中文摘要
本研究旨在探討台灣高中生在英文敘述文中如何處理副詞子句之定景訊息。我們假設定景觀念是可以經由教導而學會的，對於受試者整體寫作之能力，以及使用副詞子句，特別是不同種類之副詞子句的教學效果加以探討。
本研究是以台中縣長億高中四個高三班級的學生為對象，其中兩個由研究者擔任英文老師的班級組成實驗組，其他由另一位老師教授英文的兩個班級組成控制組，兩組都以回想電影情節並寫成文章成為前測，實驗組並接受為期六週的副詞教學，之後兩組再接受後測，以比較其教學效果。
研究結果顯示，實驗組在整體作文能力和定景副詞子句都有進步；另外，較優之學生學習效果遠超過其他學生。本研究亦發現，適當運用副詞子句有助於文章之連貫性(coherence)。研究報告最後提出有助學生運用副詞子句之定景訊息的一些活動，以供參考。

Abstract
This present study examines how Taiwanese senior high school students manipulate the grounding information of adverbial clauses in their English narrative compositions. With the hypothesis that the notion of grounding can be taught, but is received rare concern in Taiwan, we conducted the current experiment. The effect of treatment instruction on overall writing proficiency, the use of overall adverbial clauses, and the use of adverbial clauses in different categories were examined.
Four third grade classes of Chang-Yi Senior High School (CYSHS) in Taichung, Taiwan, totaling 157 students, participated in the study. Two of the classes with the researcher as the English teacher formed the experimental group. The other two classes with another English teacher constituted the control group. Students in each group were further assigned to three proficiency levels based on their performance on the pretest concerning the overall writing proficiency. Both of the two research groups were asked to recall the plot of a film and put it in the written form as the pretest. The experimental group successively received a six-week treatment instruction right after the pretest. A posttest concerning the recalling of another film was then administrated to determine and compare the effect of the treatment on the improvement of overall writing qualities and grounding in adverbial clauses, particularly in temporal, causal, and concessive categories. The subordinators employed by the subjects were also under exploration.
All the collected data were specifically given a quantitative analysis first, computing the overall frequency of the accurate number of adverbial clauses based on the criteria that preposed adverbial clauses carry given information and postposed adverbial clauses bear new information. Then two of these subjects from each proficiency level in the experimental group were randomly selected to compare their different performances before and after the treatment instruction. A total number of twelve samples were selected for a qualitative analysis. Errors involving the ill-grounded adverbial clauses were signaled out for discussion and possible revisions were suggested.
The results indicate that the experimental group improved in overall writing proficiency and grounding adverbial clauses. An in-depth exploration on the effect of instruction on different categories of adverbial clauses showed that the subjects benefited a lot in temporal, causal and concessive clauses. On the other hand, in terms of the performance of students at different proficiency levels in the experimental group, the HI level significantly outperformed the LOW level in the use of overall adverbial clauses and in temporal and causal clauses as well. The findings also indicate that the success in grounding adverbial clauses contributes to the coherence of the overall writing quality. The study also suggests some activities in helping foster the students the abilities in manipulating the grounding information in adverbial clauses.

References
Abraham, Elyse. (1991). Why “because”? The management of given/new information as a constraint on the selection of causal alternatives. Text, 11-3:323-339.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1990). Pragmatic Word Order in English Composition. In Ulla
Connor & Ann M. Johns (eds.), Coherence in Writing: Research and
Pedagogical Perspectives, 43-65. Alexandria, Virginia: Teachers of English
to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc.
Barthes, Roland. (1977). Introduction to the Structural Analysis of Narratives. Image-Music-Text. London: Fontana.
Beaman, K. (1984). Coordination and subordination revised: syntactic complexity in spoken and written narrative discourse. In D. Tannen (ed.), Coherence in Spoken and Written Discourse. 45-80. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Biber, Douglas. (1998). Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brown, H. D. (2nd. ed.) (2001). Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy. New Jersey: Prentice Hall Regents.
Brown,G & Yule, George. (1983). Discourse Analysis. London: Cambridge University Press.
Byrnes, Heidi & Michael Canale (eds.) (1987). Defining and Developing Proficiency : Guidelines, Implementations and Concepts. Lincolnword, IL: National Textbook Company.
Caenepeel, Mimo. (1995). Aspect and Text Structure. Linguistics 33-2: 213-253.
Carrol, Y-M. (1999). A Portfolio Approach to EFL University Writing Instruction. In Proceedings of the 16th Conference on English Teaching and Learning in the Republic of China, 313-332. Taipei: The Crane Publishing Co., Ltd.
