政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/130883
English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  全文笔数/总笔数 : 113303/144284 (79%)
造访人次 : 50827315      在线人数 : 829
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
搜寻范围 查询小技巧：
  • 您可在西文检索词汇前后加上"双引号"，以获取较精准的检索结果
  • 若欲以作者姓名搜寻，建议至进阶搜寻限定作者字段，可获得较完整数据
    •  进阶搜寻


    请使用永久网址来引用或连结此文件: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/130883


    题名: 全民英檢中高級與高級寫作中從屬關係命題結合之研究
    A Study on Proposition Combination with Subordinate Relations in the Compositions by GEPT High-intermediate and Advanced Writers
    作者: 柳薇芬
    Liu, Wei-feng
    贡献者: 尤雪瑛
    Yu, Hsueh-ying
    柳薇芬
    Liu, Wei-feng
    关键词: 命題結合
    語義關係
    句法結構
    從屬關係
    寫作教學
    Proposition combination
    Semantic relations
    Syntactic structures
    Subordination
    Writing instruction
    日期: 2020
    上传时间: 2020-08-03 17:16:37 (UTC+8)
    摘要: 英文寫作中很重要的部分在於如何將想法用適當的文法結構表達。然而， 以英語為外語的習得者通常未曾被教導過如何選擇適當的文法句型來精確地陳述命題 (proposition)。文獻上也鮮有以修辭及篇章分析的角度來討論如何將抽象想法轉化為合邏輯的命題，並以合乎文法的書面形式表達。通常一個命題可以用一個句子來寫，但更多的情況是把多個命題整合在一個句子裡。本論文旨在探究英語為外語習得者如何在作文當中，使用文法結構來結合具有從屬關係之命題。分析的資料來自通過全民英檢中高級與高級寫作測驗的100篇作文。根據Halliday 與 Hasan (1976) 及 Stalter (1978) 提出的四種語義關係與七項文法結構為理論架構。這四種語義關係為闡述、因果、時間與逆轉；七種文法則為形容詞子句、副詞子句、名詞子句、名詞化結構、分詞結構、不定詞、介系詞片語。兩位具有語言學背景的分析者先就100篇作文中挑出內含兩個以上命題的句子，然後分析句子內命題之間的語義關係，再檢視其語義關係所使用的文法結構。
    研究結果顯示第一、闡述關係為資料中最常使用的命題結合關係，在中高級與高級中都佔了五成以上。此外，闡述與因果則在全部的語義關係中佔了90%。第二、闡述關係最常用不定詞、名詞子句及介系詞片語來表達。這些結構通常用來表示一個人的態度、介紹新訊息及總結重點。因果類則最常使用副詞子句及介系詞片語來陳述。這兩個結構用於表示動作發生的理由、條件及目的。時間與逆轉類也都大量使用副詞子句及介系詞片語來表達動作的時間框架或背景。第三、在闡述及因果兩類中，高級與中高級的應試者傾向使用不同的文法結構。在闡述類中，高級的應試者使用更多種類的介系詞片語及名詞化結構；在因果類中，中高級的應試者使用較多的限定類形容詞子句及動作類名詞化結構。第四、藉由分析四種語義結合所使用的句法結構，本研究顯示出闡述類的語義結合通常在詞組內發生；因果、時間及逆轉三類則大多是子句的組合。最後，本論文建議在寫作教學中，命題結合應從修辭的角度切入，並向學生解釋文法結構的篇章功能。未來的研究則可進一步探討不同英語能力者使用不同文法結構來結合相同語義的原因，且比較英語為外語習得者及母語者結合命題的方式。
    In the process of translating ideas to language, writers search for syntactic structures, or sentence patterns, to indicate propositions. Nevertheless, the choice of an appropriate sentence structure to match the intended meaning is a challenge to L2 writers. Little research has been conducted from rhetorical and discourse perspective to explore how L2 writers transform abstract ideas into logical propositions, and further translate these propositions into sentences. To respond to the issue, the present study investigates how L2 writers use language forms to combine propositions with subordinate relations in English writings. The analysis data are 100 writings of test takers passing the high-intermediate and advanced levels in GEPT. The analysis framework includes both semantic relations between subordinate and superordinate propositions and their syntactic structures. The semantic analysis is based on Halliday and Hasan (1976) and Stalter’s (1978) coherence relations that include four basic semantic relations of elaboration, causal, temporal and adversative used or found in text. The syntactic analysis covers seven syntactic structures of adverbial, noun and relative clauses, participles, prepositional phrases, infinitives and nominalizations. Two analysts with TESOL background code the writings with the two systems: the first is the semantic relations between the subordinate and superordinate propositions in sentences; the other is the syntactic structures used to realize the semantic relations.
