跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(3.235.140.84) 您好!臺灣時間:2022/08/13 05:14
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果 :::

詳目顯示

我願授權國圖
: 
twitterline
研究生:郭美伶
研究生(外文):Kuo Mei-Ling
論文名稱:台灣學習英語學生'because'與'so'在口語和書面語使用之分析
論文名稱(外文):Discourse markers of 'because' and 'so' in Taiwanese EFL students' written and spoken discourse
指導教授:郭賽華郭賽華引用關係
指導教授(外文):Kuo Sai-Hua
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立清華大學
系所名稱:外國語文學系
學門:人文學門
學類:外國語文學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2002
畢業學年度:90
語文別:英文
論文頁數:111
中文關鍵詞:言談標記口語和書面語因果關係
外文關鍵詞:discourse markerspoken and written discoursecausal relationship
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:254
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:0
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:5
本研究主旨在於分析與比較16名台灣大學生在書面語與口語當中使用因果言談標記之情形,期能藉由質化與量化的分析來探討因果言談標記在口語和書面語中使用有何不同並且深入了解學生使用因果言談標記錯誤之種類。
此研究探討之問題共有四項:一、學生在口語和書面語中使用因果言談標記分佈之情形;二、學生在口語和書面語中使用因果言談標記有無不同?如果有,有哪些不同;三、學生使用因果言談標記有任何錯誤嗎?如果有,有哪些錯誤;四、本研究對外語教學有哪些啟發。
分析因果言談標記的研究結果顯示,學生在書面語中使用因果言談標記的次數少於學生在口語中使用因果言談標記的次數。其原因最主要是因為學生在書面語中較常使用其他具有同等意思的因果言談標記。其二、本研究發現學生在書面語中經常使用口語的因果言談標記,而顯得文章看起來非常口語化。此外,分析學生錯誤使用因果言談標記的結果顯示,學生在口語和書面語中經常將「因為」和「所以」兩個言談標記放在同一個句子當中。其二,本研究也發現學生在口語和書面語中表達因果關係經常缺乏條理,而顯得談話和文章看起來沒有連貫性。最後,本研究建議老師在教導學生使用因果言談標記時,應該明確的告訴學生因果言談標記在口語和書面語中使用方法的不同。

This study aimed to explore Taiwanese EFL learners’ performance of two discourse markers because and so with special attention to the information sequence and functions that are done through the use of causal expressions in their written and spoken discourse. In addition, the effects of misuse of causal markers in EFL students’ written and spoken
discourse were also investigated. The data for analysis were obtained from EFL students’ edited written discourse and unplanned speeches.
Four research questions were (1) What are the distributions of because and so in students’ written and spoken discourse? (2) Are there any differences between students’ use of because and so in written and spoken discourse? If so, what are they? (3) Are there any problems when students use causal markers? If so, what type of problems are they? (4) What are the pedagogical implications for EFL teachings of the present study?
The result of study can be presented based on the two causal markers and students’ problematic use of these causal markers. The analysis of because and so indicated: (1) Less frequency of because and so uses in written discourse is due to students’ employment of more because and so alternatives in their writing. (2) Pragmatic functions which are common and typical in speech often occur in students’ academic writing in the present study. The analysis of students’ problematic uses of causal markers indicated: (1) At the sentence level, students are found to make a wrong construction like Because…so in their written discourse. (2) At the discourse level, incoherent causal relations are also found in students’ written and spoken discourse. It is suggested that teachers, when teaching causal markers, should explicitly tell students’ different discourse functions of causal markers when used in different modes or genres.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
CHINESE ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………i
ENGLISH ABSTRACT……….…………………………………………………ii ACKNOWLEGEMENT………………………………………………………....iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS…………....................................iv
LIST OF TABLES………………………………………………………………vi
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION………………………………………………1 1.1Theproblem………………………………………………….1
1.2 The scope of the study…………………………………….3
1.3 Data collection and transcription……………………………………….4
1.4 Organization of the study………………………………………………………6
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW……………………………………………….7
2.1 The theoretical framework on discourse markers……….……………………...7
2.2 Studies comparing speech and writing………………………………………..12
2.3Summary……………………………………………………………………18
CHAPTER 3 ANALYSIS OF BECAUSE IN STUDENTS’ WRITTEN AND SPOKEN
