臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

近年來跨文化語用學研究受到愈來愈多的關注，然而大部分文獻的研究仍限於外語學習者在言語行為上的表現，很少研究探討外語學習者對於語用功能的理解，尤其在會話含意上的理解更是相當缺乏。雖然以會話含意作為對話策略早已是人們所熟知的，但尚不清楚會話含意是否也是外語學習者有效使用的對話策略之一。有鑑於此，本篇研究旨在探討外語學習者是否能夠從會話的語境中理解會話含意，並探討其理解的準確性、推論策略的使用、以及在理解過程中所遇到的困難。
本篇研究對象為五十八位以英語為第二外語的台灣大學生，其英語程度為中低與高級程度。研究對象在電腦上完成二十一題會話含意聽力測驗，其測驗在於評量受試者對於七種類型會話含意的理解。除此之外，研究對象填寫推論策略的問卷，並接受訪談。
迴歸分析的結果顯示學習者的英語程度對於其會話含意的理解有顯著的影響。高低程度的學習者在理解六種會話含意題型的表現上有明顯的差異。高低程度的學習者也展現出不同偏好的策略使用：高程度的學習者使用較多自上而下的策略，而較低程度的學習者大多倚賴自下而上的策略。在理解過程中，高低程度的學習者遭遇相似的困難：學習者提到他們很難理解關聯性不顯著的題型，他們的認知與習慣性字面上的理解也造成他們理解上的困難。低程度學習者則提到他們的困難主要在於英語能力的不足，無法辨識說話者的意圖，及一些公式化隱含意義的題型。
總而言之，本研究不僅對於了解外語學習者理解會話含意的過程奠定了基礎，對於會話含意習得與教學也具有重要的義涵。

Despite increasing interest in Interlanguage Pragmatics ILP) research, much of the work in ILP, to date, has been limited to L2 learners’ production of speech acts. Research on the comprehension of pragmatic function, however, has been scarce, particularly in the area of conversational implicature. Although conversational implicature as a conversational strategy is well known, it is not clear whether it is a useful conversational strategy for EFL learners. Therefore, this study attempts to explore the extent to which EFL learners can comprehend conversational implicature from the context in terms of accuracy of comprehension, inferential strategy use, and potential difficulties during comprehension process.
Fifty-eight Taiwanese college students, ranging in proficiency from low-intermediate to advanced level, completed a 21-item computerized implicature listening test, measuring their comprehension of seven types of conversational implicature. Questionnaires and semi-structured interviews were also conducted to elicit learners’ inferential strategy use and their comprehension difficulties.
Regression analyses revealed a positive L2 proficiency effect on learners’ implicature comprehension. Among the seven types of conversational implicature, learners comprehended significantly differently in six types of conversational implicature. Learners with different proficiency levels were observed to demonstrate different preferences for strategy use: High-proficiency learners were found to employ more top-down strategies, whereas low-proficiency learners relied more on bottom-up strategies. During comprehension process, both high-proficiency and low proficiency learners shared similar comprehension difficulties: Learners reported that their difficulties existed in less relevant implicature type, habitual use of literal interpretation and their assumptions. Low-proficiency learners reported that their difficulties mainly arouse from inadequate language proficiency, failure to recognize speaker intention and specific types of Formulaic-based implicature.
To conclude, this study is important in laying the groundwork for understanding the nature of EFL learners’ comprehension process of conversational implicature and providing implications for acquisition and instruction on conversational implicature.

Abstract(Chinese)………………………………………………………………… i
Abstract (English)……………………………………………………………… ii
Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………………… iv
Table of Contents………………………………………………………………… vi
List of Tables………………………………………………………………………… ix
List of Figures………………………………………………………………………… x

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Motivation………………………………………………………………………… 1
1.2 Theoretical Background………………………………………… 2
1.3 Research Questions…………………………………………………… 6
1.4 Significance of the study………………………………… 7

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Face Management……………………………………………………………… 8
2.2 Relevance Theory…………………………………………………………… 10
2.3 Research on Conversational Implicature1…………………………………… 11
2.3.1 Cultural Background and Conversational
Implicature………………………………………………………………………… 12
2.3.2 L2 Exposure and Conversational Implicature…………………… 13
2.3.3 The Role of Literal Interpretation on
Conversational Implicature……………………………………………………………… 14
2.3.4 Implicature Type and Conversational Impicature………… 15
2.3.5 L2 Proficiency and Conversational Implicature…………… 18
2.3.6 Inferential Strategies and Conversational
Implicature………………………………………………………………………… 19
2.4 Summary of Chapter Two………………………………………………………… 20

CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY
3.1 Participants…………………………………………………………………… 24
3.2 Instrument………………………………………………………………………… 25
3.2.1 Placemen test………………………………………………………… 25
3.2.2 Background Questionnaires………………………… 26
3.2.3 The Implicature Listening Task…………… 27
3.2.4 Inferential Strategy Questionnaire………… 34
3.3 Procedures………………………………………………………………………… 35
3.4 Data analysis………………………………………………………………… 37
3.4.1 Coding Scheme………………………………………………………… 37
3.4.2 Analysis for Each Research Question……… 39

