跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(18.205.192.201) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/08/05 10:49
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

: 
twitterline
研究生:劉佩鑫
研究生(外文):Pei-Xin Liu
論文名稱:英語母語及非母語人士使用“cos/because”(因為)之變異分析
論文名稱(外文):A Study of the Variation of the Use of cos/because by Native and Non-native Speakers of English
指導教授:何德華何德華引用關係
指導教授(外文):Der-Hwa Rau
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:靜宜大學
系所名稱:英國語文學系研究所
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:2009
畢業學年度:97
語文別:英文
論文頁數:83
中文關鍵詞:語言變異分析
外文關鍵詞:language variation
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:563
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:39
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:2
本論文研究旨在探討語言因素及社會因素對8位英語為母語人士、4位近母語人士及10位英語非母語人士使用cos/because之影響。本論文語料取自研究者與研究對象個別談話錄音。研究者使用GoldVarb 3.0程式來分析語料。
研究結果顯示cos/because會受其「文法功能」(grammatical function)影響,而在社會因素則會受到「個人」(individual)因素所影響。在文法功能方面,比起because,cos較常被研究對象用為非從屬連結詞 (non subordinator)。然而,說話者的年齡、性別、英語能力及社交網絡對cos/becase變異並無顯著影響。而「個人」因素中,在說話者表達個人情感時會使用較多cos而非because。此外,說話者會為了縮短社交距離而改變說話方式成為傾向對談者之說話方式。因此當對談者使用較多cos時,談話者也因而增加使用cos頻率。三組英語能力不同之參與者使用cos/because各有不同,研究中僅少數非母語人士及近母語人士會使用cos,可能原因為學習者欠缺溝通能力(communicative competence),且學習環境缺乏真實性(authenticity)。在台灣英語為外語之學習環境需強調真實性之教學以增強溝通能力。本研究在於解釋語言因素及社會因素如何影響cos/because之使用具有貢獻並且提供英語教師相關授課內容之建議。
This aim of this research is to examine how the use of cos/because by eight native, four near-native and ten non-native speakers of English are accounted for by various internal linguistic factors and external social factors. The data was collected from conversations with the participants. The quantitative VARBRUL rule analysis was conducted through GoldVarb 3.0 to analyze the spoken data. The results of this study showed that speakers tended to use cos as non-subordinator while because was generally used as subordinator. However, the research showed that it was not age, sex, English proficiency and social networks that influenced how speakers used cos/because, but their personal speaking style. Some speakers used cos more often to shorten the social distance if his/her interlocutors used it frequently while others used cos more often when talking about personal feelings. Moreover, there was also a direct correlation between English proficiency and the use of cos/because; non-native and near-native speakers used cos much less than native-speakers, in some cases not at all. This can be accounted for by two factors: lack of authenticity, and lack of communicative competence in an EFL learning environment. The findings of this study are significant in terms of discovering how linguistic and social factors affect the use of cos/because, as well as in providing English teachers with a better understanding of what should be covered in their teaching.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page

