跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(35.175.191.36) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/07/30 17:21
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:謝曉瑩
論文名稱:大學老師規勸語言行為策略分析研究:從言語行為角度分析
論文名稱(外文):Admonition Strategies Used by College Teachers:A Case of Speech Act Analysis
指導教授:王萸芳王萸芳引用關係
指導教授(外文):Dr. Yu-Fang Wang
學位類別:博士
校院名稱:國立高雄師範大學
系所名稱:英語學系
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:2015
畢業學年度:103
語文別:英文
論文頁數:185
中文關鍵詞:大學老師規勸語語言行為
外文關鍵詞:college teachersadmonishmentspeech act
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:154
  • 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
摘要
在中介語用學研究中,語言行為(speech acts)常為廣泛討論。然而,規勸語(admonition)則是一個長期以來一直被忽略但卻極為重要的語言行為。有鑒於此,本論文的研究主要探討如下:一為探討教學年資是否影響規勸語之使用策略,二為比較台灣英語系及非英語系大學老師表達規勸語之行為差異。
研究語料蒐集自四組受試者,第一組(EL)為30位教學年資十年以內之英語系大學老師,第二組(EE)為30位教學年資十年以上之英語系大學老師,第三組(NEL)為30位教學年資十年以內之非英語系大學老師,第四組(NEE)為30位教學年資十年以上之非英語系大學老師。研究工具為問卷調查包含三個主要的部份:尺度量表(Scaled Response Questionnaire)、言談情境補全問卷(Discourse Completion Task)及訪談分析(interview)。問卷中的情境包含10個規勸語情境題。全部的情境題皆依情境(situations)與社會距離遠近(social distance) 與學生性別(gender difference)三個情境變數(contextual factor)來設計。所蒐集之語料都進行量化與質化之研究分析。
研究結果顯示,四組老師在規勸語表達方式有相同之處亦有是否受西方文化影響的差異之處。相同之處在於: 四組老師皆認為社會階級制度影響面對面互動及規勸語言行為策略使用之要素之一。相異之處在於:英語系老師規勸學生時往往視社會距離遠近為執行規勸行為的關鍵因素; 社會距離遠近對非英語系老師執行規勸行為的影響並不大。EL群組的老師傾向於應用wh-問句使用間接指責然而EE群組的老師傾向於利用yes/no問句表達負面反應。 EL群組的老師面對規勸情境時也易於表達煩擾的態度。此外,質化與量化的分析結果顯示,英語系大學老師規勸語使用表現出趨近於外語(approximation to L2)、語用轉移(pragmatic transfer)及中介語發展(interlanguage development) 。然而,非英語系大學老師規勸語使用較易遷就中國文化。值得注意的是,英語教學中語用轉移與中介語發展常常突顯出學生不正確使用外語的情形,這常導致語用失敗(pragmatic failure)。為了讓學生將來能夠使用更道地的美語,近一步的語用教學應有其必要性。本研究最後提出研究發現的啟示及未來的研究方向也期望對未來英語教學領域有所啟發。


ABSTRACT

Interlanguage pragmatics (ILP) is an important field in foreign language teaching and learning. Among ILP studies, speech acts has been widely discussed because the data can be easily observed in daily life. However, few studies have been done on the speech act of admonition. Thus, the purpose of the present study aimed to fill this gap and had two major purposes. One was to investigate the different admonition behaviors between teachers with more than ten-year teaching experiences and teachers less than ten-year teaching experiences. The other was to examine whether English-major and non English-major teachers’ educational backgrounds affect on the speech act of admonition.
Our data were recruited from four participant groups: 30 English teachers with ten-year-teaching experience (EE), 30 English teachers with less than ten-year-teaching experience (EL), 30 the non-English teachers with ten-year-teaching experience (NEE), and 30 non-English teachers with less than ten-year teaching experience (NEL). The two experienced groups provided the baseline data for language and cultural comparisons. The research instrument was a questionnaire consisting of three major parts: Scaled Response Questionnaire (SRQ), Discourse Completion Task (DCT), and interviews. The questionnaire included 10 scenarios. All the scenarios varied according to two contextual factors, social status and social distance. Elicited data were coded on the basis of a data-driven coding scheme, consisting of 13 head act strategies, softening devices, and reasons of opting out. Both quantitative and qualitative analyses were conducted to examine participants’ admonition.
