structure.
L1 transference seems to exert little influence.

Chinese abstract………………………………………………………………………..…………I
English abstract…………………………………………………………………………………..II
Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………………………III
Table of Contents………………………………………………………..……………………….IV
List of Tables……………………………………………………………………………………..VI
List of Figures …………………………………………………….…………………………..…VII
Chapter 1......................................1
Introduction .................................1
1.1 General Introduction...........1
1.2 Research Findings of Chinese and English Counterfactual Conditionals ......................................................2
1.3 Studies of the Learning of the Counterfactual Conditionals in Taiwan..........................................................3
1.4 Research Questions..............3
1.5.1 The Mental Representation of Counterfactuals ...........................................................................................5
1.5.2 Contrastive Analysis .......6
1.5.3 Error Analysis .................7
1.5.4 The Differences between “Mistakes” and “Errors”.....................................................................................8
1.5.5 Attributed Error Causes: Interlingual Errors, Intralingual Errors and Developmental Errors.............9
1.6 The Significance of the Stu9
1.7 Organization of This Thesis ..............................................................................................................................10
Chapter 2....................................11
Counterfactual Conditionals in Chinese and English.............................................................................................11
2.1 Counterfactual Conditionals in English...........................................................................................................11
2.1.1 Traditional EFL Class12
2.1.2 The Differences between “Subjunctive” and “Counterfactual” ...............................................................13
2.1.3 The Backshifted Tense Principle in Counterfactual Conditionals............................................................14
2.1.4 Generalizing the Application Contexts of the Backshifted Tense Principle.............................................15
2.1.4.1 Two Problems in the Generalization of the Application Contexts .......................................................152.1.4.2 The Backshifted Tense Principle Applied in Non-Counterfactual Conditionals ................................16
2.1.4.3 Summary of Counterfactual Constructions in English ........................................................................17
2.2 Counterfactual Conditionals in Chinese..........................................................................................................18
2.2.1 The Classification of Chinese Counterfactuals...........................................................................................18
2.2.1.1 Analyses of Chinese Counterfactual Conditionals for Second Language Learners...........................18
2.2.1.2 Formal Linguistic Analyses of Chinese Counterfactual Expressions ..................................................20
2.2.2 The View that Chinese Counterfactuals Depend on Contexts ..................................................................21
2.2.3 Opposing Views of the Claim that Chinese Makes No Distinction in Counterfactuals ..........................22
2.2.3.1 The Origin of the Claim that Chinese Makes No Distinction between Non-Counterfactuals and
Counterfactuals........23
2.2.3.2 Counterexamples for the Claim that Chinese is a Context-Dependent language in terms of
Counterfactuals........24
2.3 Summary ............................25
Chapter 3....................................27
Literature Review ......................27
3.1 Related Empirical Studies.27
3.1.1 Ziegeler (1995)...............28
3.1.2 Wang & Chang (1999) ..29
3.1.3 Wu (2003) ......................30
3.2 Summary ............................32
Chapter 4....................................33
Research Methodology ..............33
4.1 The Scope of This Study ....33
4.2 Research Questions............35
4.3 Instruments ........................38
4.4 Procedures ..........................44
4.5 Summary ............................46
Chapter 5....................................46
Results and Discussion ..............46
5.1 Results.................................465.1.1the Result and the Discussion of the First Research Question...................................................................47
5.1.2 The Result and the Discussion of the Second Research Question.............................................................49
5.1.3 The Result and the Discussion of the Third Research Question...............................................................52
5.2 The Conventional Usage of the “Were-Subjunctive” ......................................................................................58
5.3 Two Methodological Concerns: Task Effect and Group Effect .....................................................................60
5.4 Discussion ...........................61
5.5 Conclusions ........................64
5.6 Pedagogical Implications...65
5.7 The Limitations of This Study and Suggestions for Future Study.................................................................65
Bibliography...............................68
Appendix A: Background Sheet ...............................................................................................................................74
Appendix B: Situation Task......75
Appendix C: Grammaticality Judgment Task ........................................................................................................78
Appendix D: Elicited Translation Task....................................................................................................................79
                                