DISCOURSE…………………………………………………………….19
3.1 Related studies on
because……………………………………………………19
3.1.1 Studies on English discourse marker because…………………………19
3.1.2 Studies on Mandarin Chinese discourse marker Yinwei ‘because’…….31 3.2 An overview of the distribution of because in the corpus…………………….32
3.3 The analysis of because……………………………………………………….37
3.3.1 Classification and coding method……………………………………...37
3.3.2 Distribution of because by position in the corpus……………………..40
3.3.3 Initial because clauses…………………………………………………41
3.3.4 Final because
clauses…………………………………………………..43
3.3.5 Because fragments……………………………………………………..46
3.4Summary……………………………………………………………………50
CHAPTER 4 ANALYSIS OF SO IN STUDENTS’ WRITTEN AND SPOKEN
DISCOURSE…………………………………………………………….52
4.1 Related studies on discourse marker so……………………………………….52
4.2 An overview of the distribution of so in the corpus…………………………..55
4.3 The analysis of so……………………………………………………………..57
4.3.1 Classification and coding method……………………………………..57
4.3.2 Distribution of so by position in the corpus.…………..……………59
4.3.3 Initial so……...………………………….…………………………….59
4.3.4 Final
so……………………………………………………………….64
4.4Summary……………………………………………………………………67
CHAPTER 5 CHAINED CAUSAL RELATIONS AND PROBLEMATIC USE OF CAUSAL MARKERS…………………………………………………….68
5.1 Students’ use of chained causal relation………………………………………68
5.1.1 Repetition of main position……………………………………………68
5.1.2 Embedded causal relations…………………………………………….72
5.1.3 Additional causal relations…………………………………………….75
5.2 Students’ problematic use of causal markers…………………………………77
5.2.1 because…so………………………………………………………77 5.2.2 Incoherent causal relations…………………………………………….81
5.2.2.1 Information gap between two propositions…………………….83
5.2.2.2 Problematic information sequence……………………………..85
5.2.2.3 Misuse of causal markers……………………………………88 5.3Summary……………………………………………………………………93
CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS………….……………..………………………………94
6.1 Summary of the findings……………………….……………………………..94
6.1.1 Students’ use of because………………..……………………………...94
6.1.2 Students’ use of so……………………..………………………………97
6.1.3 Chained causal relations and problematic use of causal markers…..….99
6.2 Pedagogical
implications…………………………………………………….100
6.3 Suggestions for future research…………………………………………...104
BIBLIOGRAPHY……………………………………………..……………………...106

Bibliography
Abraham, E. 1991. Why ‘because’? The management of given/new information as a constraint on the selection of causal alternatives. Text 11: 323-339.
Andersen, E. S., Maquela, B., Beatrice, D., and Laura G.. 1999. Cross-linguistic evidence for the early acquisition of discourse markers as register variable. Journal of Pragmatics 31: 1339-1351.
Bander, R. B. 1983. American English rhetoric. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. 1990. Pragmatic word order in English composition. In Coherence in writing: Research and pedagogical perspectives, ed. by Ulla Connor and Ann M. Johns, 43-66. Virginia: TESOL publications.
Beaman, K. 1984. Coordination and subordination revisited: Syntactic complexity in
spoken and written narrative discourse. In Coherence and spoken written discourse, ed. by Deborah Tannen, 45-80. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Biber, D. 1986. Spoken and written textual dimensions in English: Resolving the contradictory findings. Language 62: 384-416.
Biber, D. 1988. Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Biq, Y. O. 1995. Chinese causal sequencing and yinwei in conversation and press reportage. The proceedings of the 21st annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley Linguistics Society.
Biq, Y. O. 2000. Recent developments in discourse-and-grammar. BIBLID 18: 357-394.
Blakemore, D. 1987. Semantic constraints on relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.
Blakemore, D. 1988. So as a constraint on relevance. In Mental representation: The interface between language and reality. ed. by R. kempson, 183-195. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Blakemore, D. 1992. Understanding utterances. Oxford: Blackwell.