    The results show, first, elaboration accounts for over 50% of the total semantic relations at both proficiency levels. Along with the causal relation, they constitute around 90% of the semantic relations. It suggests that elaboration and causal are the major relations employed in the data. Second, in terms of the grammatical structures employed to perform the four semantic relations, elaboration is mainly represented by infinitives, noun clauses and prepositional phrases. The structures are largely used to show ones’ attitude, introduce new ideas or summarize main points. The causal relation is dominantly fulfilled by adverbial clauses and prepositional phrases to manifest the reason, condition, method and purpose of an action. As for temporal and adversative, both are mostly performed by adverbial clauses and prepositional phrases to give either a time frame or a contrasting idea as background. Third, there are some distinct differences in the structures used to realize the relations of elaboration and causal between the two proficiency levels. In elaboration, writers at the advanced level used more diverse types of prepositional phrases and nominalizations. For causal, the writers at the high-intermediate level employed more restrictive relative clauses and more gerundive nominals to indicate the cause. Finally, the analysis of the syntactic levels at which proposition combination occurs reveals a hierarchical scale of the semantic relations. It is found that elaboration in the data is prone to happen at the within-phrase level, while causal, temporal and adversative are mostly composed of the above-phrase combination. The findings suggest that proposition combination involves rhetorical consideration and discourse functions. From the pedagogical viewpoint, syntactic structures used to combine propositions should be explicitly explained to learners in L2 writing classes. Future research can be conducted to further explore the contributing factors to the differences between two proficiency levels in proposition combination. A cross-cultural comparison can also be done to see if and how Mandarin learners of English and L1 English writers use different strategies to combine propositions.
    參考文獻: Ahmadi, A., & Parhizgar, S. (2017). Coherence errors in Iranian EFL learners` writing: A rhetorical structure theory approach. Language Horizons, 1(1), 9-37.
    Arnaudet, M. L., & Barrett, M. E. (1990). Paragraph development: A guide for students of English. Prentice Hall Regents.
    Astari, D. A. (2019). An Analysis of the coherence of the students’ writing in report text at the second semester of the eleventh grade of SMAN 1 Terusan Nunyai Lampung Tengah in 2018/2019 academic year. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, UIN Raden Intan Lampung.
    Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1992). The relationship of form and meaning: A cross-sectional study of tense and aspect in the interlanguage of learners of English as a second language. Applied Psycholinguistics, 13(3), 253-278.
    Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1995). A narrative perspective on the development of the tense/aspect system in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17(2), 263-291.
    Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1998). Narrative structure and lexical aspect: Conspiring factors in second language acquisition of tense-aspect morphology. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20(4), 471-508.
    Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2000). Tense and aspect in second language acquisition: Form, meaning, and use. Blackwell.
    Baumgarten, N. (2007). Converging conventions? Macrosyntactic conjunction with English and and German und. Text & Talk, 27(2), 139-170.
    Beekman, J., & Callow, J. (1974). Translating the word of God, with scripture and topical indexes. Zondervan Publishing House.
    Benesch, S., Rakijas, M., & Rorschach, B. (1987). Academic writing workshop. Wadsworth.
    Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Erlbaum.
    Bhatia, V.K. (1993). Analysing genre: Language use in professional settings. Longman.
    Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., Finegan, E., & Quirk, R. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English (Vol. 2). Longman.
    Biber, D., & Gray, B. (2011). Grammatical change in the noun phrase: The influence of written language use. English Language and Linguistics, 15(2), 223–250.
    Bloor, T., & Bloor, M. (1995). The functional analysis of English. Oxford University Press.
    Brown, H. D. (2007). Principles of language learning and teaching (5th ed.). Pearson Education.
    Burstein, J. C., Kukich, K., Andreyev, S., & Marcu, D. (2001). Towards automatic classification of discourse elements in essays. Proceedings of 39th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 98-105.
    Burstein, J., & Marcu, D. (2003). A machine learning approach for identification of thesis and conclusion statements in student essays. Computers and the Humanities, 37(4), 455–467.
    Carter, R., & McCarthy, M. (2006). Cambridge grammar of English. Cambridge University Press.