CHINESE ABSTRACT…………………………………………………………… i
ENGLISH ABSTRACT…………………………………………………………….ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS………………………………………………………..iii
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………. 1
1.1 Background………………………………………………………………….. 1
1.2 Statement of the Problem……………………………………………………. 1
1.3 Purpose of the Study………………………………………………………… 2
1.4 Research Questions……………………………………………………. …….2
1.5 Significance of the Study……………………………………………………..3
1.6 Overview of the Study………………………………………………………. 3
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW……………………………………….5
2.1 Theoretical Background……………………………………………………...4 2.1.1 Language Change and Variation…………………………………….4
2.1.2 Cos/because………………………………………............................4
2.1.3 Cos, the shortened form of because…………………………………5
2.1.4 Cos/because as Subordinator………………………………………..5
2.2 Discourse Marker…………………………………………………………….7
2.2.1 Characteristics of DM……………………………………………….7
2.3 Cos/because as a causal connective………………………………………….8
2.3.1 cos/because as discourse link………………………………………..8
2.4 Cos/because as DM…………………………………………………………..11
2.5 Study related to cos/because by Native Speakers of English………………...12
2.6 Studies related to DM use by Second Language (L2) speakers……………...13
2.7 Interlanguage Variation………………………………………………………16
2.7.1 Grammaticalization in language change…………………………….17
2.7.2 Sociolinguistic variation……………………………………………..18
2.8 Factors in language change…………………………..………………………19
2.8.1 Internal Factors………………………………………………………20
2.8.1.1 Grammatical Function………………………………………..19
2.8.1.2 Position……………………………………………………….20
2.8.2 External Factors………………………………………………………21
2.8.2.1 Age………………………………………………………….. 21
2.8.2.2 Sex……………………………………………………………21
2.8.2.3 Language Proficiency……………………………………….. 22
2.8.2.4 Social Network……………………………………………….23
2.9 Summary………………………………………………………………………23
CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY…………………………………………………25
3.1 Participants…………………………………………………………………….26
3.2 Conversations………………………………………………………………….34
3.3 Data Collection………………………………………………………………...35
3.4 Quantitative Data Analysis…………………………………………………….35
3.4.1 Transcription…………………………………………………………35
3.4.2 Analysis Tool – Gold VARBRUL 3.0………………………………..36
3.4.3 Quantitative Data Analysis Procedure………………………….37
3.5 Coding Dependent Variable……………………………………………………37
3.5.1 Coding of Dependent Variable and Independent Variables………….37
3.6 Operational Definition of the Internal and External Factors…………………..39
3.6.1 The Operational Definitional Definition of Internal Factors………...39
3.6.1.1 When Not to Code……………………………………………41
3.6.2 The Operational Definition of External Factors……………………..42
3.7 Variables……………………………………………………………………….43
3.8 Hypotheses……………………………………………………………………44
CHAPTER 4 QUANTITATIVE RESULTS AND DISCUSSION………………..45
4.1 VARBRUL Data………………………………………………………………45
4.2 Recoding………………………………………………………………………50
4.3 Second VARBRUL Run……………………………………………………… 50
4.4 Interpreting VARBRUL Weights……………………………………………..51
4.4.1 Internal Factors……………………………………………………....52
4.4.1.1 Effect of Grammatical Function……………………………...52
4.4.1.2 Speakers……………………………………………………...53
4.4.2 External Factors……………………………………………………..54
4.4.2.1 Effect of Age…………………………………………………54
4.4.2.2 Effect of Sex………………………………………………….54
4.4.2.3 Effect of English Proficiency………………………………...55
4.4.2.4 Effect of Social Network……………………………………..56
4.5 Summary………………………………………………………………………56
CHAPTER 5 QUALITATIVE DISCUSSION……………………………………57
5.1 Internal Factors………………………………………………………………...57
5.2 External Factors………………………………………………………………..58
5.2.1Age and Sex………………………………………………………….58
5.2.2 English Proficiency………………………………………………….60
5.2.3 Individuals…………………………………………………………...61
5.3 Authenticity……………………………………………………………………69
5.4 Pragmatic Competence………………………………………………………...70
CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION……………………………………………………...72
REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………......76
APPENDIX: English Proficiency Questionnaire……………………………………81
References

