臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

溝通能力 (communicative competence) 在英語教學的地位日趨重要，而其重要的環節是使用語言行為 (speech act) 的能力。使用語言行為的能力主要表現在語言使用者能否在不同的情境中使用適當的語言行為以及語言使用者能否使用正確的語言形式來表達一個合適的語言行為兩方面。一般來講語言行為的使用能力最好在以該語言為母語的環境來培養，或是透過與以該語言為母語的人士經由長時間一對一的練習來培養。然而，對於身處非英語系國家的英語學習者而言，這些情況並不是每個學習者都能達到的。不過，近年來電腦輔助語言教學在英語教學的應用上已可提供英語學習者許多學習的機會，同時自動語音辨識(Automatic Speech Technology)這項技術更已有效地應用在教導英語口語能力訓練方面。

　　CandleTalk (http://candle.cs.nthu.edu.tw)是一個結合語音辨識技術的對話練習網站。它主要有兩項教學目的:第一，提供使用者類似與真人對話的情境；第二，訓練使用者正確且適當地使用英語的語言行為。CandleTalk 裡的語音辨識技術能夠辨別使用者的對話與發音是否適當。CandleTalk總共有四個單元，其教學重點為六個語言行為(開啟對話、結束對話、要求、道歉、抱怨、與讚美)。這四個單元的對話內容則是改編自光華雜誌內四篇關於本土文化的相關報導。我們相信這種透過用英語呈現本土文化的方式能讓學生有更高的學習動機。

　　本研究的兩個研究目的在於探討大學一年級新生對於CandleTalk 這類語音辨識技術為主的對話環境之反應以及這些新生在使用CandleTalk 一段時間之後是否能增進英語口說能力。參與實驗的受試者為49位大一新生，其中29位為外語系學生，20位為非外語系學生。受試者在約6週內分別針對四個單元進行課內與課外的練習。實驗進行前受試者須填寫線上背景問卷。受試者的語言行為能力皆接受前測及後測評量。前後測的評量工具採用口說Discourse Completion Test。前後測結果的分析以語言的可理解性和語言行為的使用能力為基準。實驗結束後，受試者填寫一份線上評估問卷。

　　資料分析結果顯示: 第一，受試者對於CandleTalk這種結合語音辨識技術的對話環境抱持正面態度。他們相信語音辨識技術在電腦輔助語言教學上的應用能夠幫助他們的學習口說英語。第二，前後測比較結果顯示學生在語言行為的使用能力有顯著進步，而在語言可理解性的進步則有限。進一步分析外語系與非外語系學生的學習結果之間的差異，發現大部份的顯著進步是來自於非外語系學生。

　　本研究結果顯示語音辨識技術在電腦輔助語言教學的應用上確可幫助學生學習口說英語。對於大部份以英語為外語的學習者，語音辨識技術的應用提供了訓練英語口語能力的機會。此外，本研究也顯示直接教導正確語言行為的使用對於學生使用語言行為的能力是有幫助的。最後，本研究並針對未來研發語音辨識為基礎的對話環境提供教學建議與系統設計方向。