    Carenini, G., & Moore, J. D. (2000). A Strategy for generating evaluative arguments. Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Natural Language Generation, 47–54.
    Celce-Murcia, M., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (1999). The grammar book: An ESL/EFL teacher’s course. Heinle and Heinle.
    Chang, Y.-Y., & Swales, J. M. (1999). Informal elements in English academic writing: Threats or opportunities for advanced non-native speakers? In C. N. Candlin & K. Hyland (Eds.), Writing: Texts, processes and practices (pp. 145–167). Longman.
    Chen, Y. P., & Foley, J. A. (2004). Problems with the metaphorical reconstrual of meaning in Chinese EFL learners’ expositions. In L. J. Ravelli & R. A. Ellis (Eds.), Analysing academic writing: Contextualized frameworks (pp. 190-232). Continuum.
    Chenoweth, N. A., & Hayes, J. R. (2001). Fluency in writing: Generating text in L1 and L2. Written Communication, 18(1), 80-98.
    Chomsky, N. (1956). Three models for the description of language. IRE Transactions on information theory, 2(3), 113-124.
    Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. Mouton Publishers.
    Chomsky, N. (1961). On the notion ‘rule of grammar’. Proceedings of the Twelfth Symposium in Applied Mathematics, 12, 6-24.
    Chomsky, N. (1964). Current issues in linguistic theory. Mouton Publishers.
    Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. MIT Press.
    Chomsky, N. (1966). Linguistic theory. In J. Allen & P. Van Buren (Eds.), Chomsky: Selected readings (pp. 152–9). Oxford University Press.
    Chomsky, N. (1975). The logical structure of linguistic theory. Plenum Press.
    Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 37-46.
    Collins, G. G. (2011). An examination of errors of coherence in adolescent sentence combining. Published PhD dissertation, Louisiana States University.
    Combs, W. E. (1975). Further effects and implications of sentence-combining exercises for the secondary language arts curriculum. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, University of Minnesota.
    Comrie, B. (1976). The syntax of action nominals: A cross-language study. Lingua, 40(2-3), 177-201.
    Concha, S., & Paratore, J. R. (2011). Local coherence in persuasive writing: An exploration of Chilean students’ metalinguistic knowledge, writing process, and writing products. Written Communication, 28(1), 34-69.
    Connor, U. (1984). A study of cohesion and coherence in English as a second language students’ writing. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 17(3), 301-316.
    Connors, R. J. (2000). The erasure of the sentence. College Composition and Communication, 52(1), 96-128.
    Cooper, C. R. (1973). An outline for writing sentence-combing problems. English Journal, 62(1), 96-108.
    Crothers, E. J. (1979). Paragraph structure inference. Ablex Publishing Corporation.
    Crowhurst, M. (1983). Sentence combining: Maintaining realistic expectations. College Composition and Communication, 34, 62-72.
    Cruse, A. (1986). Lexical semantics. Cambridge University Press.
    Crymes, R. (1971). The relation of study about language to language performance: With special reference to nominalization. TESOL Quarterly, 5(3), 217-230.
    Daiker, D., Kerek, A., & Morenberg, M. (1978). Sentence combining and syntactic Maturity in freshman English. College Composition and Communication, 29, 36-41.
    De Beaugrande, R. (1984). Text production: Toward a science of composition (Vol. 11). Ablex Publishing Corporation.
    Degand, L., & Sanders, T. (2002). The impact of relational markers on expository text comprehension in L1 and L2. Reading and Writing, 15(7-8), 739-757.
    De Larios, J. R., Manchón, R. M., & Murphy, L. (2006). Generating text in native and foreign language writing: A temporal analysis of problemsolving formulation processes. The Modern Language Journal, 90(1), 100-114.
    De Larios, J. R., Marín, J., & Murphy, L. (2001). A temporal analysis of formulation processes in L1 and L2 writing. Language Learning, 51(3), 497-538.
    De Larios, J. R., Murphy, L., & Manchón, R. (1999). The use of restructuring strategies in EFL writing: A study of Spanish learners of English as a foreign language. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(1), 13-44.
    Demirgünes, S. (2017). Microstructural (cohesion and coherence) text generation problems of Syrian refugee students learning Turkish. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 5(4), 581-590.
    Downing, A. (2015). English grammar: A university course (3rd ed.). Routledge.
    Dudley-Evans, T., & St. John, M. J. (1998). Developments in ESP: A multi-disciplinary approach. Cambridge University Press.