The results showed that there were similarities and differences among the four subject groups. The similarities lay in their overall perception of face to face interaction and the perception under the influence of social status. That is, the four groups in general had similar perception toward the overall speech act of admonition, and they also regarded social status as an important factor in their metapragmatic assessment. On the other hand, the difference was that English-major teachers perceived social distance as an important factor when admonishing people, whereas non-English-major teachers did not. Despite the similarities, there were pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic differences found between the two English-major groups performances. The EL group tended to use wh-questions to make indirect accusations, whereas the EE tended to use yes/no questions with negative orientation. The ELs were also found to state facts of annoyance regardless of the interlocutor’s status. The way they showed politeness was to use external downgrading devices. In addition, the quantitative and qualitative analyses indicated that our English teachers’ admonishment exhibited pragmatic transfer of L1, approximation to L2 and their interlanguage development. However, non-English major teachers were highly influenced by native Chinese culture. Obviously, the interlanguage development would result in pragmatic failure and communication breakdown. In order to help our English learners cast away the potential difficulties, it is necessary to introduce cross-cultural and interlanguage pragmatics in the further English education.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background and Motivation 1
1.2 Theoretical Background 3
1.3 Purposes of the Study and the Research Questions 7
1.4 The Organization of the Dissertation 9
CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW 11
2.1 General Issues in Pragmatics 11
2.1.1 Speech Act Theory 12
2.1.2 Politeness Model 16
2.1.2.1 Face in Non-Western Cultures 19
2.1.3 Cooperative Principle 19
2.1.4 Speech act of Admonition 22
2.1.4.1 The concept of admonition 22
2.1.4.2 Potential Influencing Factors in Admonish Speech 23
2.2 Development of Classroom Research 25
2.2.1 Definition of Classroom Research 26
2.2.2 The Management of Interaction in the Classroom 27
2.2.3 The Management of Learning in the Classroom 28
2.2.3.1 Three Aspects of Classroom Settings 28
2.2.3.2 Three Outcomes of Classroom Settings 29
2.2.4 Co-production of a Classroom Conversation 31
2.3 Pragmatics in Language Teaching 31
2.3.1 Rationale for Teaching Pragmatics 31
2.3.1.1 Noticing Hypothesis 33
2.3.1.2 Swain’s Output Hypothesis 34
2.3.1.3 Long’s Interaction Hypothesis 35
2.3.2 Goals of Teaching Pragmatics 37
2.4 Summary 40
CHAPTER THREE RESEARCH DESIGN 43
3.1 Subjects 43
3.2 Instruments 44
3.2.1 Rationales for Using Elicited Data 45
3.2.2 Instructional DCT 53
3.2.3 Interviews with Teachers about the DCT 53
3.2.4 Scale Response Questionnaire 55
3.3 Procedure 56
3.4 Coding 56
3.4.1 Head Acts: Admonition Strategies 59
3.4.1.1 Direct Strategies 61
3.4.1.2 Indirect Strategies 62
3.4.2 Softening Devices 65
3.4.2.1External Modifications 65
3.4.2.2Internal Modifications 65
3.4.2.2.1 Syntactic Downgraders 65
3.4.2.2.2 Lexical/Phrasal Downgraders 66
3.5 Data Analysis 67
3.5.1 Coding Scheme 67
3.5.2 Quantitative Analysis 68
3.5.3 Qualitative Analysis 68
3.6 Summary of Chapter 3 69
CHAPTER FOUR QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION 70
4.1 Distributions of Scaled Response Questionnaire (SRQ) 70
4.1.1 General Discussion 72
4.1.2 SRQ and Gender Difference 73
4.1.3 SRQ and Social Distance 75
4.1.4 Summary 76
4.2 Overall Head Acts 76
4.2.1 Direct Strategies 79
4.2.1.1 Overall Use 79
4.2.1.2 Individual Strategy Use 80
4.2.1.2.1 Penalty 80
4.2.1.2.2 Frequencies of the Strategy Patterns 81
4.2.1.2.3 Threat 82
4.2.1.2.4 Criticism 83
4.2.1.2.5 Direct Admonition 84
4.2.1.3 Summary 86
4.2.2 Indirect Strategies 86
4.2.2.1 Overall Use 87
4.2.2.2 Social Distance 87
4.2.2.3 Indirect Strategy Use 91
4.2.2.3.1 Suggested Repair 91
4.2.2.3.2 Mocking 94
4.2.2.3.3 Modified Admonition 95
4.2.2.3.4 Irony 96
4.2.2.3.5 No Explicit Reproach 96
4.2.2.4 Summary 98
4.3 Two-Strategy Patterns 98
4.4 Teachers’ DCT Productions 102
4.4.1 Strategy Distributions Used by EL and NEL in DCT 103
4.4.1.1 Quantitative Analysis 103
4.4.1.2 Suggested Repair in Interviews 109
4.4.1.2.1 Request for Repair Used by EL in DCT and Interviews 109
4.4.1.2.2 Suggested Repair Used by NEL in DCT and Interviews 112
4.4.2 Two-strategy Patterns Used by EL and NEL 115
CHAPTER FIVE QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION 122
5.1 Teachers’ Interview Productions 122
5.1.1 Strategy Use 123
5.1.2 Gender of the Subjects’ Interlocutors 125
5.2 Teachers’ Perceptions of Explicit Teaching of Admonition Behaviors 128
5.2.1 General Impressions 128
5.2.2 Teachers’ Process Concerns 130