Carrel, P. L. (1982). Cohesion is not coherence. TESOL Quarterly 16: 479-488.
Cerniglia, C., Medsker, K., & Connor Ulla. (1990). Improving coherence by using computer-assisted instruction. In Ulla Connor & Ann M. Johns (eds.), Coherence in Writing: Research and Pedagogical Perspectives, 187-207. Alexandria, Virginia: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc.
.
Chafe, Wallace L. (1972). Discourse structure and human knowledge. In Freedle, R. O., & J. B. Carroll (eds.), Language Comprehension and the Acquisition of Knowledge,41-69. Washington, D. C.: V. H. Winston & Sons.
Chafe, Wallace L. (ed.) (1980). The Pear Stories: Cognitive, Cultural, and Linguistic Aspects of Narrative Production. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Chafe, Wallace L. (1982). Integration and Involvement in Speaking, Writing, and Oral Literature. In Tannen, D. (ed.) Spoken and Written Language: Exploring Orality and Literacy. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Chafe, Wallace L. (1984). How people use adverbial clauses. In The proceedings of the tenth annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 437-449. Berkeley Linguistics Society.
Chafe, Wallace L. (1987). Cognitive constraints on information flow. In Russell Tomlin (ed.) Coherence and grounding in discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Chafe, Wallace L. (1988). Linking intonation units in spoken English. In John Haiman and Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), Clause combining in grammar and discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Chan, Yu-ching. (1998). Background and Foreground Structures in EFL English Written Narratives: A Case Study in Senior High School. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. National Taiwan Normal University.
Chang, Vincent W. (1997). Freshman English Composition: An error Analysis from the Discourse Perspective. Taipei: The Crane Publishing Co., Ltd.
Chatman, S. (1978). Story and Discourse: Narrative Structure in Fiction and Film. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Chen, Chiou-mei. (1999). Application of Discourse Grounding to the Teaching of Advanced English Writing. In The Proceedings of the English International Symposium on English Teaching, 135-146. Taipei: The Crane Publishing Co., Ltd.
Clark, H. H & Haviland, S. E. Comprehension and the given-new contract. In R. O. Freedle (ed.). Discourse production and comprehension, 1-40. Norwood. N.J.: Ablex Publishing, 1977.
Connor Ulla and Ann M. Johns (eds.), Coherence in Writing: Research and Pedagogical Perspectives. Alexandria, Virginia: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc.
Dirven and Verspoor (1984). Cognitive Exploration of Language and Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Du Bois, & John W. (1985). Competing motivations. In John Haiman (ed.), Iconicity in Syntax, 343-365. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Fleischman, Suzanne. (1985). Discourse Functions of Tense- Aspect Oppositions in Narrative: Toward a Theory of Grounding. Linguistics 23: 851-882.
Ford, Cecilia E. (1993). Grammar in interaction: Adverbial clauses in American English conversations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ford, Cecilia E. (1994). Dialogic aspects of talk and writing: Because on the interactive-edited continuum. Text 14-4: 531-554.
Genette, G. (1980). Narrative Discourse: An Essay in Method. Translated by Lewin, J. E. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Givon, T. (ed.). (1979). Syntax and Semantics 12: Discourse and Syntax. New York: Academic Press.
Givon, T. (1983). Topic Continuity in Discourse: An Introduction. In Givon T. (ed.), Typological Studies in Language 3: Topic Continuity in Discourse, 1-42. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Givon, T. (1987). Beyond Foreground and Background. In Russells Tomlin (ed.), Coherence and Grounding in Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Givon, T. (1990). Syntax: A functional-Typological Introduction. Vol. 2. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Givon, T. (1995). Functionalism and Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Golden, J. M. & Vukelich, C. (1989). Coherence in children’s written narratives. Written Communication, 6-1: 45-65.
Grabe, W., & Kaplan, R. (1996). Theory and Practice of Writing: An Applied Linguistic Perspective. New York: Longman.
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan. (eds.) Syntax and semantics : speech acts (vol 3), 41-58. New York : Seminar Press.
Grimes, J. E. (1975) The Thread of Discourse. The Hague: Mouton.
Grundy, P. (1995). Doing Pragmatics. London: Edward Arnold.
Gungle, B. W., & Taylor, V. (1989). Writing apprehension and Second Language Writers. In D. Johnson & D. Roen (eds), Richness in Writing: Empowering ESL Students, 235-248. New York: Longman.