    Eastwood, J. (1999). Oxford practice grammar: With answers. Oxford University Press.
    Elbow, P. (1985). The shifting relationships between speech and writing. College Composition and Communication, 36, 283-303.
    Enginarlar, H. (1994). Sentence combining plus: A new use for an old technique. ELT Journal, 48(3), 214-224.
    Fillmore, C. J. (1968). The case for case. In E. Bach & R. T. Harms (Eds.), Universals of linguistic theory (pp. 1–90). Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
    Fillmore, C. J. (1974). Pragmatics and the description of discourse. In C. J. Fillmore, G. Lakoff & R. Lakoff (Eds.), Berkeley studies in syntax and semantics (Vol. 1) (pp. V-1-V-21). University of California at Berkeley.
    Fillmore, C. J. (1977). Scenes-and-frames semantics. In A. Zampolli (Ed.), Linguistics structures processing (pp. 55-81). North Holland Publishing Company.
    Firbas, J. (1964). On defining the theme in functional sentence analysis. Linguistiques de Prague, 1, 267-280.
    Firbas, J. (1965). A note on transition proper in functional sentence analysis. Philologica Pragensia, 8(47), 2-3.
    Firbas, J. (1971). On the concept of communicative dynamism in the theory of functional sentence perspective. Brno Studies in English, 7, 12-47.
    Firbas, J. (1974). Some aspects of the Czechoslovak approach to problems of functional sentence perspective. In F. Danes (Ed.), Papers on Functional Sentence Perspective (pp. 11-37). Mouton Publishers.
    Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32(4), 365-387.
    Fuchs, M., Bonner, M., & Westheimer, M. (2000). Focus on grammar: An intermediate course for reference and practice (2nd ed.). Longman.
    Ghorbel, H., Ballim, A., & Coray, G. (2001). ROSETTA: Rhetorical and semantic environment for text alignment. In P. Rayson, A. Wilson, A. M. McEnery, A. Hardie & S. Khoja (Eds.), Proceedings of Corpus Linguistics 2001, 224–33.
    Givón, T. (1993). English grammar: A function-based introduction. John Benjamins Publishing.
    Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). Writing next: Effective strategies to improve writing of adolescents in middle and high schools–A report to Carnegie Corporation of New York. Alliance for Excellent Education.
    Grasso, F. (2002a). Towards a framework for rhetorical argumentation. In J. Bos, M. E. Foster & C. Matheson (Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th Workshop on the Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue, 53–60.
    Grasso, F. (2002b). Towards computational rhetoric. Informal Logic, 22(3), 195–229.
    Gregory, G. (2003). They Shall Not Parse! Or shall they? Changing English, 10(1), 13-33.
    Grimes, J. E. (1975). The thread of discourse. Walter de Gruyter.
    Grosz, B. J., & Sidner, C. L. (1986). Attention, intentions, and the structure of discourse. Computational Linguistics, 12(3), 175-204.
    Gruber, J. S. (1965). Studies in lexical relations. PhD Dissertation, MIT, Mass.
    Hadley, A. O. (2001). Teaching language in context. Heinle & Heinle.
    Halasek, K. (2005). An enriching methodology: Bakhtin’s “dialogic origin and dialogic pedagogy of grammar” and the teaching of writing. Written Communication, 22(3), 355-362.
    Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. Longman.
    Halliday, M.A.K., & Matthiessen, M. I. M. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press.
    Haouam, K., & Marir, F. (2003). SEMIR: Semantic indexing and retrieving web documents using rhetorical structure theory. In International Conference on Intelligent Data Engineering and Automated Learning (pp. 596–604).
    Hatzitheodorou, A. M. (2005). Comprehension and production of written discourse in a university EFL context. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Aristotle University.
    Hayes, J. R., & Flower, L. (1980). The dynamics of composing: Making plans and juggling constraints. In L. Gregg & E. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 31-50). Laurence Erlbaum Associates.
    Hedge, T. (1988). Writing. Oxford University Press.
    Hewings, M. (2005). Advanced grammar in use: A self-study reference and practice book for advanced learners of English: With answers. Ernst Klett Sprachen.
    Hinkel, E. (2004). Teaching academic ESL writing: Practical techniques in vocabulary and grammar. Routledge.
    Hinkel, E. (2005). Hedging, inflating, and persuading in L2 academic writing. Applied Language Learning, 15(1/2), 29-53.
    Hobbs, J. R. (1977). From ‘well-written’ algorithm descriptions into code (Research Report #77-1). Department of Computer Sciences, City College, City University of New York.