5.2.3 Decision Making 132
5.2.4 Classroom Climate 134
5.3 Qualitative Analysis 137
5.3.1 IA+SR in EE& EL DCT Responses 137
5.3.2 IA+SR in NEL DCT Responses 140
5.4 Summary 142
CHAPTER SIX CONCLUSION 147
6.1 Summary of the Findings 147
6.2 Implications 157
6.2.1 Theoretical Implication 157
6.2.2 Pedagogical Implication 159
6.3 Limitations of the Study 161
6.4 Suggestions for Further Studies 162
REFERENCES 163
Appendix A: The English Version of the instructional DCT 174
Appendix B: Questionnaire of Chinese Version 179
Appendix C: The Interview Questions 183
Appendix D: Examples of Admonition Strategies 185

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3. 1 Summary table of the characteristics of the four subject groups 44
Table 3. 2 Distribution of contextual factors in the DCT situations 52
Table 3. 3 The combinations of social power and social distance variables 53
Table 3. 4 Admonition Strategy 58
Table 3. 5 Softening devices 59
Table 4. 1 Distribution of perception of face-threat from SRQ by the four groups 71
Table 4.2 Means of perception of face-threat from SRQ in different social distance situations by the four groups 75
Table 4. 3 Overall head acts used by the four groups 77
Table 4. 4 Details of each admonition strategy used by the four groups 78
Table 4. 5 Distribution of linguistic forms of threat by the four groups 82
Table 4. 6 Distribution of external modifications in direct admonishion 85
Table 4. 7 Distribution of apologies in direct admonition 85
Table 4. 8 The influence of social status on the use of each indirect strategy 88
Table 4. 9 The influence of social distance on the use of indirect strategies 90
Table 4. 10 Distribution of the functions of suggested repairs 92
Table 4. 11 Request strategies in the request for repair 93
Table 4. 12 Linguistic forms of mood derivable in request for repairs by the four groups 94
Table 4. 13 Distribution of qualifying expressions in modified corrections 96
Table 4. 14 Distribution of no explicit reproach by the four groups 97
Table 4. 15 Distribution of each two- pattern by the four groups 100
Table 4. 16 Distributions of the six individual strategies used by EE, EL and 103
Table 4. 17 Distributions of the six individual strategies used by EL and NEL in the interviews 104
Table 4. 18 Distributions of the six individual strategies used by EL in the interview 106
Table 4. 19 Distributions of the six individual strategies used by NEL in the interview 107
Table 4. 20 Frequencies and percentages of request forms used by EL 110
Table 4. 21 Frequencies and percentages of query preparatory variations used 111
Table 4. 22 Frequencies and percentages of request forms used by NEL 112
Table 4. 23 Frequencies and percentages of query preparatory variations used by NEL 113
Table 4. 24 Two-strategy patterns used by EE, EL and NEL in DCT 116
Table 4. 25 Two-strategy patterns used by EL and NEL in the interview 117
Table 4. 26 Two-strategy patterns used by EL DCT and interview 118
Table 4. 27 Two-strategy patterns used by NEL DCT and interview 119
Table 5. 1 Distributions of the six strategies used by EL and NE-L in DCT 123
Table 5. 2 Distributions of the six individual strategies used by EL and NEL in DCT 124


LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2. 1 (adopted from Leech, 1980) 12
Figure 2. 2 Multidimensional model (taken from Paulston and Tucker, 2003) 25
Figure 2. 3 The relationship between plans and outcomes (Adopted from Allwright & Bailey, 1991) 31
Figure 3. 1 Relation between had act strategies and softening devices 57
Figure 3. 2 Admonition types and strategies (Adopted from House & Kasper, 1981) 61
Figure 4. 1 Means of perception of face threat 72
Figure 4. 2 Teachers’ strategy use to both male and female students 73
Figure 4. 3 Means of strategy of penalty usage 81
Figure 4. 4 Criticism usages among the four subject groups in scenario 5 and 8 84
Figure 4. 5 Distribution of social distance sensitivity 90
Figure 4. 6 Distribution of the Suggested repair used by four subject groups 92
Figure 4. 7 Distribution of mocking among four subject groups in scenario 5 95
Figure 4. 8 multi-strategy patterns 99


REFERENCES

Al-Issa, A. (2003). Sociocultural transfer in L2 speech behaviors: Evidence and motivating factors. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 27, 581-601.
Allwright, D. &Bailey, K. (1991). Focus on the language classroom. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Anderson, J. (1985). Cognitive psychology and its implications (2nd edition). New York: Freeman.
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Bach, K. & Harnish, R. M. (1979). Linguistic communication and speech acts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bailey, K., & Numan, D. (Eds.). (1995). Voices from the language classroom. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Banerjee, J. & Carrell, P. L. (1988). Tuck in your shirt, you squid: Suggestions in ESL. Language learning, 38, 313-47.
