臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

中文摘要
本篇的目的在探討大學英文作文所出現的第一語言對第二語言的干擾現象。此現象在英語教學上的相關報告不多，特別是以大學作文為研究的文章，很少以語言干擾現象為主。本論文預測大三中等程度的學生受到中文的影響，在英語寫作上產生干擾現象，並且將干擾現象歸類分為詞序、片語、句子及贅詞，使英語教師在作文教學時，能夠幫助學生改善學生的干擾現象，減少錯誤的產生。
由過去的文獻資料顯示第一語言對第二語言造成干擾現象。根據Fries (1957)的説法，學一種新的語言所產生的問題，不僅源自於新語言本身，其母語也會影響新語言的學習發展。Magiste (1985)也表示對於說雙語的瑞典裔德國人而言，其強勢語會對弱勢語造成影響。Sridhar (1981)指出干擾現象會使學生產生學習障礙是因為學生學習第二外語時，以第一語言為基礎。在缺乏第二外語的知識下，將第一語言的知識運用於的學習當中，因而產生干擾現象。由於各種學習障礙及母語干擾的負面影響，使得在學第二語言或外語的學生較容易犯錯。Lado (1957)認為，在傳統上，學生會在學習第二語言時，產生障礙，進而犯錯，原因在於學生習慣以第一語言做為學習第二語言的基礎。Corder(1975) 提出干擾現象及第一語言轉移所產生的負面結果，都是在學習外語上必要的過程。James (1980)認為，以對比分析法可預測出錯誤，並且將錯誤避免。Zobl (1984)認為在某些情況下，由學生的第一語言能找出學生學習第二語言的錯誤情形，並且學生常會在對第二語言語法不清楚的狀況下，應用學生第一語言的語法。由此可證，在第二語言的學習過程中，學生將第一語言的轉移現象不應排除在外。Brown (1994)指出大多數的學習者，特別是初級的學生，會認為目標語的語法跟母語一樣。所以，學生的母語對學生是很重要的，因為他們可用母語來預測目標語的語法。而母語語法的應用，對於初學者來說有利有弊，意即母語語法在新的語言學習上，能幫助學生學習，也會產生干擾，而干擾現象是在學習的過程中最明顯的。上述文章都討論及第一語言對第二語言的影響，然而以上作者並未以干擾現象在寫作上做分類，也沒有以台灣的大學生做研究報告。在本論文中，本人將以學生寫作的干擾現象為主做分類。由分析結果顯示，在局部錯誤上(local errors)，動詞干擾錯誤最多，而雙重否定干擾則最少；在整體錯誤上(global errors)，連接詞干擾錯誤最多，而倒裝句干擾則最少。

ABSTRACT
The aim of this study is to investigate the interference of L1 on L2 in college students’ writing. The interference of L1 on L2 is scarcely received due attention in English teaching and learning, especially in college students’ English writing. This study predicts that juniors at the intermediate level tend to translate Chinese into English in English writing causing interference. English compositions will be collected each semester written by juniors. The significance of this study is by categorizing the types of interference, English composition teachers are able to reduce the negative interference to facilitate English writing. Data collected will be categorized into two major areas of study: local and global errors.
By the previous studies, it is obvious that first language interferes the second language learning. The problem of learning a new language then, according to Fries (1957), lies not in the new language, but in the native language.
Magiste (1985) observed that, for Swedish-German bilinguals who had attained different degrees of dominance in one or the other language, the dominant language caused more interlingual interference than the weaker language. Also, as Sridhar (1981) points out, interference may be a learner’s strategy and L1 knowledge can serve as input to L2 learning; for instance, when a learner experiences difficulties in L2 because of a lack of resources he may borrow from L1.
As second or foreign language learners learning their target language, they tend to commit errors because of learning difficulties and negative transfer of native language. Traditionally, difficulties and errors in L2 learning were attributed to a transfer of L1 habits (Lado, 1957). Negative transfer or interference was conceived as essentially interlingual in nature (Corder, 1975). This approach relied heavily on contrastive analysis which allegedly enabled errors to be predicted, and therefore, prevented (James, 1980).