Anderson, G. (2000). Pragmatic markers and sociolinguistic variation. US: Philadelphia.
Altenberg, B. (1984). Clausal linking in spoken and written English. Studia Linguistica 38, 20-69.
Baba, J. (1999). Interlanguage pragmatics. UK: Lincom Europa.
Bachman, F. (1990). Fundamental consideration in language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. & Doernyei, Z. (1998). Do language learners recognize pragmatic violations? Pragmatic vs. grammatical awareness in instructed L2 learning. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 233-259.
Bayley, R., & Preston, D. R. (Eds.). (1996). Second language acquisition and linguistic variation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Bayley & D. Preston (Eds.), Second language acquisition and linguistic
variation. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Beebe, L. M. (1987). Sociolinguistic variation and style shifting in second language
acquisition. In Ioup, G. & Weinberger, S.H. (Eds.), Interlanguage Phonology (pp.378-388). Newbury House.
Brinton, L. J., (1996). Grammaticalization and discourse functions. Mouton de Gryter, Berlin.
Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by Principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy. New York: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.
Chafe, W. (1984) How people use adverbial clauses. BLS 10 437-449.
Carter, R., Fung, L. (2007) Discourse markers and spoken English: native and learner use is pedagogic settings. Applied Linguistics 28 (3), 410-439.
Collins COBUILD English language dictionary (1987). London: Collins.
Corder, S. P. (1974). Idiosyncratic dialects and error analysis. In J. Schumann & N.
Coulmas, F. (1997). Handbook of Sociolinguistics. Blackwell Publising.
Eckert, P. (1997) Age as a sociolinguistic variable. In F. Coulmas (ed.) The Hanbook of Sociolinguistics. Oxford: Blackwell.
Ford, C. (1993) Grammar in Interaction. Adverbial Clauses in American English Conversations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fraser, B. (1990). An approach to discourse markers, Journal of Pragmatics 14: 383-395.
Fraser, B. (1996). Pragmatic markers. Pragmatics, 14, 383-395.
Fraser, B. (1988). Types of English discourse markers. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 38, 19-33.
Fung, L & Carter, R. (2007). Discourse and spoken English: Native and learner use in pedagogic settings. Applied Linguistics 28 (3), 410-439.
Genesee, F. (1995). Intergrating language and content: Lessons from immersion. Retrieved on March 15, 2008 from http:// www.cal.org/resources/digest/ncrcds05.htm.
Giles, H, and P. F. Powesland (1975). Speech Style and Social Evaluation. London: Academic Press.
Gruyter.Hellermann, J., Vergun, A. (2007) Language which is not taught: The discourse marker use of beginning adult learners of English. Journal of Pragmatics, 39, 157-179.
Hansen, J. G. (2001). Linguistic constraints on the acquisition of English syllable
codas by native speakers of Mandarin Chinese. Applied Linguistics, 22(3),
338-365.
Hays, P. R. (1992). Discourse markers and L2 acquisition.
He, Z. & Yan, Z. (1986). Pragmatic failure by Chinese EFL learners. Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 3, 52-57.
Hopper, P., Traugott, E.C. (1997). Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge.
Kasper, G. (1997). Can pragmatic competence be taught? Retrieved March 10, 2008, from http://www.lll.hawaii.edu/nflrc/NetWorks/NW6/default.html
Kulen, E. (1996). Intonation and clause combining in discourse: The case of because. Journal of Pragmatics 6, 389-426.
Labov, W. (1969). Contraction, deletion, and inherent variability of the English copula.Language, 45, 715-762.
Labov, W. (1972). Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia: University of PA.
Lee, B. & Hsieh, C. J. (2004). Discourse marker teaching in college conversation classrooms: focus on Well, you know, I mean. General Education Annual Review, 177-199.
Lehmann, C. (1988). Towards a typology of clause linkage. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Liu, J. (2004). Assessing EFL learners’ interlanguage pragmatic knowledge: Implications for testers and teachers. Retrieved on April 1, 2008 http:// www.nus.edu.sg/celc/publications/LiuVol5.pdf.
Longman dictionary of the English language (1988). London: Longman.
Major, R. C. (2001). Foreign Accent: The Ontogeny and Phylogeny of Second Language Phonology. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Major, R. C. (2001). Foreign Accent: The Ontogeny and Phylogeny of Second Language Phonology. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Muller, S. (2004). Well you know that type of person: functions of well in the speech of American and German students. Journal of pragmatics 3, 1157-1182.
Milroy. & Milroy. (1992). Social network and social class: towards an integrated sociolinguistic model. Language in Society, 21:1, 1-26
Milroy, L. (1980). Language and social networks. Oxford: Blackwell.
Norton Pierce, B. (1995). Social identity, investment, and language learning. TESOL Quarterly, 29 (1), 9-31.
Olshtain, E., Cohen, D. (1991). Teaching speech act behavior to nonnative speakers. Boston.
Oxford English dictionary (1989) Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Paolillo, J. (2001). Language variation on internet relay chat: a social network approach. Journal of Sociolinguistics 5, 180-213.
Preston, D. R. (1996). Variationist perspectives on second language acquisition.
Quirk, Randolf, Greebum, Leech, Svartvik (1872) A grammar of Contemporary English. London: Longman.
Quirk, Randolf, Greebum, Leech, and Svartvik (1985) A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.
Remero, T. (2002). The pragmatic fossilization of discourse markers in non-native speakers of English. Journal of Pragmatics 34, 769-784.
Rose, R. (1994). Pragmatic consciousness-raising in an EFL context.

Sapir, E. (1921). Language: An Introduction to the Study of Speech. New York: Harcourt, Brace.
Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schleppegrell, M. (1991). Paratactic because. Journal of Pragmatics 16
, 323-337.
Scarcella, C. (1983). Developmental trends in the acquisition of conversational competence by adult second language learners. MA.
Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. IRAL, 10, 209-231.
Stenson (Eds.), New frontiers in second language learning (pp.100-113). Rowley,
MA: Newbury House.
Stenstrom, A. B. (1994) An Introduction to Spoken Interaction. London: Longman.
Stenstrom. A-B. (1995) International conference on English Language Research on computerized corpora. Toronto.
Stenstrom, A. B. (1998). From sentence to discourse” cos (because) in teenage talk. Discourse Markers: Descriptions and Theory.
Swanborn, M.L.& Glooper, K. (1999). Incidental word word learning while reading: a meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research 69, 261-285.
Tagliamonte, S. A. (2006). Analysing sociolinguistic variation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Tarone, E. (1998). Research on interlanguage variation: implications for language testing, in L. Bachman & A. Cohen (Eds.). Cambridge University Press.
Tarone, E., & Swain, M. (1995). A sociolinguistic perspective on second language use in immersion classrooms. The Modern Language Journal, 79, 167-178.
Traugott, E.C. (1995) The role of the development of discourse markers in a theory of grammaticalization.
Trillo, J. (2002). The pragmatic fossilization of discourse markers in non-native speakers of English. Journal of Pragmatics 34, 769-784.
Tyler, A. E., Jefferies, A. A., & Davis, C.A. (1988). The effect of discourse structuring devices on listener perceptions of coherence in non-native university teachers’ spoken discourse. World Englishes 7, (2), 101-110.
Yamashita, O. (1996). Six measures of JSL pragmatics.

Young, R. (1991). Variation in Interlanguage Morphology. New York: Peter Lang.
Wardhaugh, R. (1992). An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. Blackwell Publishing.
Wierzbicka, A. (1991). Cross-cultural pragmatics. Berlin: Mouton.
Willett, J. (1995). Becoming first graders in an L2: An ethnographic study of L2 socialization. TESOL Quarterly, 20 (3), 473-503.
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top