Bardovi Harling, K. & Hartford , B. s. (1996). Input in an institutional settings. SSLA 18: 171-88.
Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Griffin, R. (2005). L2 pragmatic awareness: Evidence from the ESL classroom. System, 33, 401-415.
Bardovi Harling, K. & Hartford , B. s. (1990). Congruence in native and non-native conversations: Status balance in the academic advising session. Language learning, 40, 467-501.
Bardovi Harling, K. & Hartford , B. s. (1993). Learning the rules of academic talk: A longitudinal study of pragmatic change. SSLA 15, 279-304.
Beebe, L. M., & Takahashi, T. (1989), Sociolinguistic variation in face-threatening speech acts: Chastisement and disagreement. In M. R. Eisenstein (Ed.), The dynamic interlanguage: Empirical studies in second language variation (pp. 199-218). NY: Plenum.
Beebe, L. M., Takahashi, T. & Uliss-Weltz, R. (1990). Pragmatic transfer in ESL refusals. In R. Scarcella, E. S. Anderson & S. D. Krashen (Eds.), Developing communicative competence in a second language (pp. 55-75). Boston: Heinle and Heinle Publishers.
Beebe, L. M., Takahashi, T., & Uliss-Weltz, R. (1990). Pragmatic transfer in ESL refusals. In R. Scarcela, E. Andersen, & S. D. Krashen (Eds.), On the development of communicative competence in a second language (pp. 55-73). New York: Newbury House.
Beebe, L., & Cummings, M. C. (1996). Natural speech act data versus written questionnaire data: How data collection method affects speech performance. In S. Gass & J. Neu (Eds.), Speech act across cultures (pp. 65-86). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Beebe, L.M., & Cummings, M.C. (1985). Speech act performance: A function of the data collection procedure? Paper presented at the TESOL Convention, New York.
Beebe, L., & Takahashi, T. (1989a). Do you have a bag?: Social statue and patterned variation in second language acquisition. In S. Gass, C. Madden, D. Preston, & L. Selinker (Eds.), Variation in second language acquisition: Discourse and pragmatics (pp.103-125). Clevedon and Philadelphia: Multicultural Matters.
Bialystock, E. (1993). Symbolic representation and attentional control in pragmatic competence. In G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics (pp. 43-58). Oxford University Press.
Biq, Y. (1984). Indirect speech acts in Chinese polite expressions. Journal of the Chinese Language Teachers’ Association, 19 (3), 1-10.
Blum-Kulka, S, & House, J. (1989). Cross-cultural and situational variation in requesting behavior. In S. Blum-Kulka, J House & G. Kasper (Eds.), Cross-cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies (pp. 123-154). Norwood: Ablex.
Blum-Kulka, S. (1983). Interpreting and performing speech acts in a second language: A cross-cultural study of Hebrew and English. In N. Wolfson & E. Judd (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language acquisition (pp. 36-55). New York: Newbury House.
Blum-Kulka, S. (1991). Interlanguage pragmatics: The case of requests. In R. Phillipson, E. Kellerman, L. Selinker, M. Sharwood Smith, & M. Swain (Ed.), Foreign/second language pedagogy research (pp. 255-272). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, g. (1989). Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex Publishing Co.
Bou-Franch, P. (1998). On pragmatic transfer. Studies in English Language and Linguistics, 0, 5-20.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. D. (1978). Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. In E. N. Goody (Ed.), Questions and politeness (pp. 56-289). Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. D. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
Byon, A. S. (2004). Sociopragmatic analysis of Korean requests: Pedagogical settings. Journal of Pragmatics, 36, 1673-1704.
Canale, M. (1983). From communicative competence to language pedagogy. In J. Richards & R. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and communication (pp. 2-27). London: Longman.
Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1-47.
Cenoz, J. (2003). The intercultural style hypothesis: L1 and L2 interaction in requesting behavior. In V. Cook (Ed.), Effect of the second language on the first (pp. 62-80). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Lts.
Chang, Y. F. (2001). Socialcultural competence and language transfer: Cases involving refusals. English Teaching & Learning, 26(2), 1-12.
Chardron, C. (1988). Second language classrooms: Reasearch on teaching and learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Chen, H. (2006). A Study of Chinese EFL interlanguage requests. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Sun Yat-sen University, Taiwan.
Chen, M. (2006). An interlanguage study of the speech act of disagreement made by Chinese EFL speakers in Taiwan. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Sun Yat-sen University, Taiwan.
Chen, Y. (2007). EFL learners’ strategy use and instructional effects in interlanguage pragmatics: The case of complaints. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, National Taiwan University, Taiwan.
Chung, A. S. (2005). Pragmatic transfer: Chinese learners of English in request-making. Journal of Ching-Yun University, 25 (1), 321-344.
Cicourel, A. (1987). On John R. Searle's intentionality. Review article. Journal of Pragmatics 11: 641-660.