Under certain conditions the learner’s L1 will determine the kind of errors made in L2 learning; transfer from L1 will occur particularly when the L2 rules are unclear (Zobl, 1984). Because of this evidence L1 transfer cannot be excluded in the processes involved in L2 acquisition.
The majority of a learner’s errors in producing the second language, especially in the beginning level, stems from the learner’s assumption that the target language operates like the native language (Brown, 1994).
The native language of learners will be highly significant system on which learners will rely to predict the target language system. While that native system will exercise both facilitating and interfering effects on the production and comprehension of the new language, the interfering effects are likely to be the most salient (Brown, 1994).
Studies related to how L1 interferes L2 learning done before did not categorize types of interferences in writing, nor did they take Taiwanese college students as subjects to investigate their writing in English. In this study, the types of interference will be categorized. The data show that in local errors verb errors have the most frequent errors, while the error of double negation has the least ones. In global errors, conjunction errors have the most frequent errors, whereas inversion errors have the least ones.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHINESE ABSTRACT…………………………………………………i
ENGLISH ABSTRACT………………………………………………iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENT........................................vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS……………………...……………………...viii
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION………………………………….1
1.1 Motivation………………………………………………………1
1.2 Methodology………………………………………………………4
1.3 Scope of the study……………………………………………4
1.4 Purpose and Significance of the study………………….5
1.5 Organization of the study………………………………….5
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW…………………………7
2.1 Definition of Interference…………………………………………….7
2.2 Relevant Studies of Interference on L2 from L1 in EFL/ESL settings………………………………………………………………..8
2.3 Experimental Studies of writing errors made by EFL/ESL learners in Taiwan……………………………………………………………….11
2.3.1 Wang (2001)…………………………………………..…………..11
2.3.2 Liu (1999b)………………………………………………..………13
2.3.3 Chen (2002)………………………………………..…………...15
2.3.4 Ching (1992)…………………………………..………………..17
CHATER THREE: THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND METHODOLOGY……………………………………………………20
3.1 Theoretical framework……………………………………………...20
3.1.1 The Role of the First Language………………..…………………20
3.1.2 The Role of the Second Language/Foreign Language……….22
3.1.3 Language transfer and interference………………………..24
3.2 Methodology…………………………….……….…………………26
3.2.1 Subjects…………………………….………….………………….26
3.2.2 Data Collection…………………….…………………………….26
3.2.3 Data analysis…………………………………………….……….27
CHAPTER FOUR: ANALYTIC PROCEDURES…………………..28
4.1 Procedures…………………………………………………………..28
4.1.1 Correction of the compositions……….…………………….28
4.1.2 Classification of interference………………………………28
4.1.3 Statistics of Errors…………………………………………….31
4.2 Results of the analysis……………………………………………31
CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION…………………………………125
5.1 Summary…………………………………………..………………125 5.2 Pedagogical Implications……………………….………………126
5.3 Limitations of theStudy…………………………………………127
5.4 Recommendations for Further Study……………………………128
Bibliography………………………………………..…………………129

Bibliography
Ahring, Judy Charlene. 1979. Composition Research: Problems of Entering College Freshman and Implications for Teaching (I). English Teaching and learning, 4 (3): 72-77.
Arnaudet, Martin L. & Mary Ellen Barrett. 1990. Paragraph Development: A Guide for Students of English. 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Azar, Betty Schrampfer, (1995) Fundamentals of English grammar: 2nd edition. Prentice Hall Regents. United States of America
Burt, Marina K. and Carol Kiparsky. (1974). Global and Local Mistakes. New Frontiers in Second Language Learning. Ed. John H. Schumann and Nancy Stenson. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House Publishers.
Chen, Yueh-Miao. 1996. The Evaluation of Composition Research and Implications in Teaching L1/L2 Writing. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth Conference on English Teaching and Learning in the Republic of China. Taipei: Crane. 51-61.
Chiang, Tai-Hui. 1981. Error Analysis: A Study of Errors Made in Written English by Chinese Learners. Taipei: Crane.
Ching, Pei-jung. 1992. How to Improve English Composition Teaching in Taiwan''s High Schools: A Study of Error Analysis and Learning
Strategies. M.A. Thesis. Kaohsiung. National Kaohsiung Normal University.