With growing emphases on communicative competence, teaching of speech acts is essential for learners to use language appropriately in various contexts. It has been commonly believed that the competence of using speech acts appropriately is better enhanced when learning in native-speaking contexts and having face-to-face conversations with native speakers. Unfortunately, for most EFL (English as Foreign Language) learners, these conditions are rarely easy to attain. In recent years, one promising field in Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL) is the application of Automatic Speech Recognition (ASR) technology for assisting learners to engage in meaningful speech interactions. Such technology facilitated the development of simulated real-life conversations, in which the application of ASR offers judgment on student performance. Therefore, a web-based conversation environment, CandleTalk (http://candle.cs.nthu.edu.tw), which allows learners to seemingly talk with the computer, has been developed to help EFL learners receive explicit training on speech acts and thus demonstrate communicative competence. CandleTalk is equipped with an ASR engine that judges whether learners provide appropriate input in the interactions. Six speech acts--greeting, parting, requesting, apologizing, complaining, and complimenting--are presented as the foci of four units. Moreover, local information is integrated in the content of the dialogues to strengthen student motivation.
A study was conducted on 49 college freshmen, 29 English majors and 20 non-English majors from National Tsing Hua University, to investigate their learning process in practicing with the units within a period of 6 weeks and explore their perception towards CandleTalk. Two tests, a pretest and a post using the format of spoken Discourse Completion Test (DCT), were administered for evaluating students’ learning outcomes from practicing in the environment. An evaluation questionnaire was used for understanding students’ perception toward three dimensions of CandleTalk: (1) the contents of the four units, (2) functunality, and (3) overall effectiveness of the site.
The results of the study show that the application of ASR is effective for college freshmen in the learning of speech acts. From the comparison of pretest and posttest, students overall showed significant improvement in their overall scores and the use of speech acts, with more improvement found in non-English majors. Moreover, learners in general perceived positively towards the instruction supported by ASR, though they also suggested further improvement on the recognition rate and the recording procedure. Finally, pedagogical implications suggest language teachers’ judicious use of ASR technology for providing alternatives for EFL learners’ oral practice. With regard to developing ASR-supported CALL environment, future developers should figure out innovative ways of material presentation for coping with current recognition limit of the technology. The input the environment offers, chances for output production, and pertinent feedback provided are three key elements for developing an effective conversation environment.

中文摘要…………………………………………………………………………….. i
ABSTRACT…………………………………………………………………………. iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS……………………………………………………………v
TABLE OF CONTENTS……………………………………………………………..vi
LIST OF TABLES……………………………………………………………………x
LIST OF FIGURES………………………………………………………………….xi
Chapter One INTRODUCTION …………………………………………………….1
Chapter Two LITERATURE REVIEW………...……………………………………4
2.1 Communicative Competence and Sociocultural Rules……………………………4
2.1.1 Intercultural Communication………………………………………………7
2.2 Speech Act Theory…………………...……………………………………………8
2.2.1 Verbal Politeness………………………………………………………….11
2.2.2 Discourse Completion Test………………………………..........................12
2.2.3 The Speech Acts of Greeting and Parting…………………………...……13
2.2.4 The Speech Act of Request……………………………………………….14
2.2.5 The Speech Act of Complaint…………………………………………….16
2.2.6 The Speech Act of Apology……………………………………………….18
2.2.7 The Speech Act of Compliment…………………………………………..20
2.3 Pronunciation Instruction……………………………………...…………………22
2.4 Overview of CALL………………………………………………………………25
2.5 Automatic Speech Recognition…………………………………………………..27
2.5.1 Types of ASR Systems……..……………………………………………..29
2.5.2 Principles of ASR…………………………………………………………30
2.5.3 Design Issues of ASR……………………………………………………..31
2.5.4 Review of Programs with ASR Technology………………………………33
2.5.4.1 My ET………………………………………………………………..33
2.5.4.2 Subarashii…………………………………………………………….35
2.5.4.3 Virtual ConversationsTM……………………………………………...36
2.5.4.4 VILTS………………………………………………………………...38
2.5.4.5 The FLUENCY………………………………………………………39
2.5.4.6 The NTNU Pronunciation Practice Site……………………………...40
2.6 Summary and Research Questions……………………………………………….41
Chapter Three RESEARCH METHODS……………………………………....…..44
3.1 Pilot Testing………………………………………………………………………44
3.2 Design of Online Instructional Materials………………………………………...45
3.2.1 The Foci of the Training…………………………………………………..45
3.2.2 Designing Features of the Environment…………………………………..47
3.2.3 The Flow of the Units……………………………………………………..48
3.2.4 Content of the Four Units of CandleTalk…………………………………53
3.3 Participants……………………………………………………………………….54
3.4 Instruments……………………………………………………………………….54
3.5 Data Collection Procedures………………………………………………………55
3.6 Data Analysis……………………………………………………………………..56
Chapter Four RESULTS AND DISCUSSION………………………...……………59
4.1 The Background Questionnaire and the Evaluation Questionnaire……………...59
4.1.1 The Background Questionnaire…………………………………...………59
4.1.2 The Evaluation Questionnaire…………………………………………….61
4.1.2.1 Items Concerning the Content of the Four Units………………….61
4.1.2.2 Items Concerning the Functunality of the Site…………………….63
4.1.2.3 Items Concerning Overall Effectiveness of the Environment……..65
4.2 Students’ Oral Production Before and After the Project…………………………68
4.2.1 Rating of the DCT Responses…………………………………………….68
4.2.2 Comparison of the Pretest and Posttest Oral Performance………………..70
4.3 Discussion………………………………………………………………………..75
4.3.1 Students’ Perception Toward the Environment………………...…………75
4.3.2 Students’ Learning Outcome after the Instruction………………………...78
Chapter Five CONCLUSION…………………………………….………………...81
5.1 Development Implications for an ASR-Supported Conversation Environment…82
5.2 Pedagogical Implications………………………………………………………...83
5.3 Limitations of the Study………………………………………………………….85
5.4 Suggestions for Future Research…………………………………………………85
References……………………………………………………………………………86
Appendix A CandleTalk Unit 1………………………………………………….....90
Appendix B CandleTalk Unit 2…………………………………………………….94
Appendix C CandleTalk Unit 3…………………………………………………….97
Appendix D CandleTalk Unit 4………………………………………...…………101
Appendix E Pre- and Posttest………………………………………….………….105
Appendix F Questionnaire……………….……………………………………….108
Appendix G The Responses to Questionnaires………………...…………………112
Appendix H The Scores of Pre- and Posttest……………………….…………….118
Appendix I Consent Form……………………………………………………….121