Clyne, M. G. (1977). Intercultural communication breakdown and communication conflict: Towards a linguistic model and its exemplification. In C. Molony, H. Zoble, & W. Stölting (Eds.), Deutsch im kontakt mit anderen sprachen /German in contact with other languages (pp. 129-146). Kronberg: Scriptor-Verlag.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. (1990). Research on teaching and teacher research: The issues that divide. Educational Researcher, 19, 2-11.
Cohen, A. D. & Olshtain, E. (1993). The production of speech acts by EFL learners. TESOL Quarterly 27, 33-56.
Cortazzi, M. (1991). Primary teaching how it is: A narrative account. London: David Foulton.
Dogancay-Aktuna, S., & Kamisli, s. (1997). Pragmatic transfer in interlanguage development: A case study of advanced EFL learners. Paper presented at the 11th National Linguistics Conference, Ankara, Turkey. (ERIC Document No. ED408818)
DuFon, M. (2001). Triangulation in qualitative SLA research on interlanguage pragmatics. In X. Bonch-Bruevich, W. J. Crawford, J. Hellermann, C. Higgins, & H. Nguyen (Eds.), The past, present, and future of second language research (pp. 251-270). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla.
Dunkin, M. J., & Biddle, B. J. (1974). The study of teaching. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Edmondson, W., & House, A. J. (1991). Do learners talk too much? The waffle phenomenon in interlaguage pragmatics. In R. Phillipson, e. Kellerman, L. Selinker, M. Sharwood, & M. Swain (Eds.), Foreign/Second language pedagogy research: A communicative volume for Claus Faerch (pp. 273-287). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Edstrom, A. (2004). Expressions of disagreement by Venezuelans I conversation: Reconsidering the influence of culture. Journal of Pragmatics, 36, 1499-1518
Eisenstein M. & Bodman, J. (1986). "I very appreciate": Expressions of gratitude
by native and non-native speakers of American English. Applied Linguistics, 7, 167-79.
Eisenstein, M., & Bodman, J. W. (1993). Expressing gratitude in American English. In G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics (pp. 64-81). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis (1990). Activities and procedures for teacher preparation. In J. C. Richards & D. Nunan (Eds.), Second language teacher education (pp. 26-36). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, R. (1993). The structural syllabus and second language acquisition.
English. World Englishes, 9, 317-25.
Faerch, C. & G. Kasper. (1984). Pragmatic knowledge: Rules and procedures.
Applied Linguistics 5, 214-25.
Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2003). Declining an invitation: A cross-cultural study of pragmatic strategies in American English and Latin American Spanish. Multilingua, 22, 225-255.
Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2004). Interlanguage refusals: Linguistic politeness and length of residence in the target community. Language Learning, 54, 587-653.
Fukushima, S. (1990). Offers and requests: Performance by Japanese learners of English. World Englishes, 9, 317-325.
Gaies, S. J. (1980). ‘Classroom-centered research: some consumer guidelines’. Paper presented at the Second Annual TESOL Summer Meeting, Albuquerque, N.M.
Gaies, S., &Bowers, R. (1990). Clinical supervision of language teaching: The supervisor as trainer and educator. In J. C. Richards & D. Nunan (Eds.), Second language teacher education (pp. 167-181). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Gass, S., & Selinker, L. (Eds.), (1992). Language transfer in language learning. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face to face behavior. New York: Anchor Books.
Golato, A. (2003). Studying compliment responses: A comparison of DCTs and
recordings of naturally occurring talk. Applied linguistics, 24, 90-121.
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole& J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics (Vol. 3, pp. 41-58). New York: Academic Press.
Gumperz, J. J. (1972). Sociolinguistics and Communication in Small Groups. In Pride and Holmes (1972). Handbook of second language acquisition. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Halkes, R., & Deijkers, R. (1984). Teachers’ thinking criteria. In R. Jalkes & J. Olson (Eds.), Teacher thinking: A new perspective on persisting problems in education. Lisse, Switzerland: Swets & Zeitlinger.
Hassall, T. (2003). Requests by Australian learners of Indonesian. Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 1903-1928.
Horn, L. (1988). Pragmatic theory. In F. Newmeyer (ed.), Linguistics: The Cambridge survey. Vol.1 linguistic theory: Foundations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 113-145.
Hou, Y. (2006). A cross-cultural study of the perception of apology: Effect of contextual factors, exposure to the target language, interlocutor ethnicity and task language. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Sun Yat-sen University, Taiwan.
House, J. & Kasper, G. (1981). Politeness markers in English and German. In F.
Coulmas (Ed.), Conversational routine (pp. 157-86). The Hague: Mouton
Publishers.
House, J. (1996). Developing pragmatic fluency as a foreign language: Routines and metapragmatic awareness. Studies in second language acquisition, 18, 255-252.
