跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(44.222.104.206) 您好!臺灣時間:2024/05/28 11:46
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:王謙鐙
研究生(外文):Chien-Teng Wang
論文名稱:成年中文使用者對英文冠詞之使用
論文名稱(外文):The Use of English Articles by Adult Chinese Learners of English
指導教授:江丕賢江丕賢引用關係
指導教授(外文):Stano Kong
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:東海大學
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:2009
畢業學年度:98
語文別:英文
論文頁數:111
中文關鍵詞:全轉換/全運行部分運行原則和參數主要句重屬句
外文關鍵詞:Full Transfer/Full Access(FT/FA)Partial AccessPrinciples and Parametersmatrix sentenceembedded sentence
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:901
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:38
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:0
成年中文使用者對英文冠詞之使用

研究生: 王謙鐙
指導教授: 江丕賢博士
摘要
本研究探究成年中文使用者對於英文冠詞在主要句和從屬句的使用,並以普遍性語法觀點的第二語言習得理論中的「原則與參數理論」框架下的「參數重設理論」解釋: 英語母語使用者和非英語母語使用者,對於英文冠詞在主要句和從屬句中的使用歧異性。在本研究中作者測試一組競爭性的理論分別為普遍性語法觀點的第二語言習得理論中之「全轉換/全運行」理論和「部分運行」理論,並觀測功能性範疇字群比如說定冠詞 “the”和不定冠詞 “a/an”在第二語言語法中是否可以重設。
九十五位實驗參與者受邀進行一份語法判定測驗用以更正冠詞用法和其他文法錯誤點。這些成年的大學生實驗參與者都來自東海大學非英文系主修大一英文課程。這些參與者被分成三組,依照他們在東海大學英文分班測驗 (Sims, 2006)獲得的成績。另有十二位英文為母語者組成實驗的對照組。
實驗結果表明有一個雙層的歧異性介於受測者間。關於英文為母語和非母語的受測者對於冠詞的使用有顯著的差異性存在。實驗結果亦表明,非英語母語者對於冠詞在主要句和重屬句中的使用具有差異性存在。這些結論反駁普遍性語法中的「全轉換/全運行」理論並支持「部分運行」理論。
The Use of English Articles by Adult Chinese Learners of English
Chien-Teng Wang
Advisor: Dr. Stano Kong
ABSTRACT
The present study investigates the use of English articles in matrix and embedded sentences by adult Chinese speakers of L2 English and sets out to explain native and non-native divergence in relation to Parameter Resetting Theory in Second Language Acquisition (SLA) within the framework of Principles and Parameters of Universal Grammar (UG). The study tests two competing theories, namely the Full Access Full Transfer theory (FT/FA) and the Partial Access to UG account of Second Language Acquisition (SLA) theory to see whether or not functional category words such as the and a/an are resettable in L2 grammar.
95 participants were asked to take a grammatical judgment test correcting article usage and other grammatical points as distracters. The participants were adult university students from the FENM (Freshman English for Non-Majors) program at Tunghai University. They were grouped into three language proficiency levels based on the Tunghai English Placement Exam (Sims, 2006). Another group of 12 native speakers of English were invited as the control group.