List of Tables

Table 2.1 Classifications of the functions of speech act……………...………….9
Table 2.2 The elicitation techniques for the FLUENCY Project ………………40
Table 3.1 Designing principles of CandleTalk………………………………….47
Table 3.2 Data collection procedures for English majors………………………56
Table 3.3 Data collection procedures for non-English majors………………….56
Table 3.4 Scoring scale of the use of speech act………………………………..58
Table 4.1 Responses of the Background Information…………………………..60
Table 4.2 Items concerning the content of the four units……………………….63
Table 4.3 Items concerning the functionality of the site………………………..65
Table 4.4 Overall Effectiveness………………………………………………...67
Table 4.5 Scoring scale of the use of speech act………………………………..69
Table 4.6 Comparison of pre- and posttest concerning total score……………..71
Table 4.7 Comprehensibility in pre- and posttest performance………………...72
Table 4.8 Appropriate use of speech act in pre-and posttest performance……...72
Table 4.9 Total score in comparison of two groups……………………..……...73
Table 4.10 Use of speech acts in comparison of two groups…..………………...73
Table 4.11 Comprehensibility in comparison of two groups …………….....…...74


List of Figures

Figure 3.1 An example of flow chart in CandleTalk…………………………….46
Figure 3.2 Introduction page (unit one)………………………………………….50
Figure 3.3 Gender and voice selection…………………………………………...50
Figure 3.4 Main page of CandleTalk…………………………………………….51
Figure 3.5 Review page (unit one)……………………………………………….51
Figure 3.6 Tracking system………………………………………………………52
Figure 3.7 Dialogue record………………………………………………………52

