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：	林志忠 Chih-chung Lin
論文名稱：	台灣高中生英語關係子句使用之研究 A Study on the Use of English Relative Clauses by Taiwanese Senior High School Students
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：	2007
畢業學年度：	95
語文別：	英文
論文頁數：	142
中文關鍵詞：	英語習得、英語關係子句、非限定性關係子句、語用及篇章功能、背景訊息、母語干擾、共同因素
英文關鍵詞：	EFL Aquisition, English Relative Clauses, Non-restrictive Relative Clauses, Pragmatic/Discourse Functions, Background Information, L1 Interference, Universal Factors
論文種類：	學術論文
相關次數：	點閱：180 下載：8
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

摘要
本研究旨在探討台灣學生在英語關係子句使用上的表現。有鑑於先前大部份的研究都著重在限定性關係子句以及關係子句的句法結構上，本研究主要是在探討：(1)非限定性關係子句的習得；(2)在不同語用及篇章情境中，關係子句的使用；這些情境包括指認(identifying)、描繪(characterizing)、引介(presentative)、補述(parenthetical)；以及(3)在寫作中使用關係子句來背景(backgrounding)次要訊息的能力。研究對象為120位高中一年級和三年級的學生。試題包括限定及非限定性關係子句判斷題、情境式翻譯題、以及短文改寫題。研究結果顯示出台灣學生在關係子句習得上的不足之處。首先，本研究發現受試者尚未完全習得非限定性關係子句。一方面因為未能明確地分別限定性和非限定性關係子句，受試者在大部分情境下會過度使用(overuse)限定性關係子句；而另一方面因為未能充分地瞭解非限定性關係子句的使用情境，受試者在非限定性關係子句的使用上，時常局限於“獨指”(uniqueness-referring)的名詞環境(包括人稱代名詞personal pronouns、專有名詞proper NPs、唯一名詞one-of-a-kind NPs)，而忽略其他同樣在指稱上明確(referentially accessible)的名詞環境。本研究也指出受試者未能完全習得關係子句的語用及篇章功能。受試者經常使用關係子句來指認已知之個體(to identify a known entity)或描繪特定之類型(to characterize a particular type)，但對於引介篇章之主題(to present a topical referent)或補述附加之資訊(to interpolate parenthetical assertions)的功能，他們卻很少使用關係子句，反而常用獨立子句(independent clauses)來表示。另外，當關係子句是用來描述或定義名詞時，受試者常常會誤用定冠詞(the)。而在寫作中的關係子句使用上，受試者大致上都能適當使用關係子句來背景(backgrounding)次要訊息。除了學習時間外，受試者在寫作中過度使用表附加子句(and-clauses)及表原因子句(because-clauses)來表達想法的習慣，也會影響他們在寫作中運用關係子句的能力。根據上述分析結果，本研究最後提出一些教學啟示以供參考。

ABSTRACT
The present study investigates the use of English relative clauses (henceforth RCs) by Taiwanese EFL learners. In view of the concentration by previous research on restrictive RCs (RRCs) and the structural dimensions of RCs, it concerns itself mainly with (1) the acquisition of non-restrictive RCs (NRRCs); (2) the use of RCs in different pragmatic/discourse contexts, including identifying, characterizing, presentative, and parenthetical; and (3) the use of RCs in writing as a useful backgrounding device. Analyses are based on the performance by 120 senior high school students, first- and third-graders, in an RC judgment test, a context translation test, and a passage-rewriting test. The results reveal some inadequacies in the acquisition of RCs by Taiwanese EFL learners. Firstly, it was found that the subjects did not completely acquire NRRCs. In the absence of a well-drawn distinction between RRCs and NRRCs in their mental grammar of English RCs, they exhibited a tendency to overuse RRCs in most contexts. Moreover, for lack of a full understanding of when to use NRRCs, they showed a propensity to limit the use of NRRCs to uniqueness-referring NP contexts (i.e. personal pronouns, proper NPs, and one-of-a-kind NPs) and disregard other referentially accessible NP contexts. Secondly, it was observed that the subjects did not fully acquire the pragmatic/discourse functions commonly served by RCs. Their use of RCs was associated more with identifying a known entity or characterizing a particular type, and less with presenting a topical referent or interpolating parenthetical assertions, for both of which they were inclined to use independent clauses instead. Besides, they to some degree tended to misuse the definite article the with RCs serving to describe or define NPs. Lastly, it was found that generally, the subjects performed rather satisfactorily in utilizing RCs in writing to background non-essential idea units, and that the extent of their RC use in written discourse hinged upon their tendency to package information with and- or because- clauses, as well as upon their years of learning. In the light of these deficiencies in the acquisition of RCs, the study concludes by proposing some pedagogical implications for language instructors to better assist L2 learners in mastering English RCs.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHINESE ABSTRACT........................................i
ENGLISH ABSTRACT........................................iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS........................................v
TABLE OF CONTENTS.......................................vi
LIST OF TABLES..........................................viii
LIST OF FIGURES.........................................x