House, J., & Kasper, G. (1987). Interlanguage pragmatics: Requesting in a foreign language. In W. Löerscher & R. Schulze (Eds.), Perspectives on language in performance: Festschrift for Werner Hüllen on the occasion of his 60th birthday (pp. 1250-1288). Tubingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.
Hymes, D. H. (1972). On communicative competence. In J. B. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds.), Sociolinguistics: Selected readings (pp.269-293). Harmondsworth, England: Penguin Books.
Ishida, K. (2006). How can you be so certain? The use of hearsay evidential by English-speaking learners of Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 1281-1304.
Johnston, B., Kasper, G., & Ross, S. (1998). Effects of rejoinders in production questionnaires. Applied Linguistics, 19 (2), 157-182.
Johnston, S. (1990) Understanding curriculum decision-making through teacher images. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 22, 463-471.
Johnston, S. (1992). Images: A way of understanding the practical knowledge of student teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 128-136.
Kasper G. (2000). Data collection in pragmatics research. In H. Spencery-Oatey (Ed.),
Culturally speaking: Managing rapport through talk across cultures (pp.316-41). London and New York: Continuum
Kasper, G. & Dahl, M. (1991). Research methods in interlanguage pragmatics. SSLA, 13, 215-47.
Kasper, G. (1992). Pragmatic transfer. Second Language Research, 8, 203-231.
Kasper, G. (1997). Can pragmatic competence be taught? Honolulu: University of
Hawaii, Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center
Kasper, G. (2001). Classroom research on interlanguage pragmatics. In K. R. Rose
& G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 33-60). Cambridge
University Press.
Kasper, G., & Dahl, M. (1991). Research methods in interlanguage pragmatics. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 215-247.
Kasper, G., & Rose, K. R. (2002). Pragmatic development in a second language. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Koike, D. A. & Pearson, L. (2005). The effect of instruction and feedback in the development of pragmatic competence. System, 33, 481-501.
Koike, D. A. (1989). Pragmatic competence and adult L2 acquisition: Speech acts in interlanguage. Modern Language Journal, 73, 79-89.
Kuha, M. (1999). The influence of interaction and instructions of speech act data.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University.
Kwon, J. (2004). Expressing refusals in Korean and American English. Multilingual, 23, 339-364.
Lakeoff, R. (1972). Language in context. Language 48, 907-27.
Lakoff (1973). The logic of politeness: Minding your P’s and Q’s. Paper presented at the Ninth Regional Meeting of Chicago Linguistic Society.
Lee, J.S. (2000). Analysis of pragmatic speech styles among Korean learners of English: A focus on complaint-apology speech act sequences. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Stanford University.
Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.
Lee-Wong, S. M. (1994). Imperatives in requests: Direct or impolite- observations from Chinese. Pragmatics, 4, 491-515.
Liao, C. (1996). A contrastive study of culture and sex in the use of post-refusal maxims. Journal of Feng-jia University, 30, 29-61.
Liao, C., & Bresnahan, M. J. (1996). A contrastive pragmatic study on American English and Mandarin refusal strategies. Language Sciences, 18, 703-727.
Lii-Shih, Y. E. (1994). What do “Yes” and “No” really mean in Chinese? In J. E. Alatis (Ed.), Georgetown University round table on language and linguistics: Educational linguistics, cross-cultural communication, and global interdependence (pp. 128-149). Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
Lii-Shih, Y. E. (1999). Conversational politeness and foreign language teaching. Taipei, Taiwan: Crane Publishing Co.
Lin, H.-O. (1998). Reported speech in Mandarin conversational discourse. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, National Taiwan Normal University.
Lin, M. (2006a). EFL learners’ pragmatic transfer: Evidence from interlanguage refusals. TELL Journal: Teaching of Languages, Linguistics, and Literature, 3, 23-50.
Lin, M. (2006b). Pragmatic transfer in EFL learners’ refusals in Taiwan. Paper presented in the 3rd International conference on Teaching of Languages, Linguistics, and Literature. National Kaohsiung Normal University.
Lin, Y. H & Chen X. L. (2006). The interlanguage of Chinese EFL requests—The direct strategies. The Proceedings of the 23rd Conference on English Teaching and Learning in the Republic of China (ETL-23) (pp. 892-909). Taipei: Crane Publishing Co., LTD.
Liu, S. (2001). Studies on transfer in second language acquisition. Guangxi Normal University Journal. Retrieved September 14, 2006, from http://www.gxnu.edu.cn/Personal/szliu/Transfer%20in%20SLA%2Research.doc
Liu, S. (2002). Studies on negative pragmatic transfer in interlanguage pragmatics. Guangxi Normal University Journal. Retrieved September 14, 2006, from http://www.gxnu.edu.cn/Personal/szliu/negative%20pragmatic%20transfer.doc
Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie & T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413-468). New York: Academic Press.