Auralog (1995). AURA-LANG user manual. Voisins le Bretonneux, France: Author.
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Bernstein, J., & Najmi, A., & Ehsani, F. (1999). Subarashii: encounters in Japanese spoken language education. CALICO Journal, 16 (3), 361-384.
Blum-Kulka, S. (1982). Learning to say what you mean in a second language: A study of the speech act performance of learners of Hebrew as a second language. Applied Linguistics 3(1), 29-59.
Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G. (1989). Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1978). Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. In Goody, E (Ed.) Questions and politeness:Strategies in social interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approach to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1-47.
Chapelle, C. (1997). CALL in the year 2000: still in search of research paradigms? Language Learning & Technoloogy, 1, 19-41.
Chapelle, C. (1998). Multimedia CALL: lessons to be learned from research on instructed SLA. Language Learning & Technology, 2, 22-34.
Chapelle, C. (2001). Computer applications in second language acquisition: Foundations for teaching testing and research. Cambridge: CUP.
Chen, C. L., & Chiu, S. J. (2005). (MyET)輔助國小英語學習的成效與分析. Selected papers from the 14th Int’l symposium on English Teaching (pp. 58-69), Vol. 2. Taipei: Crane.
Chen, H. J. (2005). Developing a pronunciation practice web site based on automatic speech recognition technologies. Selected papers from the 14th Int’l symposium on English Teaching (pp. 29-38), Vol. 2. Taipei: Crane.
Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. Mouton.
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Chung, S. A. (2004). Polite request strategies across cultures: Chinese and American college students. English Teaching & Learning, 28.3, 85-106.
Cohen, A. D., & Olshtain, E. (1981). Developing a measure of sociocultural competence: The case of apology. Language Learning 31(1), 113-134.
Cohen, A. D., & Olshtain, E. (1993).The production of speech acts by EFL learners. TESOL QUARTERLY, 27(1), 33-56.
Cohen, A. D., & Olshtain, E. (1994). Researching the production of second-language speech acts. In E. E. Tarone & S. M. Gass & A. D. Cohen (Eds.), Research methodology in second-language acquisition (pp. 143-156). USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc..
Derwing, T. M., Munro, M. J. (2005). Second language accent and pronunciation teaching: a research-based approach. TESOL Quarterly, 39, 379-397.
Egan, K. B. (1999). Speaking: a critical skill and a challenge. CALICO Journal, 16(3), 277-293.
Ehsani, F., Knodt, E. (1998). Speech technology in computer-aided language learning:strengths and limitations of a new CALL paradigm. Language Learning & Technology, 2(1), 45-60.
Eskenazi, M. (1999). Using automatic speech processing for foreign language pronunciation tutoring: some issues and a prototype. Language Learning & Technology, 2(2), 62-76.
Firth, J. R. (1972). Verbal and bodily rituals of greeting and parting. In J. S. La Fontaine (Ed.), Interpretation of ritual, pp.1-38. London: Tavistock.
Fraser, B. (1981). On apologizing. In F. Coulmas (Ed.), Conversational routine: Explorations in standardized communication situations and prepattterned speech (pp. 259-271). Hague: Mouton.
Goffman, E. (1971). Relations in public: Microstudies of the public order. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Harless, W. G., & Zier, M. A., & Duncan, R. C. (1999). Virtual dialogues with native speakers: the evaluation of an interactive multimedia method. CALICO Journal, 16(3), 313-337.
Hartford, B. S., and Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1992). Experimental and observational data in the study of interlanguage pragmatics. Pragmatics and language learning, 3, 33-52.
Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. In C. J. Brumfit and K. Johnson, (1979). (Eds), The communicative approach to language teaching, (pp. 5-26). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jenkins, J. (2000). The phonology of English as an international language. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Jenkins, J. (2002). A sociolinguistically-based, empirically-researched pronunciation syllabus for English as an international language. Applied Linguistics, 23, 83-103.