Haiman, John. (1978). Conditionals are topics. Language, 54-3: 564-589.
Haiman, John, & Thompson, S. (1988). Clause combining in grammar and discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman’s.
Halliday, M. (1985). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. Edward Arnold. Australia.
Halliday, M. (1989). Spoken and Written Language. Oxford University Press.
Hatav, Galia. (1989). Aspects, Aktionsarten, and the TimeLine. Linguistics, 27: 487-516.
Haviland, S. E. & Clark, H. H. (1974). What’ new? Acquiring new information as a process in comprehension. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 13:512-521.
Hopper, Paul. (1979a). Some Observations on the Typology of Focus and Aspect in Narrative Language. Studies in Language 3-1:37-64.
Hopper, Paul. (1979b). Aspect and Foregrounding in Discourse. In Givon, T. (ed.), Syntax and Semantics 12: Discourse and Syntax, 213-241. New York: Academic Press.
Hopper, P &Thompson, S. A. (1980). Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56: 251-299.
Johns, A. M. (1986). Coherence and academic writing: Some definitions and suggestions for teaching. TESOL Quarterly 20: 247-265.
Kac, M. B. (1972). Clause of saying and the interpretation of because. Language 48: 626-632.
Keenan, E. O. & Schieffelin, B. B. (1976). Topic as a discourse notion. In C. Li (ed.), Subject and Topic, 335-384. New York: Academic Press.
Labov, W. (1972). The Transformation of Experience in Narrative Syntax. In Language in the Inner City, 354-396. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Labov, W. & Waletzky, J. (1967). Narrative Analysis: Oral Versions of Persona Experience. In June Helm (ed.), Essays on the Verbal and Visual Arts, 12-44. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press.
McCarthy, M. (1993). Discourse Analysis for Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nunan, D. (1993). Introducing Discourse Analysis. London: Penguin English.
Nunan, D. (1991). Research Methods in Language Learning. Cambridge University Press.
Oshs, E. (1979). Planned and unplanned discourse. In T. Givon (ed.). Syntax and Semantics, vol 12, Discourse and Syntax, 51-80. New York: Academic Press, 1979.
Prince, E. F. (1981). Toward a taxonomy of given-new information. In Peter Cole (ed.), Radical Pragmatic, 223-255. New York: Academic Press.
Ramsey, V. (1987). The Functional distribution of preposed and postposed ‘if’ and ‘when’ clauses in written discourse. In Russells Tomlin (ed.), Coherence and Grounding in Discourse, 384-409. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Reinhart, T. (1984). Principles of Gestalt Perception in the Temporal Organization of Narrative Texts. Linguistics 22: 779-809.
Richards, J. C., Platt, J. & Platt, H. (1993). Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics. Singapore: Longman.
Robinson, S. E. (1984). Coherence in Student Writing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Harvard University.
Schleppegrell, M. J. (1991). Paratactic because. Journal of Pragmatics 16: 323-337.
Schneider, M. L. (1985). Levels of Cohesion: Distinguishing Between Two Groups of College Writers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Boston University.
Scholes, R & Kellogg, R. (1966). The Nature of Narrative. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Spache, G. D & Spache E. B. (1998). Project Achievement: Reading. Vol A. New York: Scholastic Inc.
Tannen, D. (1982). Oral and Literature Strategies in Spoken and Written Narratives. Language 58: 1-20.
Thompson, S. & Longacre, R. (1985). Adverbial clauses . In Timothy, S. (ed.) Language Typology and Syntactic Description. Vol 2 Complex Constructions, 171-234. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Thompson, S. (1987). Subordination and Narrative Event Structure. In R. Tomlin (ed.) Coherence and Grounding in Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co.
Toolan, M. J. (1988). Narrative: A Critical Linguistic Introduction. New York: Routledge.
Traugott, E. (1982). From prepositional to textual and expressive meanings: Some semantic- pragmatic aspects of grammaticalization. In Lehmann, W. P. & Malkiel, Y. (eds.) Perspectives on historical linguistics, 245-272. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Wallace, S. (1982). Figure and Ground: the Interrelationships of Linguistic Categories. In Paul J. Hopper (ed.), Tense-Aspect. Between Semantics and Pragmatics, 201-223. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Wang, Y. F. (1996). The information Sequences of Adverbial Clauses in Chinese Spoken and Written Discourse. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. National Taiwan Normal University.
Yu, H. Y. (1997). A Study on the Use of English Tense-aspect Forms in Narrative Compositions by Taiwan College Students and Its Pedagogical Implications. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. National Taiwan Normal University.