Brandt, D. 1990. Literacy as involvement: The acts of writers, readers, and texts. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
Brandt, D. 1992. The cognitive as the social: an ethnomethodological approach to writing process research. Written communication 9: 315-355.
Carrell, P. L. 1982. Cohesion is not coherence. TESOL Quarterly 16: 479-488.
Chafe, W. 1979. Integration and involvement in spoken and written language. Paper presented at the 2nd Congress of the International Association for Semiotic Studies, Vienna.
Chafe, W, ed. 1980. The pear stories. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Chafe, W. 1982. Integration and involvement in speaking, writing, and oral literature. In Spoken and written language: Exploring orality and literacy, ed. by Deborah Tannen, 35-53. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Chafe, W. 1984. How people use adverbial clauses. The proceedings of the 10th annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley: University of California.
Chafe, W. 1985. Linguistic differences produced by differences between speaking and writing. In Literacy, language, and learning: The nature and consequences of reading and writing, ed. by D. R. Olson, N. Torrance, and A. Hilyard, 105-123. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chafe, W. 1987. Cognitive constraints on information flow. In Coherence and grounding in discourse, ed. by Russell Tomin, 21-51. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Chen, F. 2001. The role of first language transfer and second language proficiency in the writing of Chinese learners of English as a second language. Ph. D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.
Couper, K. E. 1996. Intonation and clause combing in discourse: The case of because.
Pragmatics 6: 389-426.
Crewe, W. J. 1990. The illogic of logical connectives. ELT Journal 44: 316-325.
Degand, L. 2000. Causal connectives or causal prepositions? Discursive constraints.
Journal of Pragmatics 32: 687-707.
Dublin, F. and T. Olshtain. 1980. The interface of reading and writing. TESOL Quarterly 14: 353-363.
Elbow, P. 1991. Reflections on academic discourse: how it relates to freshmen and colleagues. College English 53: 135-155.
Enkvist, N. E. 1990. Seven problems in the study of coherence and interpretability. In Coherence in writing: Research and pedagogical perspectives, ed. by Ulla Connor and Ann M. Johns, 9-28. Virginia: TESOL publications.
Field, Y. and Yip, L. 1992. A comparison of internal cohesive conjunctions in the English essay writing of Cantonese speakers and native speakers of English. RELC Journal 23: 15-28.
Ford, C. 1992. Variation in the intonation and punctuation of different adverbial clause types in spoken and written English. In The linguistics of literacy, ed. by P. Downing, S. D. Lima, and M. Noonan. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Ford, C. 1993. Grammar in interaction: Adverbial clauses in American English
conversations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ford, C. 1994. Dialogic aspects of talk and writing: because on the interactive-edited
continuum. Text 14: 531-554.
Fraser, B. 1987. Pragmatic formatives. In The pragmatic perspective, ed. by J. Verschueren and M. Bertuccelli-Papi, 179-192. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Fraser, B. 1990. An approach to discourse markers. Journal of Pragmatics 14: 383-395.
Fraser, B. 1996. Pragmatic markers. Pragmatics 6: 167-190.
Fraser, B. 1999. What are discourse markers? Journal of Pragmatics 31: 931-952.
Granger, S. and Tyson, S. 1996. Connector usage in the English essay writing of native
and non-native EFL speakers of English. World Englishes 15: 17-27.
Greene, S. 1990. Toward a dialectical theory of composing. Rhetoric Review 9: 147-172.
Grice, H. P. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Syntax and semantics, Vol. 3 Speech act, ed. by P. Cole and J. Morgan, 41-58. New York: Academic Press.
Gumperz, J. J., Hannah, K., and Mary C. O. 1984. Cohesion in spoken and written discourse: Ethnic style and the transition to literacy. In Coherence in spoken and written discourse, ed. by Deborah Tannen, 3-20. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Haiman, J., & S. A. Thompson (ed.). 1988. Clause combining in grammar and discourse. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Halliday, M. A. K. 1985. Introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K. & Ruqaiya Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in English. Harlow: Longman.
Hartnett, Carolyn G. 1986. Static and dynamic cohesion: signals of thinking in writing.
In Functional approaches to writing, ed. by B. Couture, 142-151. London: Pinter.