Athanasiasdou, A. and Dirven, R. (1997). Conditionality. In Athanasiasdou, A. and Dirven, R. (Eds.). Current issues in linguistics theory: Vol. 143. On conditionals again. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Au, T. K. F. (1983). Chinese and English counterfactuals: The Sapire-Whorf hypothesis revisited. Cognition, 15, 155-187.
Bialystock, E. (1978). A theoretical model of second language learning. Language Learning, 28, 69-83.
Bloom, A. H. (1981). The linguistic shaping of thought: A study the impact of language on thinking in China and the West. Erlbaum Ass: Hillsdale.
Brown H. D. (1984). Principles of language learning and teaching. Englewood Cliff, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Cohen, L., & Manion, L. (1994). Research methods in education (4th ed.). New York, NY:
Routledge.
Corder, S. P. (1967). The significance of learners’ errors. International Review of Applied linguistics, 5, 161-170.
Comrie, B. (1986). Conditionals: a typology. In Traugott, E. C., Meulen, A., Snitzer Reilly, J. and Ferguson, C. A. (Eds.) On Conditionals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dancygier, B. (1998). Conditionals and prediction: Time, knowledge and causation in conditional constructions. London: Cambridge University Press.
Dahl, O. (1997). Past tense reference and counterfactuality. In Athanasiasdou, A. and Dirven, R. (Eds.), Current issues in linguistics theory: Vol. 143. On conditionals again. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Eckman, F. (1977). Markedness and the contrastive analysis hypothesis. Language Learning, 2, 315-330.
Harris, L. P., German, T. & Mills, P. (1996). Children’s use of counterfactual thinking in causal reasoning. Cognition, 6, 233-259.
Hasada, R. (1997). Conditionals and counterfactuals in Japanese. Language Science, 19, 277-288.
Huddleston, R. (1984). Introduction to the grammar of English. New York: Cambridge University Express.
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. New York: Prentice Hall.
Krashen, S. (1999). Seeking a role for grammar: A review of some recent studies. Foreign Language Annals, 32, 245-257.
Krashen, S & Terrel, T. D. (1983). The Natural Approach: Language acquisition in the classroom. Oxford: Pergramon Press.
Larson-Freeman, D. & Long, M. (1991). A research to second language acquisition research. London: Longman.
Li, C. N., &Thompson, S. A. (1981). Mandatin Chinese: A functional reference grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Liao, H. T. (1999). An experimental study of topic-prominence and pro-drop in second language acquisition of Chinese. M.A. thesis: National Taiwan Normal University.
Littlewood, W. T. (1984). Foreign and second language learning: Language acquisition research and its implication for classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Liu, L. G. (1985). Reasoning counterfactuality in Chinese: Are there any obstacles? Cognition, 21, 239-270.
Major, R. (1987). Foreign accent: recent research and theory. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 15, 185-202.
Mclaughline, B. (1978). The monitor model: Some methodological considerations. Language learning, 28, 309-320.
Quelhas, C. A. & Byrne, R. M. J. (2003). Reasoning with denotic and counterfactuals. Thinking and Reasoning, 9, 43-65.
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. New York: Longman.
Rau, C. H. V. (1999). Validity and reliability of grammar proficiency test for freshman English composition class. Journal of Humanities, Vol. 11. Liberal Art of College of Providence University Taichung.
Richards, J. C. (1974). Error analysis: Perspectives on second language acquisition. London: Longman Group Ltd.
Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 10, 201-231.
Stockwell, R., Bowen, J.& Martin, J. (1965). The grammatical Structure of English andSpanish. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Taylor, C. V. (1976). Sources of error in foreign language teaching. English Language teaching, 30, 190-195.
Tyler, A. & Vyvyan E. (2001). The relationship between experience, conceptual structure and meaning: on-temporal use of tense and language. In Putz, M. Susanne, N. & René, D. (Eds.) Applied cognitive linguistics, Vol. I. Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Wang, Y. F. & Chang R. M. (1999). Freshmen English and composition: An error analysis of students’ counterfactual expression. Proceedings of the sixteenth conference on English teaching and learning in the Republic of China. National Changhua University of Education.
Wiezbicka, A. (1997). Conditionals and counterfactuals: conceptual primitive and linguistic universals. In Athanasiasdou, A. & Dirven, R. (Eds.), Current issues in linguistics theory: Vol. 143. On conditionals again. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Wu, C. H. F. (1994). ''If Triangles Were Circles,....'' A Study of Counterfactuals in Chinese and in English. Taipei: Crane.
Wu, C. H. F.吳信鳳 (1997).中國人的假設思維: 報紙文字分析. in楊國樞 (Ed.), 本土心理學研究: 中國人的思維方式: Vol. 7.台北: 桂冠.
Wu C. M.吳昭玫 (2003). A study of the comparative effect of input –based grammar instruction and output-based instruction on the acquisition of the English subjunctive mood. M.A. thesis: National Taiwan Normal University.
Wu, J. C. H. (2001). An experiment study of the Ba construction in second language acquisition of Chinese. M.A. thesis: National Taiwan Normal University.
Ziegeler, D. (1995). Diachronic factors in the grammaticalization of counterfactual implicatures in Singaporean English. Language Science, 17, 305-328.
Cheng & Tian 程祥徽&田小林 cheng siang huei & tian siao lin (1993): sian dai han yu<現代漢語>。tai bei shulin臺北：書林。
Jhang 張志公 jhang jihi gong (1984): sian dai han yu <現代漢語>。Bei jing ren minjiao yu北京：人民教育。

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

相關論文