Maeshiba, N., Yoshinaga, N., Kasper, G., & Ross, S. (1996). Transfer and proficiency in interlanguage apologizing. In S. Gass & J. Neu (Eds.), Speech acts across cultures (pp. 155-187). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Mao, L. R. (1993). I conclude not: Toward a pragmatic account of metadiscourse. Rhetoric Review, 11, 265-289.
Marland, P.W. (1987). Response to Clandinin and Connelly. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 19, 507-509.
Marti, L. (2006). Indirectness and politeness in Turkish-German bilingual and Turkish monolingual requests. Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 1836-1869.
Martinez-Flor, A. & Fukuya, Y. J. (2005). The effects of instruction on learners’
production of appropriate and accurate suggestions. System, 33, 463-80.
Mey, J. (1993). Pragmatics: An introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.
Olshtain E. & Cohen, A. D. (1991). Teaching speech act behavior to nonnative
speakers. In Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign
language (pp. 154-66). Boston: Heilne & Heinle Publisher.
Olshtain E. & Weinbach, L. (1993). Interlanguage features of the speech act of
complaining. In G. Kasper and S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage
pragmatics (pp.108-22). New York: Oxford University Press.
Owen, M. (1983). Apologies and remedial interchanges. Berlin: Mouton.
Pica, T. and Doughty, C. (1985). The role of group work in classroom second language acquisition, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 7, 223-49.
Pomerantz, A. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In J. M. Atkinson, & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp.57-101). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Qu, J., & Wang, L. (2005). Pragmatic transfer in compliment response by Chinese Learners of English. Sino-US English Teaching, 2, 66-75.
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G.. & Svartvik, J. (1972). A grammar of contemporary English. London: Longman.
Richards, J. (1996). Teachers’ Maxims in language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 30, 281-296.
Rintell, E. M., & Mitchell, C. J. (1989). Studying requests and apologies: An inquiry into method. In S. Blum-Kulka, J. House, & G. Kasper (Eds.), Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies (pp. 248-272). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Rose, K. R. & Ng, C. (2001). Inductive and deductive teaching of compliments and
compliment responses. In K. R. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in
language teaching (pp. 145-70). Cambridge University Press.
Rose, K. R. (1994). On the validity of discourse completion tests in nonwestern contexts. Applied Linguistics, 15, 1-14.
Sapir, E. (1961). Culture, language and personality. Berkley: University of California Press.
Sasaki, M. (1998). Investigating EFL students’ production of speech acts: A comparison of production questionnaires and role plays. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 457-484.
Saville-Troike, M. (1996). The Ethnography of communication. In McKay and Hornberger (1996).
Schmidt, R. (1990). The Role of Consciousness in Second Language Learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 17-46.
Schmidt, R. (1993). Consciousness, learning and interlanguage pragmatics. In G.
Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics (pp. 21-42). Oxford University Press.
Schmidt, R. (1995). Consciousness and foreign language learning: A tutorial on the
role of attention and awareness in learning. In R. Schmidt (Ed), Attention and
awareness in foreign language learning (pp. 1-63). Honolulu; University of
Hawaii, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
Searle, J. R. (1975). Indirect speech acts. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts (pp. 59-82). New York: Academic Press.
Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Education Review, 57, 1-22.
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance: Communication and cognition (2nd Ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.
Stake, J & Katz, J. (1982). Teacher-pupil relationships in the school classroom: teacher-gender and pupil-gender differences. American Educational Research Journal, 19, 465-471.
Su, I. (2004). Bi-directional transfer in EFL users’ requesting behavior. English Teaching& Learning, 29(2), 79-98.
Swain, M. (1993). The output hypothesis: Just speaking and writing aren't enough.
The Canada Modern Language Review, 50,158-64.
Swann, J. & Graddol, D. (1988). Gender inequalities in classroom talk. English in Education, 22, 48-65.
Takahashi, S. (2001). The role of input enhancement in developing pragmatic
competence. In K. R. Rose and G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language
teaching (pp. 171-99). Cambridge University Press.
Takahashi, S. (2001). The role of input enhancement in the developing pragmatic competence. In K. R. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 171-199). Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
Takahashi, T., & Beebe, L. M. (1993). Cross-linguistic influence in the speech act of correction. In G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics (p.138-157). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tanaka, S. (1988). Politeness: Some problems for Japanese speakers of English. JALT Journal, 9, 81-102.
Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4, 91-112.
Thomas, J. (1995). Meaning in interaction: An introduction to pragmatics. London, U.K.: Longman.
Trosborg, A. (1987). Apology strategies in natives/non-natives. Journal of
Pragmatics, 11, 147-67.
Trosborg, A. (1995). Interlanguage pragmatics: Requests, complaints and apologies. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Tuan, H. (2005a). Expressions of disagreement in arguing by different language speakers: An examination of the influence of culture and power. Tzu Hui Academic Journal, 1, 151-166.