    Hobbs, J. R. (1978). Why is Discourse Coherent? (Technical Note # 176). SRI International, Menlo Park.
    Hobbs, J. R. (1979). Coherence and coreference. Cognitive Science, 3(1), 67-90.
    Hobbs, J. R. (1982). Representing ambiguity. Proceedings of the First West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 15-28.
    Hobbs, J. R. (1985). On the coherence and structure of discourse (Technical Report #85-37). Center for the Study of Language and Information (CSLI).
    Hoefler, S. (2004). The syntax of Attempto Controlled English: An abstract grammar for ACE 4.0 (Technical Report ifi-2004.03). Department of Informatics, University of Zurich.
    Holten, C., & Marasco, J. (1998). Looking ahead: Mastering academic writing. Heinle & Heinle.
    Hopper, P. J. (1979). Aspect and foregrounding in discourse. In T. Givon (Ed.), Syntax and semantics (Vol.12): Discourse and syntax (pp. 213-241). Academic Press.
    Hovy, E., & Maier, E. (1995). Parsimonious or profligate: How many and which discourse relations (Technical report). University of Southern California.
    Huddleston, R. (1988). English grammar: An outline. Cambridge University Press.
    Huddleston, R., & Pullum, G. K. (2005). A student`s introduction to English grammar. Cambridge University Press.
    Hunt, K. W. (1970). Syntactic maturity in schoolchildren and adults. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 35(1), 1-61.
    Hyland, K. (2019). Second language writing (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
    Jackendoff, R. (1972). Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. MIT Press.
    Jackendoff, R. (1976). Toward an explanatory semantic representation. Linguistic Inquiry, 7(1), 89-150.
    Jacobs, R. A. (1995). English syntax: A grammar for English language professionals. Oxford University Press.
    Johnson, K. E. (1992). Cognitive strategies and second language writers: A re-evaluation of sentence combining. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1(1), 61-75.
    Kaplan, R. B. (1966). Cultural thought patterns in inter-cultural education. Language Learning, 16, 1–20.
    Kaplan, R. B. (1967). Contrastive rhetoric and the teaching of composition. TESOL Quarterly, 1(4), 10-16.
    Kearns, K. (2000). Semantics. St. Martin’s Press.
    Klassen, B. R. (1977). Sentence combining exercises as an aid to expediting syntactic fluency in learning English as a second language. Published PhD Dissertation, University of Minnesota.
    Kline, W. M. (1983). Syntactic choice and a theory of discourse: Re-thinking sentence combining. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, University of Minnesota.
    Kolln, M. (2002). Rhetorical grammar: Grammatical choices, rhetorical effects. Longman.
    Kong, K. (1998). Are simple business request letters really simple? A comparison of Chinese and English business request letters. Text, 18, 103–141.
    Krings, H. P. (1989). Schreiben in der Fremdsprache-Prozeßanalysen zum’vierten skill’. In G. Antos & H. Krings (Eds.), Textproduktion: Ein interdisziplinärer Forschungsüberblick (pp. 377-436). Gunter Narr Verlag
    Krings, H. P. (1992). Empirische untersuchungen zu fremd- sprachlichen schreibprozessen – ein forschungsuberblick [Empirical studies of foreign language writing processes – a research survey]. In W. Borner & K. Vogel (Eds.), Schreiben in der fremdsprache. Prozess und text, lehren und lernen (pp. 47–77). AKS-Verlag.
    Kroll, B. (2002). Considerations for teaching an ESL/EFL writing course. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (3rd ed., pp. 219-232). Heinle & Heinle.

    Lambrecht, K. (1996). Information structure and sentence form: Topic, focus, and the mental representations of discourse referents (Vol. 71). Cambridge University Press.
    Langan, J. (2004). Ten steps to advancing college reading skills (4th ed.). Townsend Press.
    Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1994). A communicative grammar of English (2nd ed.). Longman.
    Leki, I. (1999). Academic writing: Techniques and tasks (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
    Lock, G. (1996). Functional English grammar: An introduction for second language teachers. Cambridge University Press.
    Longacre, R. (1970). Sentence structure as a statement calculus. Language, 46, 783-815.
    Longacre, R. (1976). An anatomy of speech notions. The Peter de Ridder Press.
    Longacre, R. (1996). The grammar of discourse. Springer Science & Business Media.
    Mann, W. C., & Thompson, S. A. (1985). Assertions from discourse structure. Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 11, 245-258.
