臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(延後公開至2015/08/01止)

(延後公開至2015/08/01止)

ABSTRACT (Chinese) I
ABSTRACT II
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS III
TABLE OF CONTENTS IV
LIST OF TABLES VIII
LIST OF FIGURES X
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background and Overview 1
1.2 Purpose of the Study 3
1.3 Research Questions 4
1.4 Definition of Terms 5
1.5 Significance of the Study 7
1.6 Organization of the Study 8
CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 9
2.1 The Mandative Subjunctive 10
2.2 Corpus Linguistics 17
2.3 Practical Application of ‘That’ Clauses 20
2.4 Previous Corpus-Based Investigations of the Mandative Subjunctive 24
2.5 Theoretical Framework 26
2.6 Literature Conclusions 28
CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 32
3.1 The Research Design 32
3.2 Research Questions 35
3.3 Data Collection 35
3.4 The Instruments 37
3.5 Data Analysis Procedure 40
3.5.1 Preliminary Analysis: Frequency 40
3.5.2 Secondary Analysis: Form 41
3.5.3 Tertiary Analysis: Pattern 41
CHAPTER IV FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION 43
4.1 Preliminary Analysis: Frequency 43
4.2 Secondary Analysis: Form 46
4.2.1 Form Analysis: Ask 46
4.2.2 Form Analysis: Demand 50
4.2.3 Form Analysis: Direct 54
4.2.4 Form Analysis: Insist 58
4.2.5 Form Analysis: Propose 62
4.2.6 Form Analysis: Recommend 66
4.2.7 Form Analysis: Require 70
4.2.8 Form Analysis: Suggest 74
4.2.9 Form Analysis: Request 78
4.2.10 Form Analysis: Order 82
4.3 Tertiary Analysis: Pattern 86
4.3.1 Pattern Analysis: Ask 89
4.3.2 Pattern Analysis: Demand 91
4.3.3 Pattern Analysis: Direct 92
4.3.4 Pattern Analysis: Insist 94
4.3.5 Pattern Analysis: Order 95
4.3.6 Pattern Analysis: Propose 96
4.3.7 Pattern Analysis: Recommend 98
4.3.8 Pattern Analysis: Request 99
4.3.9 Pattern Analysis: Require 100
4.3.10 Pattern Analysis: Suggest 101
4.4 Chapter Summary 102
CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS 103
5.1 Summary of the Results 104
5.1.1 High-frequency words in a journalistic English mini corpus 104
5.1.2 Forms of lexical items in the journalistic English mini corpus 104
5.1.3 Patterns of lexical items and the percentage of that-clause co-occurrence in the journalistic English mini corpus 105
5.1.4 Comparison with Pearson’s study 106
5.2 Interpretations 108
5.2 Pedagogical Implications 112
5.3 Limitations of the Study 114
5.4 Recommendations for Future Research 115
REFERENCES 118
APPENDIX 1 121

Barlow, M. (2004). MonoConc Pro 2.2 [computer concordancing software]. Houston, TX:
Athelstan.

Biber, D. (2001). Using corpus-based methods to investigate grammar and use: Some
case studies on the use of verbs in English. In R. Simpson and J. Swales (Eds.),
Corpus linguistics in North America: Selections from the 1999 Symposium (101-115). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Reppen, R. (1994). Corpus-based Approaches to Issues in Applied Linguistics. Applied Linguistics, 15(2), 169-189.
Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Reppen, R. (1998). Corpus linguistics: Investigating language structure and use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Brossard, N., Moxley, J. & Anderson, J. (2010). Various translators: Selections. Translation Review, 80(01), 238-257.

Carter, R., Hughes, R., & McCarthy, M. (1998). Telling tails: Grammar, the spoken language and materials development. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.), Materials development in language teaching (67-86). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Celce-Murcia, M. (1991). Grammar pedagogy in second and foreign language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 25(3), 459-480.
Celce-Murcia, M., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (1983). The grammar book: An ESL/EFL teacher’s course. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Crawford, B.,& Albakry, M. (2004). Subjunctive triggers in American English Newspapers. Paper presented at the 2004 AAAL conference: Portland, Oregon.
Creswell, J. (2008). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. New York: SAGE Publications.

