跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(44.200.194.255) 您好!臺灣時間:2024/07/19 04:52
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:游靜雯
研究生(外文):Ching-Wen Yu
論文名稱:中文篇章連貫標記在資訊性及說服性文本中對於文章理解的影響
論文名稱(外文):The Effect of Chinese Coherence Markers on Discourse Comprehension in Informational and Persuasive Texts
指導教授:龔書萍龔書萍引用關係
指導教授(外文):Shu-Ping Gong
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立嘉義大學
系所名稱:外國語言學系研究所
學門:人文學門
學類:語言學類
論文種類:學術論文
畢業學年度:100
語文別:英文
論文頁數:121
中文關鍵詞:篇章連貫標記文章理解線上實驗資訊性及說服性文章中文語料庫
外文關鍵詞:coherence markerstext comprehensionon-line experimentinformative and persuasiveChinesecorpus
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:300
  • 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:0
本文主要在探討中文文本中的篇章連貫標記的分佈狀況及在資訊性及說服性文本中對於文章理解的影響。本研究將分成二個部分作討論:一、語料庫研究;二、線上閱讀實驗研究。首先,第一個研究是一個語料庫研究,我們建置了一中文語料庫,並分析篇章中連貫標記的分佈及使用情形。目前分別摘錄資訊性及說服性文章各20篇,並利用Wordsmith進行語料分析。所得的初步結果為:具有因果關係的篇章連貫標記「因此」、「如果」、「因為」在二種文章類別中出現的頻率都很高。然而,具有附加語意的篇章連貫標記「此外」卻只在資訊性的文章中出現。在第二個研究中,我們執行了一個線上心理語言學實驗,操弄二個實驗因子(篇章連貫標記、文本類別)以檢視篇章連貫標記是否可以促進中文閱讀理解。本實驗所測試的字表共有4種情況:一、標有連貫標記之資訊性文本;二、未標有連貫標記之資訊性文本;三、標有連貫標記之說服性文本;四、未標有連貫標記之說服性文本。實驗結果顯示讀者在閱讀標有連貫標記的文本後在「作答時間」及「答題表現」上都優於閱讀未標有連貫標記的文本。再者,讀者在處理資訊性的文章時也比處理說服性的文章更容易。因此,我們認為篇章連貫標記在中文資訊性及說服性文章中有一定的作用,以幫助學習者閱讀、理解文章。
This study focuses on how coherence markers are realized in different genres of text in Chinese and whether they affect learners’ comprehension in informative and persuasive texts. The thesis is divided into two studies: (1) a corpus-study; (2) an on-line reading experiment. Study 1 is a corpus study and aims to know the distribution and the usage of coherence markers in texts. In Study 1, we collected 20 informative articles and 20 persuasive texts. Our corpus results show that the three Chinese markers 因此 (yinci, ‘thus’), 如果 (ruguo, ‘if’), and 因為 (yinwei, ‘because’) are the most frequent ones in both genres. These markers are usually used to describe causal relations between sentences. However, the coherence marker 此外 (ciwai, ‘in addition’), used to express the meaning of “adding”, only occur in informative texts. In Study 2, we conduct an on-line experiment by manipulating the two factors, coherence marking and text genres, determine whether coherence markers facilitate the comprehension of texts. In this experiment, four text conditions are tested: (1) informative texts containing coherence markers, (2) informative texts containing no coherence makers, (3) persuasive texts containing coherence markers, and (4) persuasive texts containing no coherence markers. The experimental results demonstrate that readers processed texts with coherence markers more accurately and faster than those without coherence markers. In addition, readers process informational texts faster and more accurately than persuasive texts. As a result, we consider coherence markers are important for readers to make coherence relations in the text when they read and readers can benefit from these markers on reading comprehension.