Tuan, H. (2005b). Sociolinguistic variation of power and severity in interlanguage behavior of disagreement. K.U.A.S. Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 2, 169-195.
Tuan, H. (2006a). Analysis of responses to face-threatening speech acts: American and Taiwanese English. Journal of SHU-TE University, 8, 55-74.
Tuan, H. (2006b). An analysis of disagreement speech act in Taiwanese EFL speakers’ arguing talk. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, National Kaohsiung Normal University, Taiwan.
van Lier, L. (1988). The classroom and the language learner: Ethnography and second language classroom research. London: Longman.
White, J. (1998). ‘Getting the learners’ attention: a typographical input enhancement study.’ In Doughty, C. and William, J. (eds). Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
White, L. (1991). Adverb placement in second language acquisition: some effects of positive and negative evidence in the classroom. Second Language Research 7: 133-61.
Whorf, B. (1956). Language, thought and reality: Selected writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Wierzbicka, A. (1985). 'Different cultures, different languages, different speech acts. Journal of Pragmatics, 9: 145-178
Wolfson, N. (1981). Invitations, compliments, and the competence of the native speaker. International Journal of Psycholinguistics, 24(4), 7-22.
Wolfson, N. (1981). Compliments in cross-cultural perspective. TESOL Quarterly,
15, 117-24.
Wolfson, N., Marmor, T., & Jones, S. (1989). Problems in the comparison of speech acts across cultures. In S. Blum-Kulka, J. House, & G. Kasper (Eds.), Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies (pp. 174-196). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Xu, X., & Xia, W. (2003). Contrastive studies of pragmatic strategies in English refusals. Journal of Southwest University for Nationalities, 24, 250-255.
Yu, M. (1999a). Universalistic and cultural-specific perspectives on variation in the acquisition of pragmatic competence in a second language. Pragmatics, 9 (2), 281-312.
Yu, M. (1999b). Cross-cultural and interlanguage pragmatics: Developing
communicative competence in a second language. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation. Harvard University.
Yu, M. (2003). On the universality of face: Evidence from Chinese compliment response behavior. Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 1679-1710.
Yu, M. (2004). Interlinguistic variation and similarity in second language speech act behavior. The Modern Language Journal, 88, 102-119.
Yuan, Y. (2001). An inquiry into empirical pragmatics data-gathering methods: Written DCTs, oral DCTs, field notes, and natural conversations. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 271-292.
Zeichner, K., Tabachnik, B.R., & Densmore, K. (1987). Individual, institutional and cultural influences on the development of teacher’s craft knowledge. In J. Calderhead (Ed.), Exploring teaching thinking (pp. 21-59). London: Caswell.


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
無相關論文
 
1. 陳翠雯、侯依伶、劉嘉茹(2010)。不同非語詞刺激對國小學生月相概念學習之影響。科學教育學刊,18(4),361-387。
2. 林陳涌、徐毓慧(2002)。國一學生對血糖恆定性的先前概念。科學教育學刊,10(4),373-387。
3. 陳仁輝、楊德清(2010)。台灣、美國與新加坡七年級代數教材之比較研究。科學教育學刊,18(1),43-61。
4. 林素華、劉燿誠(2010)。國中學生「恆定性」的另有概念之探討。科學教育學刊,18(1), 25-41。
5. 郭重吉(1992)。從建構主義的觀點探討中小學數理教學的改進。科學發展月刊,20(5),548-570。
6. 郭重吉(1988)。從認知觀點探討自然科學的學習,教育學院學報, 13, 351-371。
7. 吳宛儒、蔡鳳秋、楊德清(2005)。故事情境融入國小數學科教學之研究~以面積單元為例。科學教育研究與發展季刊,41,74-94。
8. 邱美虹、林靜雯(2002)。以多重類比探究兒童電流心智模式之改變。科學教育學刊,10(2),109-134。
9. 1. 林保淳<通俗小說的類型整合—是論金庸小說的「虛」與「實」>,台北:《漢學研究》,1999年6月,第17卷第1期
10. 張靜儀、陳世峰(2002)。國小學童聲音概念二階段評量診斷工具之發展研究。屏東師院學報,17,401-440。
11. 邱美虹、吳文龍、 鍾曉蘭、李雪碧(2013)。以概念演化樹探討跨年級學生理想氣體心智模式之發展歷程。科學教育學刊,21(2), 135-162。
12. 徐新逸(1995)。錨氏情境教學法教材設計、發展與應用。視聽教育雙月刊,37(1),14-22。
13. 楊家興(1995)。情境教學理論與超媒體學習環境。教學科技與媒體,22,40-48。
14. 劉希文(2013)。以問題解決的情境認知減緩哲學抽象性導致的學習困難。通識教育學刊, 12,9-38。
15. 蔡興國、張惠博、陳錦章(2014)。使用系統基模教學策略修正高中學生力的迷思概念之研究。 科學教育月刊,370,2-18。
 
無相關點閱論文