CHAPTER 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Effect of L2 Proficiency on Implicature
Comprehension …………………………………………………………………… 41
4.2 Learners’ Response Patterns in Different
Types of Implicatures…………………………………………………… 45
4.2.1 Descriptive analysis of learners’
comprehension scores……………………………………………… 45
4.2.2 Relevance-based and three subtypes of
Formulaic-based Implicatures…………………………… 48
4.2.3 Four subtypes of Relevance-based
implicatures………………………………………………………………………… 51
4.2.4 Comprehension Differences in Implicature
Subtype………………………………………………………………………… 58
4.3 Learners’ Response Patterns in Different
Types of Implicatures………………………………………………… 59
4.3.1 Seven Types of Inferential Strategies
Used by Learners…………………………………………………… 59
4.3.2 Strategy Use Difference between H-learners
and L-learners………………………………………………………… 62
4.3.2.1 Learners’ Strategy Use in Relevance-based
Implicatures…………………………………………………… 63
4.3.2.2 Learners’ Strategy Use in Formulaic-based
Implicatures…………………………………………………… 65
4.4 Learners’ Difficulties in Implicature
Comprehension……………………………………………………………………… 70
4.4.1 Difficulties Shared by Learners…………………… 70
4.4.2 Difficulties Encountered by Low-Proficiency
Learners………………………………………………………………………… 76

CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS
5.1 Summary of the present findings……………………… 81
5.2 Implications………………………………………………………………………… 86
5.2.1 Theoretical Implications……………………………… 86
5.2.2 Pedagogical Implications……………………………… 87
5.3 Limitations of the study and suggestions
for future research………………………………………………………… 89

REFERENCES………………………………………………………………………… 91
APPENDICES
Appendix A:Learners’ Scores of Placement Test………………………… 99
Appendix B: Background Questionnaire………………………………………………… 102
Appendix C: The Implicature Listening Task………………………………… 103
Appendix D: Open-ended Implicature Questionnaire………………… 112
Appendix E:Inferential Strategy Questionnaire………………………… 118

Bachman, L.F., & Palmer, A. (1996). Language testing in practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2001). Evaluating the empirical evidence: Grounds for instruction in pragmatics? In K. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatic in language teaching (pp.13-32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bardovi-Harlig, K., Harford, B.S., Mahan-Taylor, R., Morgan, M. J., & Reynolds, D. W. (1991). Developing pragmatics awareness: Closing the conversation. ELT journal, 45, 4-15.

Blum-Kulka, S. & Olshtain, E. (1986). Too many words: Length of utterance and pragmatic failure. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 8, 165-80.

Bobrow, S., & Bell, S. (1973). On catching on to idiomatic expressions. Memory and Cognition, 1, 343-6.

Bouton, L. F. (1988). A cross-cultural study of the ability to interpret implicatures in English. World Englishes, 7, 183-97.

Bouton, L. F. (1992). The interpretation of implicatures in English by NNS: Does it come automatically—Without being explicitly taught? In L. F. Bouton & Y. Kachru (Eds.), Pragmatics and Language Learning (pp. 53-65). Urbana-Champaign, IL: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Bouton, L. F. (1994 a). Conversational implicature in a second language: Learned slowly when not deliberately taught. Journal of Pragmatics, 22, 157-67.

Bouton, L. F. (1994 b). Can NNS skill in interpreting implicature in American English be improved through explicit instruction? A pilot study. In L. F. Bouton & Y. Kachru (Eds.), Pragmatics and Language Learning (pp. 88-109). Urbana-Champaign, IL: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Bouton. L.F. (1999). Developing nonnative speaker skills in interpreting conversational implicatures in English: Explicit teaching can ease the process. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Culture in second language teaching and learning (pp. 47-70). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Brown, R., & Gilman, A. (1989). Politeness theory and Shakespeare's four major tragedies. Language in Society, 18, 159-212.

Clark, H. (1979). Responding to indirect speech acts. Cognitive psychology, 11, 430-77.

Clark, H., & Lucy, P. (1975). Understanding what is meant from what is said: A study in conversationally conveyed requests. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 14, 56-72.

Clark, H., & Schunk, C. (1980). Polite responses to polite requests. Cognition, 8, 111-43.

Cook, M. & Liddicoat, A. J. (2002). The development of comprehension in interlanguage pragmatics: The case of request strategies in English. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 19-39.

Crystal, D. (2003). A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Foster-Cohen, S. H. (2000). Review article: Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. 1995: Relevance: Communication and cognition. Second Language Research, 16, 77-92.

Gibbs, R. (1979). Contextual effects in understanding indirect requests. Discourse Processes, 2, 1-10.

Gibbs, R. (1983). Do people always process the literal meanings of indirect requests? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 9, 524-33.

Gibbs, R. (1994). The poetics of mind: Figurative thought, language, and understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face to face behavior. Garden City, New York: Anchor Books.

Goffman, E. (1976). Replies and responses. Language in Society, 5, 254-313.

Green, G. M. (1989). Pragmatics and natural language understanding. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P.Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts (pp. 41-58). New York: Academic.