Krashen, S. (1985). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford: Pergamon.
LaRocca, S. A, & Morgan, J. J., & Bellinger, S, M. (1999). On the path to 2X learning: exploring the possibilities of advanced speech recognition. CALICO Journal, 16 (3), 295-311.
Laver, J. (1981). Linguistic routines and politeness in greeting and parting. In F. Coulmas (Eds.), Conversational routine: Explorations in standardized communication situations and prepattterned speech. Hague: Mouton.
Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London and New York: Longman.
Levinson, S., & Liberman, M. (1981). Speech recognition by computer. Scientific American, April, 64-76.
Levis, J. (2005). Changing contexts and shifting paradigms in pronunciation teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 39, 369-377.
Liou, H. C., J. Chang, Y. Yeh, M. Liaw, C. Lin, H. Chen, G. You, C. Chuang, & Z. Gao. (2003). Using corpora and computational scaffolding to construct an advanced digital English learning environment: The CANDLE project. Proceedings of APAMALL 2003 and ROCMELIA 2003 (pp. 62-77). Taipei : Crane.
Manes, J., & Wolfson, N. (1981). The compliment formula. In F. Coulmas. (Ed.), Conversational routine (pp. 115-132). The Hague: Mouton.
McKay. S. L. (2000). Teaching English as an international language: Implications for cultural materials in the classroom. TESOL Journal, Winter 2000, 7-11.
Mostow, J., Gregory, A. (1999). Giving help and praise in a reading tutor with imperfect listening—because automated speech recognition means never being able to say you’re certain. CALICO Journal, 16 (3), 407-423.
Munro, M. J., Derwing, T. M. (1995). Processing time, accent, and comprehensibility in the perception of native and foreign-accented speech. Language and Speech, 38, 289-306.
Neri, A., Cucchiarini, C., Strik, H., & Boves, L. (2002). The pedagogy-technology interface in computer assisted pronunciation training. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 15, 441-467.
Olshtain, E., & Weinbach, L. (1993). Interlanguage features of the speech act of complaining. In G. Kasper, & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics (pp. 108-122). New York: Oxford University Press.
Rypa, M. E., & Price, P. (1999). VILTS: a tale of two technologies. CALICO Journal, 16 (3), 385-404.
Savignon, S. J., & Sysoyev, P. V. (2002). Sociocultural strategies for a dialogue of culture. The Modern Language Journal, 86, iv, 508-524.
Searle, J. (1969). Speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Spencer-Oatey, H. (2000). Culturally speaking. London, Biddles Ltd.
Su, I. R. (2004). Bi-directional transfer in EFL users’ requesting behavior. English Teaching & Learning, 29.2, 79-98.
Swain, M. (1984). Large-scale communicative language testing. In Savignon & Berns, (Eds). Initiatives in communicative language teaching. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.
Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 91-109.
Trosborg, A. (1994). Interlanguage pragmatics: requests, complaints and apologies. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Tsai, P. H. (2003) A duet of pedagogy and technology---an evaluation of my ET, a computer assisted pronunciation training system made in Taiwan. Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on English Teaching and Learning in the R.O.C. (pp. 439-452). Chaoyang University of Technology, Taichung.
Wachowicz, K. A., & Scott, B. (1999). Software that listens: it’s not a question of whether; it’s a question of how. CALICO Journal, 16 (3), 253-275.
Wolfson, N. (1989). Perspectives: Sociolinguistics and TESOL. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Yeh, Y., Hsieh, W. M., Chiu, T. L., Liou, H. C., Jang, J. S., Yu, H. P. (2004). Sociolinguistic factors for the formative evaluation of web-based English conversation practice with speech recognition. Proceedings of 8th APAMALL 2004 and ROCMELIA 2004 (CD-ROM). Chiao-tung University, December 17-19.
Zegarac, V. & Pennington, M. C. (2000). Pragmatic transfer in intercultural communication. In H. Spencer-Otaey (Ed.), Culturally speaking (pp. 165-190). London, Biddles Ltd.
Zhao, Y. (2003). Recent developments in technology and language learning: a literature review and meta-analysis. CALICO Journal, 2 (1), 7-27.