Abstract viii
中文摘要 iv
Acknowledgements v
Table of Contents vii
List of Tables x
List of Figures xii
Chapter 1. Introduction 1
Chapter 2. Background 7
2.1. Discourse processing in reading Chinese texts 7
2.2. Coherence marking in the texts s 9
2.3. Interactive effect of background knowledge 14
2.4. Text genre 16
2.5. Methods to study discourse 19
2.5.1. Corpus-based methods 19
2.5.2. Experiment-based methods 21
Chapter 3. A Corpus Study on Coherence Markers in Informational and Persuasive Texts 26
3.1. Goal of the study 26
3.2. Method 27
3.2.1. Materials 27
3.2.2. Instrument t 29
3.2.3. Procedures 32
3.3. Result and Discussion 33
3.3.1. Results of coherence markers s 34
3.3.2. Results of salient verbs 42
Chapter 4. A Discourse Comprehension Experiment 50
4.1. Goal of the experiment 50
4.2. Method 50
4.2.1. Participants 50
4.2.2. Materials 51
4.2.3. Procedures 59
4.2.4. Data Analysis 60
4.3. Results and Discussion 61
4.3.1. Results of accuracy rate for comprehension questions 61
4.3.2. Results of responding time for comprehension questions 64
4.3.3. Results of time for text reading 67
Chapter 5. Conclusions 71
5.1. Summary of Research Findings 71
5.2. Limitations and Implications 72
References 75
Appendix 1—An Overall Result for the Frequency of Coherence Markers 82
Appendix 2—An Overall Result for the Frequency of Salient Verbs 84
Appendix 3—Questionnaire for Pretest 1 Material Test 87
Appendix 4—Questionnaire for Pretest 2 Material Test 104
Appendix 5—Materials in the On-line Experiment 111
Blakemore, D. (1998). ‘So’ as a constraint on relevance. In Kempson, R. (Ed.), Mental Representation: The Interface between Language and Reality (pp. 183-195). Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
Blakemore, D. (1992). Understanding Utterances: An Introduction to Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell.
Boscolo, P., & Mason, L. (2003). Topic knowledge, text coherence, and interest: How they interact in learning from instructional texts. The Journal of Experimental Education, 71, 126-148.
Britton,B. K. (1994). Understanding expository text. Building mental structures to induce insights. In M. A. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 641-674). San Diego, CA: Academic.
Britton, B. K., Glynn, S. M., Meyer, B. J. F., & Penland, M. J. (1982). Effects of text structure on use of cognitive capacity during reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 51-61.
Brewer, W. F. (1980). Literary theory, rhetoric, and stylistics: Implications for psychology. In R. J. Spiro, B. C. Bruce & W. F. Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension (pp. 221-239). Hilsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Chen, M. L., Wang, H. C., & Ko, H. W. (2009). The construction and validation of Chinese semantic space by using Latent Semantic Analysis. Chinese Journal of Psychology, 51(4), 415-435.
ChinaYES.com. (2011). 兩岸雜誌. Retrieved April 30, 2011, from http://tw.mag.chinayes.com/Column/6/
Degand, L., Lefevre, N., & Bestgen, Y. (1999). The impact of connectives and anaphoric expressions on expository discourse comprehension. Document Design, 1, 39-51.
Degand, L., & Sanders, T. (2002). The impact of relational markers on expository text comprehension in L1 and L2. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 15, 739-757.
Ebbinghaus, H. Memory. New York: Dover, 1964. (Originally published, 1885).
Electronic reference formats recommended by the College Entrance Examination Center. (1989, July 1). Retrieved October 23, 2011, from http://www.ceec.edu.tw/AbilityExam/AbilityExamPaper.htm
Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D. S., & Louwerse, M. M. (2003). What do readers need to learn in order to process coherence relations in narrative and expository text? In A. P. Sweet & C. E. Snow (Eds.), Rethinking reading comprehension (pp. 82-98). New York: Guilford.
Halliday, M. A., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. New York: Longman.
Haviland, S. E., & Clark, H. H. (1974). What’s new? Acquiring new information as a process in comprehension. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 13, 512-521.
Kamalski, J., Sanders, T., & Lentz, L. (2008). Coherence Marking, Prior Knowledge, and Comprehension of Informative and Persuasive Texts: Sorting Things Out. Discourse Processes, 45(4), 323-345.
Kamalski, J., Lentz, L., Sanders, T., & Zwaan, R. A. (2008). The Forewarning Effect of Coherence Markers in Persuasive Discourse: Evidence From Persuasion and Processing. Discourse Processes, 45(6), 545-579.
Kennedy, G. (1998). An Introduction to Corpus Linguistics. New York: Longman.