Grice, H. P. (1981). Presupposition and conversational implicature. In P. Cole (Ed.), Radical pragmatics (pp. 183-98). New York: Academic.

Holtigraves, T. M. (1992). The linguistics realization of face management: Implications for language production and comprehension, person perception, and cross-cultural communication. Social Psychology Quarterly, 55, 141-59.

Holtgraves, T. M. (1998). Interpreting indirect replies. Cognitive Psychology, 37, 1-27.

Holtgraves, T. M. (1999). Comprehending indirect replies: When and how are their conveyed meanings activated? Journal of Memory and Language, 38, 519-40.

House, J. (1996). Developing pragmatic fluency in English as a foreign language. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 225-52.

Hutchby, I., & Paul, D. (1995). Conversation analysis. In J. Verschueren, J. Ostman, J. Blommaert & C. Bulcaen (Eds.), Handbook of Pragmatics (pp. 182-89). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Jucker, A. H. (1993). The discourse marker well: A relevance-theoretical account. Journal of Pragmatics, 19, 435-52.

Kasper, G. (2001). Classroom research on interlanguage pragmatics. In K. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 33-60). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kasper, G., & Rose, K. R. (2002). Pragmatic development in a second language. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Kasper, G. (1996). Introduction: Interlanguage pragmatics in SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 145-8.

Keenan, E. O. (1976). The universality of conversational postulates. Language and Society, 5, 67-79.

Kerekes, J. (1992). Development in nonnative speakers' use and perception of assertiveness and supportiveness in a mixed-sex conversations (Occasional Paper No.21). Honolulu: University of Hawaii at Manoa, Department of English as a Second Language.

Koike, D. A. (1996). Transfer of pragmatic competence and suggestions in Spanish. In S. M. Gass & J. Neu (Eds.), Speech acts across cultures: Challenge to communication in a second language (pp.257-281). Berlin: de Gruyter.

Leech, G. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.

Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Levinson, S. C. (1995). Three levels of meaning. In F. Palmer. (Ed.), Grammar and meaning (pp.90-115). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Liao, C. C., & Bresnahan, M. I. (1996). A contrastive pragmatic study on American English and Mandarin refusal strategies. Language science, 18, 703-27.

Lii-Shih, Y. H. (1999). Conversational politeness and foreign language teaching. Taipei: The Crane Publishing Co.

Lucariello, J. (1994). Situational irony: A concept of events gone awry. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 123, 129-45.

Maeshiba N., Yoshinaga, N., Kasper, G., & Ross, S. (1996). Transfer and proficiency in interlanguage apologizing. In S. M. Gass & J. Neu (Eds.), Speech act across cultures (pp. 155-87). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.

Munro, A. (1977). Speech act understanding in context. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California at San Diego.

Morley, J. (1991). Listening comprehension in second/foreign language instruction. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language (pp.81-106). Boston, MS: Heinle& Heinle.

Niezoda, K., & Rover, C. (2001). Pragmatics and grammatical awareness: A function of the learning environment? In K.

Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp.63-79). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Roever, C. (2006). Validation of a web-based test of ESL pragmalinguistics. Language Testing, 23, 229-56.

Rose, K. R. (2000). An exploratory cross-sectional study of interlanguage pragmatic development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 27-67.

Rost, M. (2005). L2 Listening. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbooks of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 503-528). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Sacks, H., Schegloff, E., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50, 696-735.

Scarcella, R. (1979). On speaking politely in a second language. In C. A. Yorio, K. Perkins, & J. Schachter (Eds.), On TESOL ’79 (pp. 275-87). Washington, DC: TESOL.

Schegloff, E. A., & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica, 7.4, 289-327.

Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance: Communication and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Swinney, D., & Cutler, A. (1979). The access and processing or idiomatic expressions. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 523-34.

Taguchi, N. (2002). An application of relevance theory to the analysis of L2 interpretation processes: The comprehension of indirect replies. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 40, 151-76.

Taguchi, N. (2005). Comprehending implied meaning in English as a second language. Modern Language Journal, 89, 543-62.

Taguchi, N. (2007). Development of speed and accuracy in pragmatic comprehension in English as a foreign language. TESOL Quarterly, 41, 313-38.

Takahashi, S. (1996). Pragmatic transferability. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 189-223.

Takahashi, S., & DuFon, M.A. (1989). Cross-linguistic influence in indirectness: The case of English directives performed by native Japanese speakers. Unpublished manuscript, University of Hawaii at Manoa. Honolulu. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 370 439)

Thomas, J. (1995). Meaning in interaction: An introduction to pragmatics. New York: Longman.

Trosborg. (1987). Apologies strategies in natives /non-natives. Journal of Pragmatics, 11, 147-67.

Trosborg, A. (1995). Interlanguage pragmatics: Requests, complaints, and apologies. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Yu, M. C. (1999). Universalistic and culture-specific perspectives on variation in the acquisition of pragmatic competence in a second language. Pragmatics, 9, 281-312.

Yu, M. C. (2003). On the universality of face: Evidence from Chinese compliment response behavior. Journal of pragmatics, 35, 1679-1710.