The results of the study suggest that there is a twofold divergence among the participants. There is a significant difference in the use of English articles between native and non-native speakers. It also demonstrates a discrepancy between non-native speakers in the interpretation of articles in matrix and embedded sentences. These results argue against the FT/FA account of UG and support the Partial Access to UG accounts.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
CHINESE ABSTRACT
ABSTRACT
LIST OF TABLES
ABBREVIATION LIST
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Overall background and rationale for the study
1.2 Statement of the research problem
1.3 Linguistic background
1.3.1 Article use in English
1.3.2 The NPs in Chinese
1.4 Purpose of the study
1.5 Research questions
1.6 The structure of the thesis
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Competing Hypotheses in UG Theory
2.1.1 Full Transfer Full Access to UG Hypothesis (FT/FA)
2.1.1.1 Haznedar’s study (2003)
2.1.1.2 Schwartz and Sprouse’s study (1996)
2.1.2 Partial Access to UG
2.1.2.1 Hawkins and Chan’s study (1997)
2.1.2.2 Kong’s study (2007)
2.2 Studies of the influence of sentence context (matrix vs. embedded) on the acquisition of L2 English by speakers of Chinese
2.2.1 Yuan’s study (1997)
2.2.2 Kong’s study (2005)
2.2.3 Summary of this section
2.3 Previous studies in the acquisition of English articles
2.3.1 Young’s study (1997)
2.3.2 Robertson’s study (2000)
2.3.3 Butler’s study (2002)
2.3.4 Summary of this section
2.4 Summary of the chapter
CHAPTER THREE: METHOD
3.1 The participants of the study
3.2 The description of the instrument
3.3 The validity and reliability of the instrument
3.3.1 The validity of the instrument
3.3.2 The reliability of the instrument
3.4 The data collection procedure
3.5 The data analysis procedure
3.5.1 Coding and Scoring
3.5.2 Descriptive statistical analysis
3.5.3 ANOVA test and Paired- Samples T-test
3.6 Summary of the chapter
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Instrument reliability
4.2 Results of article use in general
4.2.1 The descriptive analysis of the data
4.2.2 The ANOVA test results of the article use in general (without distracters)
4.2.2.1 The performance of the distracters in general
4.2.2.2 The use of articles in general between non-native groups (without distracters)
4.2.2.3 The performance on distracters between non-native groups
4.3 Results of article use in matrix and embedded sentences
4.3.1 The descriptive analysis results of the article use in matrix and embedded sentences
4.3.2 The ANOVA test results of the article use in matrix and embedded sentences in general
4.3.2.1 The use of articles in matrix and embedded sentences between non-native groups
4.3.2.2 The within group Paired-samples T-test results of the use of articles in matrix and embedded sentences
4.3.2.3 The between groups Paired-samples T-test results of the use of articles in matrix and embedded sentences
4.3.3 Summary of the results
4.4 Discussion
4.4.1 The FT/FA account of UG hypothesis in SLA
4.4.2 The Partial Access account of UG hypothesis in SLA
4.5 Summary of the chapter
CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION, IMPLICATIONS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY
5.1 Summary of the Study
5.2 Summary of the major findings
5.3 Research Implications
5.4 Limitations of the Study
5.5 Suggestions or recommendations for further research
REFERENCE
APPENDICES
Appendix A: The measurement of the study with answer key embedded
Appendix B: The measurement of the study
Appendix C: The TEPE test items
REFERENCES
Albom, M. (1997). Tuesday with Morrie. UK: Time Warner Books.
Allan, D. (2002) The Oxford placement test. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bard, E. G., Robertson, D. and Sorace, A. (1996). Magnitude estimation of linguistic acceptability. Language, 72: 32-68.
Bickerton, D. (1981). Roots of language. Ann Arbor: Karoma Press.
Bley-Vroman, R. (1990). The logical problem of foreign language learning. Linguistic Analysis, 20: 3-49.
Butler, Y. G. (2002). Second language learners’ theories on the use of English articles. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24: 451-480.
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris
_____(1993). A minimalist program for linguistics theory. In Hale, K. and Keyser, S. J. (eds). The View from Building 20. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Crystal, D. (1997). A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonology. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Epstein, S., S. Flynn and G. Martohardjono. (1996). Second language acquisition: theoretical and experimental issues in contemporary research. Brain and Behavioral Sciences, 19: 677-758.
Eubank, L. (1993). Sentence matching and processing in L2 development. Second Language Research, 9: 253-80.
_____(1993/1994). On the transfer of parametric values in L2 development. Language Acquisition, 3: 183-208.
_____(1994). Optionality and the initial state in L2 development. In T. Hoekstra, and B. D. Schwartz (eds), Language acquisition studies in generative grammar (pp. 369-388). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
_____(1996). Negation in early German-English interlanguage: more valuesless features in the L2 initial state. Second Language Research, 12: 73-106.
Grondin, N. and L. White. (1996). Functional categories in child L2 acquisition of French. Language Acquisition, 5: 1-34.