    Mann, W. C., & Thompson, S. A. (1986a). Relational propositions in discourse. Discourse Processes, 9(1), 57-90.
    Mann, W. C., & Thompson, S. A. (1986b). Rhetorical structure theory: Description and construction of text structures. In G. Kempen (Ed.), Natural language generation: New results in artificial intelligence, psychology, and linguistics (pp. 279-300). Kluwer.
    Mann, W. C., & Thompson, S. A. (1987a). Antithesis: A study in clause combining and discourse structure. In R. Steele & T. Threadgold (Eds.), Language topics: Essays in honour of M. A. K. Halliday (pp. 359-381). Benjamins.
    Mann, W. C., & Thompson, S. A. (1987b). Rhetorical structure theory: A theory of text organization (Technical Report ISI/RS-87-190). USC Information Sciences Institute.
    Mann, W. C., & Thompson, S. A. (1988). Rhetorical structure theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization. Text, 8(3), 243-281.
    Mann, W. C., & Thompson, S. A. (1992). Relational discourse structure: A comparison of approaches to structuring text by ‘contrast’. In S. J. J. Hwang & W. R. Merrifield (Eds.), Language in context: Essays for Robert E. Longacre (pp. 19-45). Summer Institute of Linguistics and the University of Texas at Arlington.
    Mantynen, A. K. (2003). Talking about language: The rhetoric of language columns. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Helsinki.
    Marcu, D. (2000). The theory and practice of discourse parsing and summarization. MIT Press.
    Marcu, D., Carlson, L., & Watanabe, M. (2000). The automatic translation of discourse structures. The 1st Meeting of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 9–17).
    Markkanen, R., & Schröeder, H. (1997). Hedging: A challenge for pragmatics and discourse analysis. In R. Markkanen & H. Schroder (Eds.), Hedging and discourse: Approaches to the analysis of a pragmatic phenomenon in academic texts (pp. 3–20). Walter de Gruyter.
    Martin, J. R., Matthiessen, M. I. M., & Painter, C. (1997). Working with functional grammar. Routledge.
    Mathesius, V. (1983). Functional linguistics. In J. Vachek (Ed.), Praguiana (pp. 121-143). John Benjamins.
    Matsuda, P. K. (2003). Second language writing in the twentieth century: A situated historical perspective. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Exploring the dynamics of second language writing (pp. 15–34). Cambridge University Press.
    Matthiessen, C., & Thompson, S. A. (1988). The structure of discourse and `subordination.` In J. Haiman & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Clause combining in grammar and discourse (pp. 275-333). John Benjamins.
    McCarthy, M. (1991). Discourse analysis for language teachers. Cambridge University Press.
    McGee, L. M. (1982). The influence of metacognitive knowledge of expository text structure on discourse recall. In New inquiries in reading research and instruction. Thirty-first Yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 64-70). National Reading Conference.
    Mellon, J. C. (1967). Transformational sentence-combining: A method for enhancing the development of syntactic fluency in English composition. Educational Resources Information Center. Document Reproduction Service.
    Meyer, B. J. (1975). The organization of prose and its effects on memory (Vol. 1). North-Holland.
    Meyer, B. J. F., Brandt, D. H., & Bluth, G. J. (1980). Use of author’s textual schema. Key for ninth-graders’ comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 16, 72 – 103.
    Micciche, L. (2004). Making a case for rhetorical grammar. College Composition and Communication, 55(4), 716-737.
    Miller, B. D., & Ney, J. W. (1968). The effect of systematic oral exercises on the writing of fourth-grade students. Research in the Teaching of English, 2, 44-61.
    Moffett, J. (1968). Teaching the universe of discourse. Houghton Mifflin Company.
    Morenberg, M., & Sommers, J. (2003). The writers’ options. Longman.
    Mulder, J. E., Braun, C., & Holliday, W. G. (1978). Effects of sentence-combining practice on linguistic maturity level of adult students. Adult Education, 28(2), 111-120.
    Murphy, R. (1997). Basic grammar in use: Answer key. Cambridge University Press.
    Murphy, R. (2012). English grammar in use. Ernst Klett Sprachen.
    Myers, G. (1989). The pragmatics of politeness in scientific articles. Applied Linguistics, 10(1), 1-35.
    Myers, G. (1996). Out of the laboratory and down to the bay: Writing in science and technology studies. Written Communication, 13(1), 5-43.