CHAPTER ONE  INTRODUCTION...............................1
1.1    Motivation......................................1
1.2    Significance of the Present Study...............4

CHAPETR TWO  LITERATURE REVIEW..........................6
2.1 General Descriptions of English Relative Clauses....6
2.1.1 Syntactic Dimensions of English Relativization....6
2.1.2 Functional Dimensions of English Relativization...10
2.1.2.1 Restrictive Relative Clauses as a Referent-tracking Strategy................................................11
2.1.2.1.1 Restrictive Relative Clauses that Identify Definite NPs............................................12
2.1.2.1.2 Restrictive Relative Clauses that Characterize Indefinite NPs..........................................13
2.1.2.2 Non-restrictive Relative Clauses as an Information-adding Interpolator.....................................18
2.1.2.3 Relative Clauses as a Backgrounding Device......25
2.1.3 Summary...........................................27
2.2 Variables in Acquisition of Relative Clauses by ESL/EFL Learners................................................28
2.2.1 L1 Interference...................................28
2.2.1.1 Differences Between English and Chinese Relative Clauses.................................................28
2.2.1.2 Previous Empirical Studies on L1 Interference...34
2.2.2 Universal Factors.................................43
2.2.2.1 Three Universal Hypotheses for English Relativization Difficulty...............................44
2.2.2.2 Previous Empirical Studies on the Three Universal Hypotheses..............................................48
2.2.3 Summary...........................................53

CHAPETR THREE  EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN......................56
3.1 Research Questions..................................56
3.2 Subjects............................................61
3.3 Methodology.........................................62
3.3.1 Instruments.......................................63
3.3.2 Test Administration...............................71
CHAPTER FOUR  RESULTS AND DISCUSSION....................73
4.1 Results.............................................73
4.1.1 Acquisition of Non-restrictive RCs................73
4.1.2 Use of RCs in Different Pragmatic/Discourse Contexts
－Identifying, Characterizing, Presentative, and Parenthetical...........................................82
4.1.3 Use of RCs in Writing as a Useful Backgrounding Device..................................................90
4.2 Discussion..........................................94
4.2.1 Acquisition of Non-restrictive RCs................94
4.2.2 Use of RCs in Different Pragmatic/Discourse Contexts
－Identifying, Characterizing, Presentative, and Parenthetical...........................................102
4.2.3 Use of RCs in Writing as a Useful Backgrounding Device..................................................109
4.3 Summary.............................................112

CHAPETR FIVE  CONCLUSION................................119
5.1 Summary of the Present Study........................119
5.2 Pedagogical Implications............................121
5.3 Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research.....127

REFERENCES..............................................130

APPENDICES..............................................137
Appendix A: RC Judgment Test............................137
Appendix B: Context Translation Test....................139
Appendix C: Passage-rewriting Test......................140
Appendix D: Test Administration Guidelines..............142
                                

References
Azar, B. S. (1999). Understanding and Using English Grammar (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NY: Prentice Hall Regents.

Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1990). Pragmatic word order in English composition. In U. Connor & A. M. Jones (Eds.), Coherence in Writing: Research and Pedagogical Perspectives (pp. 43-65). Alexandria, Virginia: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc.

Bertkau, J. S. (1974). An analysis of English learner speech. Language Learning, 24, 279-286.

Bley-Vroman, R., & Houng, C. (1988). Why do Chinese use few relative clauses in English? University of Hawaii Working Papers in ESL, 7, 93-98.

Brown, H. D. (2000). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching (4th ed.). White Plains, NY: Person Education.

Celce-Murcia, M., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (1999). The Grammar Book: An ESL/EFL Teacher’s Course (2nd ed.). Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.

Chan, A. Y. W. (2004a). Noun phrases in Chinese and English: A study of English structural problems encountered by Chinese ESL students in Hong Kong. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 17(1), 33-47.

Chan, A. Y. W. (2004b). Syntactic transfer: Evidence from Hong Kong Chinese ESL learners’ interlanguage. The Modern Language Journal, 88(1), 56-74.

Chang, V. W. (1997). Freshman English Composition: An Error Analysis from the Discourse Perspective. Taipei, Taiwan: Crane.