Hildyard, Angela & David R. Olson. 1982. On the comprehension and memory of oral vs. written discourse. In Spoken and written language: Exploring orality and literacy, ed. by Deborah Tannen, 19-34. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Hinds, J. Reader versus writer responsibility: A new typology. In Connor, U. and R. B. Kaplan. In Writing across languages: Analysis of L2 text reading. MA: Addison-Welsey.
Intaraprawat, P. 1988. Metadiscourse in native English speakers and ESL students’
persuasive essays. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Illinois Sate University,
Normal, IL.
Jackson, Howard. 1990. Grammar and meaning: a semantic approach to English grammar. New York: Longman.
Johns, A. M. 1986. Coherence and academic writing: Some definitions and suggestions for teaching. TESOL Quarterly 20: 247-265.
Kaplan, Robert. B. 1966. Cultural thought patterns in intercultural Education. Language
Learning 16: 1-20.
Kirkpatrick, A. 1993. Information sequencing in modern standard Chinese in a genre of
extended spoken discourse. Text 13: 423-453.
Kroll, B. 1977. Combining ideas in written and spoken English: A look at subordination and coordination. In Discourse across time and space, ed. by Elinor K. & Tina Bennett, 69-108.
Kyratzis, A., Jiansheng, G, and Susan, E. T.. 1990. Pragmatic conventions influencing
children’s use of causal constructions in natural discourse. The proceedings of the 16st annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. 205-215. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.
Kyratzis, A., and Susan, E. T. 1999. The development of discourse markers in peer
interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 31: 1321-1338.
Lakoff, Robin. 1979. Expository writing and oral dyad as points on a communicative
continuum: writing anxiety as the result of mistranslation. Unpulished manuscript.
Lakoff, G. 1984. Performative subordinate clauses. Proceedings of the 10th annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.
Lauer, J. M., Montague, G., Lunsford, A,, & Emig, J. 1985. Four worlds of writing. New York: Harper and Row.
Lay, N. 1975. Chinese language interference in written English. Journal of basic writing 1: 50-61.
Levinson, S. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Li, Y. A. 1991. Basic types of clause complex and discourse connectives: A comparative study between Chinese and English with pedagogical implication. Doctoral dissertation. U. Illinois, Urbana, IL.
Lindeberg, A. C. 1985. Functional role analysis applied to narrative and non-narrative
student essays in EFL. Tronheim Papers in Applied Linguistics (TRANS), 2, 26-45.
Lorenz, G. 1997. Learning to cohere: Causal links in native vs. non-native argumentative writing. In Coherence in spoken and written discourse, ed. by Buloitz, W., Uta L., and Eija, V., 55-76.
Mann, William C. & Sandra A. Thompson. 1988. Rhetorical structure theory: Toward a functional theory and text organization. Text 8: 243-281.
Martin, J. R. 1992. English text. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Milton, J. and Tsang, E. 1993. A corpus-based study of logical connectors in EFL
students’ writing. In Studies in lexis, ed. by R. Pemberton and E. Tsang,
215-246. Hong Kong: HKUST.
Mohan, B. A., and W. A. Y. 1985. Academic writing and Chinese students: Transfer and developmental factors. TESOL Quarterly 19: 515-534.
Mosenthal, J. H. and R. J. Tierney. 1984. Cohesion: Problems with talking about text. Reading Research Quarterly xix/2: 240-244.
Ochs, E. 1979. Planned and unplanned discourse. In Syntax and semantics: Discourse and syntax, ed. by Talmy Givon, 51-80. New York: Academic Press.
Ong, W. 1980. Literacy and orality in out times. Journal of communication 30: 197-204.
Pelsmaekers, Katja, Chris Braecke & Ronald Geluykens. 1998. Rhetorical relations and
subordination in L2 writing. In Linguistic choice across genres: variation in spoken and written English, ed. by Ronald Carter, 191-213.
Quirk, R., S. Greenbaum, G. Leech and J. Svartvik. 1972. A grammar of contemporary English. Londan: Longman.
Quirk, R., S. Greenbaum, G. Leech and J. Svartvik. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.
Redeker, G. 1990. Ideational and pragmatic markers of discourse structure. Journal of
Pragmatics 14: 367-381.