    Myhill, D. (2008). Towards a linguistic model of sentence development in writing. Language and Education, 22(5), 271-288.
    Nunan, S. L. (2005). Forgiving ourselves and forging ahead: Teaching grammar in a new millennium. English Journal, 94(4), 70-75.
    O`hare, F. (1973). Sentence combining: Improving student writing without formal grammar instruction. Natl Council of Teachers.
    Paraskevas, C. (2006). Grammar apprenticeship. English Journal, 95(5), 65-69.
    Pardo, T. A. S., & Rino, L. H. M. (2001). A summary planner based on a three-level discourse model. Proceedings of Natural Language Processing Pacific Rim Symposium, 533–538.
    Pardo, T. A. S., & Rino, L. H. M. (2002). DMSumm: Review and assessment. Proceedings of Advances in Natural Language Processing, Third International Conference, 263–74.
    Parkinson, J., & Musgrave, J. (2014). Development of noun phrase complexity in the writing of English for Academic Purposes students. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 14, 48-59.
    Pelsmaekers, K., Braecke, C., & Geluykens, R. (1998). Rhetorical relations and subordination in L2 writing. In A. Sánchez-Macarro & R. Carter (Eds.), Linguistic choice across genres: Variation in spoken and written English (pp. 191–213). John Benjamins.
    Péry-Woodley, M.-P. (2001). Modes d’organisation et de signalisation dans des textes procéduraux. Langages, 141, 28–46.
    Pincas, A. (1962). Structural linguistics and systematic composition teaching to students of English as a foreign language. Language Learning, 12(3), 185-194.
    Pit, M. (2003). How to express yourself with a causal connective: Subjectivity and causal connectives in Dutch, German and French. Rodopi.
    Polanyi, L., & Hopper, P. J. (1981, December 27-30). A revision of the foreground-background distinction [Paper presentation]. Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, New York, America.
    Polanyi, L., & Zaenen, A. (2003). Shifting attitudes. In L. Lagerwerf, W. Spooren & L. Degand (Eds.), Determination of information and tenor in texts: Multidisciplinary approaches to discourse 2003. Stichting Neerlandistiek VU and Nodus Publikationen.
    Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. Longman.
    Quyen, N. T. (2017). Factors affecting pronoun resolution by Vietnamese EFL learners. Korean Journal of Applied Linguistics, 33(1), 111-135.
    Radev, D. (2000). A common theory of information fusion from multiple text sources. Step one: Cross document structure. In L. Dybkjær, K. Hasida & D. Traum (Eds.), Proceedings of 1st SIGdial Workshop on Discourse and Dialogue, 74–83.
    Raimes, A. (1983). Tradition and revolution in ESL teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 17(4), 535-552.
    Raimes, A. (1991). Out of the woods: Emerging traditions in the teaching of writing. TESOL Quarterly, 25(3), 407-430.
    Rivers, W. M. (1968). Teaching foreign language skills. Chicago University Press.
    Rivers, W. M. (1975). A practical guide to the teaching of Spanish. Oxford University Press.
    Romera, M. (2004). Discourse functional units: The expression of coherence relations in spoken Spanish. Lincom.
    Sanders, T., Land, J., & Mulder, G. (2007). Linguistics markers of coherence improve text comprehension in functional contexts. Information Design Journal, 15(3), 219-235.
    Schleppegrell, M. J. (2004). Technical writing in a second language: The role of grammatical metaphor. In L. J. Ravelli & R. A. Ellis (Eds.), Analysing academic writing: Contextualized frameworks (pp. 172-189). Continuum.

    Schleppegrell, M. J., & Go, A. L. (2007). Analyzing the writing of English learners: A functional approach. Language Arts, 84(6), 529-538.
    Shinmori, A., Okumura, M., Marukawa, Y., & Iwayama, M. (2002). Rhetorical structure analysis of Japanese patent claims using cue phrases. Proceedings of the 3rd NTCIR Workshop.
    Sinclair, J., Fox, G., Bulloon, S., Krishnamurthy, R., Manning, E., & Todd, J. (1990). English grammar. Harper Collins Publisher.

    Smoke, T. (1999). A writer’s workbook (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
    Šnajder, J., Sladoljev-Agejev, T., & Vehovec, S. K. (2019). Analysing rhetorical structure as a key feature of summary coherence. Proceedings of the Fourteenth Workshop on Innovative Use of NLP for Building Educational Applications, 46-51.
    Spack, R. (1996). Guidelines (2nd ed.). St. Martin’s Press.