Chen, C. M. (1999). Application of discourse grounding to the teaching of advanced English writing. Selected Papers from the Eighth International Symposium on English Teaching (pp. 135-146). Taipei: Crane.

Chen, C. S. (2003). A Study on Errors in English Relative Clauses Made by Senior High School Students in Taiwan. MA Thesis, National Kaohsiung Normal University, Taiwan.
Chen, L. F. (2004). Discourse Functions of English Relative Clauses and Its Pedagogical Implications. MA Thesis, National Chengchi University, Taiwan.

Cheng, S. (1995). The Acquisition of Relative Clauses in Chinese. MA Thesis, National Taiwan Normal University, Taiwan.

Cook, V. (1973). The comparison of language development in native children and foreign adults. IRAL, 11, 13-28.

Corder, S. P. (1973). The elicitation of interlanguage. In J. Svartvik (Ed.), Errata (pp. 36-47). Lund: CWK Gleerup.

Chiang, D. L. (1980). Predictors of relative clauses production. In R. Scarcella & S. Krashen (Eds.), Research in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 142-145). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Doughty, D. (1991). Second language instruction does make a difference. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 431-469.

Eckman, F., Bell, L., & Nelson, D. (1988). On the generalization of relative clause instruction in the acquisition of English as a second language. Applied Linguistics, 9, 1-20.

Ellis, R. (1996). Understanding Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Flanigan, B. O. (1995). Anaphora and relativization in child second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17, 331-351.

Fox, B. A., & Thompson, S. A. (1990). A discourse explanation of the grammar of relative clauses in English conversation. Language, 66(2), 297-316.

Frank, M. (1972). Modern English: A Practical Reference Guide. Englewood Cliffs, N.Y.: Prentice-Hall.

Frodesen, J., & Eyring, J. (2000). Grammar Dimensions. Book 4. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

Frodesen, J. (2001). Grammar in writing. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language (3rd ed.) (pp. 233-248). Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.

Gass, S. (1979). Language transfer and universal grammatical relations. Language Learning, 29(2), 327-344.

Gass, S. (1980). An investigation of syntactic transfer in adult second language learners. In R. Scarcella & S. Krashen (Eds.), Research in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 132-141). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Gass, S., & Ard, J. (1980). L2 data: Their relevance for language universals. TESOL Quarterly, 14, 443-452.

Gass, S., & Ard, J. (1984). The ontology of language universals. In W, Ruthford (Ed.), Language Universals and Second Language Acquisition. Amsterdam: John Bejamins.

Gisborne, N. (2000). Relative clauses in Hong Kong. World Englishes, 19(3), 357-371.

Givon, T. (1979). Syntax and Semantics 12: Discourse and Syntax. New York: Academic Press.

Givon. T. (1990). Syntax: A Functional –typological Introduction. Vol. 2. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Givon, T. (1993). English Grammar: A Function-based Introduction. Vol. 2. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Givon, T. (2001). Syntax. Vol. 2. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Goodin, G., & Perkins, K. (1982). Discourse analysis and the art of coherence. College English, 44, 57-63.

Hopper, P., & Thompson, S. (1980). Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language, 56(2), 251-299.

Huddleston, R. D. (1984). Introduction to the Grammar of English. UK; New York: Cambridge University Press.

Huddleston, R. D., & Geoffrey, K. P. (2003). The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University Press.

Ioup, G. (1983). Acquiring complex sentences in English. In K. Bailey, M. Long, & S. Peck (Eds.), Second Language Acquisition Studies (pp. 41-55). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Ioup, G., & Kruse, A. (1977). Interference vs. structural complexity in second language acquisition: Language universals as a basis for sequencing. In H. Brown, C. Yorio, & R. Crymes (Eds.), On TESOL ’77─Teaching and Learning English as a Second Language: Trends in Research and Practice (pp.159-171). Washington, DC: TESOL.

Izumi, S. (2003). Processing difficulty in comprehension and production of relative clauses by learners of English as a second language. Language Learning, 53(2), 285-323.

Kameen, P. T. (1978). A mechanical, meaningful, and communicative framework for ESL sentence combining exercises. TESOL Quarterly, 12(4), 395-401.

Kamimoto, T., Shimura, A., & Kellerman, E. (1992). A second language classic reconsidered: The case of Schachter’s avoidance. Second Language Research, 8, 251-277.

Keenan, E. (1985). Relative clauses. In T. Sopher (Ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description: Complex Construction, Vol. 2 (140-170). Cambridge: Cambridge.

Keenan, E. (1988). Universal Grammar: 15 Essays. London: Croom Helm.

Keenan, E., & Comrie, B. (1977). Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry, 8, 63-99.