Ke, W. W. (Producer). Chinese Latent Semantic Analysis. retrieved from http://www.lsa.url.tw/modules/lsa/
Ko, H. W., Chen, M. L., & Liao, C. N. (2005). Frequency effect, word class and eye movements: Evidence from text reading. Chinese Journal of Psychology, 47(4), 381-398.
Lenk, U. (1998). Discourse markers and global coherence in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 245-257.
Li, C. N. & Thompson, S. A. (1981). Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Lin, M. H., & Cheng, C. M. (1976). Conceptual knowledge as related to language comprehension and recall. Chinese Journal of Psychology, 18, 121-128.
Mahlberg, M. (2006). Lexical cohesion: Corpus linguistic theory and its application in English language teaching. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 11(3), 363-383.
McNamara, D. S. (2001). Reading both high-coherence and low-coherence texts: Effects of text sequence and prior knowledge. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55, 51-62.
McNamara, D. S., Kintsch, E., Songer, N. B, & Kintsch, W. (1996). Are good texts always better? Interactions of text coherence, background knowledge, and levels of understanding in learning from text. Cognition and Instruction, 14(1), 1-43.
McNamara, D. S., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Learning from texts: Effects of prior knowledge and text coherence. Discourse Processes, 22, 247-288.
Meyer, B. J. F., Brandt, D. M. & Bluth, G. J. (1980). Use of top-level structure in text: Key for reading comprehension of ninth-grade students, Reading Research Quarterly, 16, 72-103.
Noordman, L. G. M., & Vonk, W. (1997). The different functions of a conjunction in constructing a representation of the discourse. In J. Costermans & M. Fayol (Eds.), Processing interclausal relationships. Studies in the production and comprehension of text (pp. 75-93). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Ringbom, H. (1998). High-frequency verbs in the ICLE corpus. In A. Renoun (Ed.), Explorations in corpus linguistics (pp. 191-200). Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Sanders, T. (1997). Semantic and pragmatic sources of coherence: On the categorization of coherence relations in context. Discourse Processes, 24, 119-147.
Sanders, T., & Noordman, L. (2000). The role of coherence relations and their linguistic markers in text processing. Discourse Processes, 29, 37-60.
Sanders, T., & Pander Maat, H. (2006). Cohesion and coherence. In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics (vol. 2, pp. 591-595). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Schellens, P. J., & de Jong, M. (2004). Argumentation schemes in persuasive brochures. Argumentation, 18, 295-323.
Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schneider, W., Eschman, A., & Zuccolotto, A. (2002). E-Prime User's Guide. Pittsburgh: Psychology Software Tools Inc.
Scott, M. (2009). WordSmith Tools Version 5.0. Liverpool: Lexical Analysis Software
Shei, C. C. (2005). Fixedness in genre-specific language and intercultural differences. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 10(2), 199-225.
Smith, E. E., & Swinney, D. A. (1999). The role of schemas in reading text: A real-time examination. Discourse Processes, 15, 303-316.
Spyridakis, J. H. & Standal, T. C. (1987). Signals in expository prose: Effect on reading comprehension. Reading research quarterly, 22, 258-298.
Traugott, E. C. (1995a). The role of the development of discourse markers in a theory of grammaticalization. Paper presented at the 12th International Conference on Historical Linguistic. Manchester: University of Manchester.
Traugott, E. C., & Dasher, R. B. (2002). Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
Tsai, J. L., Lee, C. Y., Lin, Y. C., Tzeng, J. L., & Hung, D. L. (2006). Neighborhood size effects of Chinese words in lexical decision and reading. Language and linguistics , 7(3), 659-675.
Tzeng, Y. T., & Chen, P. L. (2006). The effects of causal structure on levels of representation for Chinese children’s narrative comprehension. Chinese Journal of Psychology, 48(2), 115-138.
Wang, C. C, & Huang, L. M. (2006). Grammaticalization of connectives in Mandarin Chinese: A corpus-based study. Language and Linguistics, 7(4), 991-1016.
Yu, C. W., & Gong, S. P. (2010). A corpus-based study on the salient verbs and coherence markers in different domains of argumentative essays in Chinese. Paper presented at the 2010 International Academic Conference on Chinese Teaching and Learning, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei City, Taiwan.
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