Hawkins, J. A. (1978). Definiteness and Indefiniteness. London: Croom Helm.
Hawkins, R. (2001). Second Language Syntax: A Generative Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Hawkins, R. and Y. C. Chan. (1997). The partial availability of Universal Grammar in second language acquisition: the ‘failed functional features hypothesis’. Second Language Research, 13(3), 187-226.
Haznedar, B. (2003). The status of functional categories in child second language acquisition: evidence from the acquisition of CP. Second Language Research, 19(1): 1-14.
Hill, R. A., and Fenn, S. (1989). The Anglo-World and University of Edinburgh Proficiency Test Project. Paper presented at the 23rd IATEFL International Conference, Warwick University, Warwick, United Kingdom.
Hsin, A. L. (2003). On indefinite subject NPs in Chinese. 漢學研究, 20(2), 353-376.
Huebner, T. (1983). A longitudinal analysis of the acquisition of English. MI: Karoma Ann Arbor.
_____(1985). System and variability in interlanguage syntax. Language Learning, 35: 141-163.
Klein, W. and Perdue, C. (1992). Utterance Structure (developing grammars again) Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Kong, S. (2005). The partial access of universal grammar in second language acquisition: an investigation of the acquisition of English subjects by L1 Chinese speakers. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 14: 227-265.
_____(2007). English speakers and the asymmetrical matrix-embedded null subjects in L2 Chinese. Concentric: Studies in Linguistics, 33(2): 23-52.
Li, C. H. and Thompson, S. A. (1981). Mandarin Chinese: a functional reference grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Radford, A. (1997). Syntax: A minimalist Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J. C. , Platt, J. and Platt, H. (2003). Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics. Longman.
Robertson, D. (2000). Variability in the use of the English article system by Chinese learners of English. Second Language Research, 16(2), 135-172.
Schachter, J. (1988). Second language acquisition and its relationship to Universal Grammar. Applied Linguistics, 9: 219-235.
_____(1989). Testing a proposed universal. In S. Gass and J. Schachter (eds), Linguistic perspectives on second language acquisition (pp. 77-88). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schwartz, B. and R. Sprouse. (1994). Word order and nominative case in nonnative language acquisition: a longitudinal study of (L1 Turkish) German interlanguage. In T. Hoekstra, and B. D. Schwartz (eds), Language acquisition studies in generative grammar (pp. 317-368). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
_____(1996). L2 cognitive states and the full transfer/full access model. Second Language Research, 12, 40-72.
Sims, J. (2006). The creation of a valid and reliable university proficiency exam. Tunghai Journal of Humanities, 47: 325-344.
Smith, L. C. and Mare, N. N. (1996). Themes for Today. Heinle ELT.
Towell, R. and Hawkins, R. (1994). Approaches to second language Acquisition. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Vainikka, A. and M. Young-Scholten. (1994). Direct access to X’-theory: evidence from Korean and Turkish adults learning German. In T. Hoekstra and B. D. Schwartz (eds), Language acquisition studies in generative grammar (pp. 265-316) Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Vainikka, A. and M. Young-Scholten. (1996a). The early stages of adult L2 syntax: additional evidence from Romance speakers. Second Language Research, 12: 140-176.
_____(1996b). Gradual development of L2 phrase structure. Second Language Research, 12: 7-39.
White, L. (1989). Universal Grammar and Second Language Research. Amsterman/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
_____(2003). Second Language Acquisition and Universal Grammar. Montreal: McGill University.
Woodcock, R. W. (1980). Woodcock language proficiency battery. New York: Teaching Resources Corporation.
Young, R. (1997). Form-function relations in articles in English interlanguage. In R. Bayley &. D. R. Preston (Eds.), Second language acquisition and linguistic variation (pp. 135-175).
Yuan, B. (1997). Asymmetry of null subjects and null objects in Chinese speakers’ L2 English. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19: 467-497.
連結至畢業學校之論文網頁點我開啟連結
註: 此連結為研究生畢業學校所提供,不一定有電子全文可供下載,若連結有誤,請點選上方之〝勘誤回報〞功能,我們會盡快修正,謝謝!
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top