Redeker, G.1991. Linguistic markers of discourse structure. Linguistics 29: 1139-1172.
Rutherford, W. E. 1970. Some observations concerning subordinate clauses in English.
Language 46: 97-115.
Sankoff, G. & Penelope, B. 1976. The origins of syntax in discourse: A case study of Tok Pisin relatives. Language 52: 631-666.
Schiffrin, D. 1985. Multiple constraints on discourse options: a quantitative analysis of causal sequences. Discourse Processes, 8: 281-303.
Schiffrin, 1987. Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schleppegrell, M. J. 1991. Paratactic because. Journal of Pragmatics 16: 323-337.
Schleppegrell, M. J. 1992. Subordination and linguistic complexity. Discourse Processes 15: 117-131.
Schleppegrell, M. J. 1996. Conjunction in spoken English and ESL writing. Applied linguistics 17: 271-285.
Schourup, L. 1985. Common discourse particles in English conversation: “like”, “well”,
“y’know.” New York: Garland.
Scollon, R. 1993. Cumulative ambiguity: Conjunction in Chinese-English intercultural
communication. Perspective 5: 55-73.
Shaw, P. and E. Liu. 1998. What develops in the development of second-language writing? Applied linguistics 19/2: 225-254.
Sinclair, J. McH and R. M. Coulthard. 1975. Towards an analysis of discourse. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Sperber, M., and D. Wilson. 1986. Relevance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Stenstrom, A. B. 1998. From sentence to discourse: Cos (because) in teenage talk. In Discourse markers: description and theory, ed. by Andreas, H. J., and Yael, Z. 127-146. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Sullivan, Kathleen E. 1994. Paragraph practice: Writing the short paragraph and the short composition. New York: Macmillan.
Tannen, D. 1980. Spoken/written language and the oral/literate continuum. The proceedings of the 6th annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 207-218.
Tannen, D. ed. 1982a. Spoken and written language: Exploring orality and literacy. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Tannen, D. 1982b. The oral/literate continuum in discourse. In Spoken and written language: Exploring orality and literacy, ed. by Deborah Tannen, 1-16. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Tannen, D. 1982c. Oral and literate strategies in spoken and written narratives.
Language 58: 1-21.
Tannen, D. 1983. Oral and literate strategies in spoken and written discourse. In Literacy for life: The demand for reading and writing, ed. by R. W. Bailey & R. M. Fosheim. New York: Modern Language Association.
Tannen, D. ed. 1984. Coherence in spoken and written discourse. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Tannen, D. 1985. Relative focus on involvement in oral and written discourse. In Literacy, language, and learning: The nature and consequences of reading and writing, ed. by D. R. Olson, N. Torrance, and A. Hilyard, 124-147. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Thompson, S. A. 1985. “Subordination” in formal and informal discourse. In Meaning, form, and use in Context, Proceedings of the 1984 Gerogetown University Roundtable on Linguistics, ed. by Deborah Schiffrin. Washington, DC, Gerogetown: University Press.
Thompson, S. A. & William C. Mann. 1987. Rhetorical structure theory: A framework for the analysis of texts. Paper in Pragmatics 1: 79-105.
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs, 1982. from prepositional to textual and expressive meanings:
Some semantic-pragmatic aspects of grammaticalization. In Winfred P. Lehmann and Yakov Malkiel, eds., Perspectives on historical linguistics, 245-272. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
van Dijk, T. A. 1979. Pragmatic connectives. Journal of Pragmatics 3: 447-456.
Wang, Y. F. 1998. How Mandarin Chinese use causal conjuctions in conversation. In Selected Papers from the Second International Symposium on Languages in Taiwan, ed. by S.Huang, 207-242. Taipei: Crane.
Wang, Y. F. 1999. The information sequences of adverbial clauses in Mandarin Chinese conversation. Journal of Chinese Linguistics 27: 45-87.
Wardhaugh, R. 1986. An introduction to sociolinguistics. Oxford: Blackwell.
Warner, R. 1985. Discourse connectives in English. New York: Garland.
Williams, J. D. 1985. Coherence and cognitive style. Written communication 2: 473-491.
Young, L. 1982. Inscrutability revisited. In Language and social identity, ed. by J. Gumperz, 72-84. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top