Connor, Ulla & Ann Johns. 1990. Eds. Coherence in Writing: Research and Pedagogical Perspectives. Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
Cowie, A. 1988. Stable and creative aspects of vocabulary. In Carter & McCarthy, M. eds., Vocabulary and language teaching, 126-139. New York: Longman.
Crystal, David 1997. A Dictionary of linguistics and phonetics. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Ellis, R. 1986. Understanding Second Language Acquisition. Oxfor University Press.
Ferris, D.1999. The case for grammar correction in L2 writing class: A response to Truscott 1996. Journal of Second Language Review, 3, 1-11.
Freedman. S. W., & Calfee, R. C. (1984). Understanding and comprehending. Written Communication, 1, 459-490.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
Hayes, J. R., & Flower, L. S. 1980. Identifying the organization of writing process. In L.W. Gregg & E. R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 3-30). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hendrickson, J.M. 1978. Error correction in foreign language teaching: Recent theory, thought, and practice. The Modern Language Journal, 62, 387-399.
Hillocks, George. Jr. 1986. Research on Written Composition: New Directions for Teaching. Urbana, IL: NCRE.
Huang, T. L. 1988. Performance analysis and teaching EFL composition: A general teaching model. Taipei: Crane
Johns, A. M., 1990. L1 composition theories: Implications for developing theories of L2 composition. In B. Kroll (Ed), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (24-36). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Krashen, Stephen D. Address. Natural Approach: Principles of Language Acquisition. Taipei, 4 Nov. 2003.
Lautamatti, L. K. 1978. Observations on the development of the topic of simplified discourse. In U. Connor & R. B. Kaplan (Eds.), Writing across languages: Analysis of L2 texts (87-114). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Lautanmatti, L. 1990. Coherence in Spoken and Written Discourse. In U. Connor & Ann M. Johns. Eds. Coherence in Writing: Research and Pedagogical Perspectives. Alexandria, VA: TESOL. P. 31-40.
Li, Charles N. and Sandra A.Thompson. 1981. MANDRIN CHINESE: A Functional Reference Grammar. The Regents of the University of California Press, New York.
Lin, C. C. 1995. The topic sentence and contrastive rhetoric: Pedagogical implications in EFL writing. A collection of papers presented in the Ninth Conference on English Teaching and Learning in the Republic of China (pp. 240-253). Taipei: Crane.
Liu, C. P. 1999b. An ananlysis of collocational errors in EFL writings. The Proceeding of the English International Symposium on English Teaching, 483-494.
Negeo, K. Y. H. 1998. Motivation and transfer in language learning. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 427 318).
Newmark, L. 1979. How not to interfere with language learning. In Brumfit and Jonson, pp. 160-166. Also in Oller and Richard-Amato (1983), 49-58.
Perkins, D. N., & Salomon, G. 1988. Teaching for transfer. Educational Leadership, 46, 22-32.
Schachter, J., & Celce-Murcia, M. 1977. Some observations concerning error analysis. TESOL Quarterly, 11 (4), 441-451.
Schneider, M., & Connor, U. 1989. Analyzing topical structure: Not all topics are equal, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 411-427.
Spada, N. 1997. Form-focused instruction and second language acquisition: A review of classroom and laboratory research. Language Teaching, 30, 73-87.
Tan, Cheng-Lim. 1995. Correcting Common Errors and Constructing Effective Sentences: A Practical Approach to Undergraduates’ English communication. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on English teaching. Taipei: Crane. 265-280.
Tannen, Deborah. 1984. Coherence in Spoken and Written Discourse. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Truscott, J. 1996. The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46, 327-369.
Truscott, J. 1999. The case for The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Ferris. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 123-145.
Wang, Chin-Ju. 2001. A Study of the English Collocational Competence of English Majors in Taiwan. M.A. Thesis. Taipei. Fu Jen Catholic University.
Whitman, Ranal. 1970. Contrastive analysis: Problems and procedures. Language Learning
Ying, Shu-Yuan. 1987. Types of Errors in English Compositions by Chinese Students: A Search for Interlanguage. M.A. Thesis. Taipei: Fu Jen Catholic University.
Yu, H. Y. 1997. A study on the use of English tense-aspect forms in native compositions by Taiwanese college students and its pedagogical implications. Ph. D. dissertation, National Taiwan Normal University.