Kleimann, E. (1977). Avoidance behavior in adult second language acquisition. Language Learning, 27, 93-108.
Kubota, M. (1993). Accuracy order and frequency order of relative clauses as used by Japanese senior high school students of EFL. Teaching Bulletin, 7: 27-53.

Kuno, S. (1974). The position of relative clauses and conjunctions. Linguistic Inquiry, 5, 117-136.

Larsen-Freeman, D. (2001). Teaching grammar. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language (3rd ed.) (pp. 251-266). Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.

Li. J. (1996). Underproduction does not necessarily mean avoidance: Investigation of underproduction using Chinese ESL learners. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 400 710)

Lin, F. Y. (2002). Preferred Structures in Chinese-English Translation. MA Thesis, National Changhua University of Education, Taiwan.

Liu, J. Y. (2005). The Acquisition of Written English Relative Clauses by Taiwanese Learners. MA Thesis, Providence University, Taiwan.

Liu, M. Y. (1998). An Experiment Study of English Relative Clauses by Chinese Junior High School Students in Taiwan. MA Thesis, National Taiwan Normal University, Taiwan.

Matthiessen, C., & Thompson, S. A. (1988). The structure of discourse and subordination. In J. Haiman & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Clause Combining in Grammar and Discourse. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

McCarthy, M. (1991). Discourse Analysis for Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Morris, I. (1969). The relative clause in broad perspective, English Language Teaching, 23(3), 246-253.

Nakamori, T. (2002). Teaching relative clauses: How to handle a bitter lemon for Japanese learners and English teachers. ELT Journal, 56(1), 29-40.

Parrott, M. (2000). Grammar for English Language Teachers. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Pavesi, M. (1986). Markedness, discoursal modes, and relative clause formation in a formal and in an informal context. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 8, 38-55.

Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longmans.

Radford, A. (1988). Transformational Grammar: A First Course. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Reinhart, T. (1984). Principles of gestalt perception in the temporal organization of narrative texts. Linguistics, 22, 779-809.

Riggenbach, H., & Samuda, V. (2000). Grammar Dimensions. Book 2. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

Sadighi, F. (1994). The acquisition of English restrictive relative clauses by Chinese, Japanese, and Korean adult native speakers. IRAL, 32(2), 141-153.

Schachter, J. (1974). An error in error analysis. Language Learning, 24, 205-214.

Schachter, J., Tyson, A., & Diffley, F. (1976). Learner intuitions of grammaticality. Language learning, 26, 67-76.

Schleppegrell, M. J. (1996). Conjunction in spoken English and ESL writing. Applied Linguistics, 17(3), 271-285.

Schumann, J. (1980). The acquisition of English relative clauses by second language learners. In R. Scarcella & S. Krashen (Eds.), Research in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 118-131). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Sheldon, A. (1974). The role of parallel function in the acquisition of relative clauses in English. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 13, 272-281.

Slobin, D. (1973). Cognitive prerequisites for the development of language. In C. Ferguson & D. Slobin (Eds.), Studies of Child Language Development (pp.175-208). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Sopher, H. (1969). The classification of relative clauses. English Language Teaching, 23(3), 254-257.

Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. B. (2003). Academic Writing for Graduate Students. Taiwan: KeyTEXTS (Taiwan) CO. Ltd.

Tao, H., & McCarthy, M. J. (2001). Understanding non-restrictive which-clauses in spoken English, which is not an easy thing. Language Sciences, 23, 651-677.

Thewlis, S. H. (2000). Grammar Dimensions. Book 3. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

Tomlin, R. S. (1994). Functional grammars, pedagogical grammars, and communicative language teaching. In T. Odlin (Ed), Perspectives on Pedagogical Grammar (pp. 140-175). Cambridge, UK; NY: Cambridge University Press.

Wei, H. L. (1997). Relativization in adolescent second language acquisition. Research Papers in Linguistics and Literature, 6, 131-144.

Wolfe-Quintero, K. (1992). Learnability and the acquisition of extraction in relative clauses and wh-questions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 14, 39-70.

Wu, T. C. (2005). The Study on the Europeanized Chinese Sentences from the Translation Items in Junior High School English Teaching in Taiwan. MA Thesis, National Taiwan Normal University, Taiwan.

Yin, S. L. (2001). A Study of the Nominal and Relative Clauses in Hong Kong English. MA Thesis, Hong Kong University, Hong Kong.

Yip, V., & Matthews, S. (1991). Relative clauses: Beyond avoidance. (ERIC Document Reproduction service No. ED 363 103)

Zhao, R. (1989). A discourse analysis of relative clauses in Chinese and English: An error in “an error in error analysis.” (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ 457 592)

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

相關論文