Frazier, S. (2003). A corpus analysis of Would-clauses without adjacent If-clauses. TESOL Quarterly, 37(3), 443-466.
Garcia-Sanchez, S., & Rojas-Lizana, S. (2012). Bridging the language and cultural gaps:
The use of blogs. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 21(03), 361-381.

Giannakidou, A. (2010). The dependency of the subjunctive
revisited: Temporal semantics and polarity. Lingua, 119(12), 1883-1908.

Haser, V., Auer, A., Botma, B., Elenbaas, M., Wurff, W. V. D., Gyuris, B., Coleman, J., Callary, E., Anderwald, L., Sand, A., Callies, M., & Montoro, R. (2010) English Language. The Year''s Work in English Studies, 89(1), 1-168.
Haser, V., Auer, A., Botma, B., Elenbaas, M., Wurff, W. V. D., Gyuris, B., Coleman, J., Callary, E., Anderwald, L., Schröder, A., Callies, M., & Montoro, R. (2011) English Language. The Year''s Work in English Studies, 90(1), 1-154.
Huang, L. (2011). Language learners as language researchers: The acquisition of English grammar through a corpus-aided discovery learning approach mediated by intra-and interpersonal dialogues. Language and Computers, 12(01), 91-122.

Iverson, M., Kempchinsky, P., & Rothman, J. (2008). Interface
vulnerability and knowledge of the subjunctive/indicative distinction with negated epistemic predicates in L2. Eurosla Yearbook, Volume 8, 135-163.

Johansson, S., & Norheim, E.H. (1988). The subjunctive in British and American English. ICAME Journal, 12, 27-36.

Kovacs, E. (2009). On the development of the subjunctive from early modern English to
present-day English. Eger Journal of English Studies, IX(01), 79-90.

Matthewson, L. (2010). Cross-linguistic variation in modality systems: The role of mood.
Semantics and Pragmatics, 03(01), 168-184.

McEnery, T., & Hardie, A. (2011). Corpus linguistics: Method, theory and practice.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Morgan, D. (2007). Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained:
Methodological implications of combining qualitative and quantitative methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 01(01), 48-76.

Onwuegbuzie, A., Johnson, B., & Collins, K. (2011). Assessing
legitimization in mixed research: A new framework. Quality & Quantity, 45(06), 1253-1271.

Owen, C. (1993). Corpus-based grammar and the Heineken effect: Lexico-grammaticaldescription for language learners. Applied Linguistics. 14(2), 167-187.
Pearson, P. J. (2007). A Corpus-based Study of Mandative Subjunctive Triggers in Published Research Articles. Master thesis. Ames, Iowa State University.
Peters, P. (2004). The Cambridge guide to English usage. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Peters, P., Collins, P., & Smith, A. (2009). Comparative studies
in Australian and New Zealand English: Grammar and beyond. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Quirk, R., & Greenbaum, S. (1973). A concise grammar of contemporary English. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Publishers.
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. N., & Svartvik. J. (1985). A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.
Rothstein, B., & Thieroff, R. (2010). Mood in the languages of Europe. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Roussou, A. (2010). Selecting complementizers. Lingua, 120(03), 582-603.

Sinclair, J. M. (1997). Corpus evidence in language description. In A. Wichmann, S. Fligelstone, T. McEnery, & G. Knowles (Eds.), Teaching and language corpora (27-39). London: Longman.
Turner, J. (1980). The marked subjunctive in contemporary English. Studia Neophilologica, 52(01), 271-277.
Van Linden, A. (2010). The rise of the to-infinitive: Evidence from adjectival complementation. English Language and Linguistics, 14(01), 19-51.
Vlasova, O. (2010). The mandative subjunctive in American English: A corpus-based study on the use of mandative constructions. Master thesis. Oslo, the University of Oslo.
Wulff, S. (2009). Converging evidence from corpus and
experimental data to capture idiomaticity. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 05(01), 131-159.