    Stalter, W. (1978). A sense of structure. College Composition and Communication, 29(4), 341-345.
    Stede, M. (2004). The potsdam commentary corpus. Proceedings of the Workshop on Discourse Annotation, 42nd Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 96-102.
    Strauss, S., & Feiz, P. (2013). Discourse analysis: Putting our worlds into words. Routledge.
    Strong, W. (1986). Creative approaches to sentence combining. Urbana, IL: ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication Skills and the National Council of Teachers of English.
    Swales, J. (1971). Writing scientific English. Thomas Nelson.
    Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge University Press.
    Swales, J., & Feak, C. B. (2004). Academic writing for graduate students: Essential tasks and skills (3rd ed.). University of Michigan Press.
    Taboada, M., & Mann, W. C. (2006). Applications of rhetorical structure theory. Discourse Studies, 8(4), 567-588.
    Taylor, B. M. (1980). Children`s memory for expository text after reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 15(3), 399-411.
    Taylor, K. K. (1979). “Doors” English—The cognitive basis of rhetorical models. Journal of Basic Writing, 2(2), 52-66.
    Thompson, G. (2009). Grammatical metaphor and success in academic writing. In S. Hunston & D. Oakey (Eds.), Introducing applied linguistics (pp. 27-34). Routledge.
    Thompson, S. A. (1985). Grammar and written discourse: Initial versus final purpose clauses in English. Text, 5, 55–84.
    Thompson, S. A., Longacre, R. E., & Hwang, S. J. J. (1985). Adverbial clauses. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language typology and syntactic description: Complex constructions (pp. 171–234). Cambridge University Press.
    Taboada, M. (2001). Collaborating through talk: The interactive construction of task-oriented dialogue in English and Spanish. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Universidad Complutense.
    Taboada, M. (2004a). Building coherence and cohesion: Task-oriented dialogue in English and Spanish. John Benjamins.
    Taboada, M. (2004b). Rhetorical relations in dialogue: A contrastive study. In C. L. Moder & A. Martinovic-Zic (Eds.), Discourse across languages and cultures (pp. 75–97). John Benjamins.
    Turney, P., & Littman, M. (2003). Measuring praise and criticism: Inference of semantic orientation from association. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 21(4), 315–346.
    Vitale, M. R., King, F. J., Shontz, D. W., & Huntley, G. M. (1971). Effects of sentence-combing exercises upon several restricted written composition tasks. Journal of Educational Psychology, 6, 521-525.
    Wang, S., & Beckett, G. H. (2017). My excellent college entrance examination achievement—Noun phrase use of Chinese EFL students’ writing. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 8(2), 271.
    Weil, H. (1887). The order of words in the ancient languages compared with that of the modern languages (C. W. Super, Trans.). Ginn and Company. (Original work published 1844)
    White, R., & Arndt, V. (1991). Process writing. Longman.
    Wong, G. H. Y. (2003). Argumentative L2 text in context: An exploratory study in Australia and Hong Kong. Hong Kong University Press.
    Yu, H. Y. (2001). The placement of English adverbial clauses in narrative texts of native speakers and Chinese college students. English Teaching & Learning, 26(2), 89-106.
    Yu, H. Y. (2007). Discourse grammar for academic reading: Textual relationships. English Teaching & Learning, 31(2), 159-197.
    Zamel, V. (1976). Teaching composition in the ESL classroom: What we can learn from research in the teaching of English. TESOL Quarterly, 10(2), 67-76.
    Zamel, V. (1980). Re-evaluating sentence-combining practice. TESOL Quarterly, 14(1), 81-90.
    Zimmermann, R. (2000). L2 writing: Subprocesses, a model of formulating and empirical findings. Learning and Instruction, 10(1), 73-99.
    描述: 博士
    國立政治大學
    英國語文學系
    100551504
    資料來源: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0100551504
    数据类型: thesis
    DOI: 10.6814/NCCU202000828
    显示于类别:[英國語文學系] 學位論文

    文件中的档案:

    档案 描述 大小格式浏览次数
    150401.pdf2486KbAdobe PDF20检视/开启


    在政大典藏中所有的数据项都受到原著作权保护.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告 Copyright Announcement
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏，無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用，惟仍請適度，合理使用本網站之內容，以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用，則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    The digital content of this website is part of National Chengchi University Institutional Repository. It provides free access to academic research and public education for non-commercial use. Please utilize it in a proper and reasonable manner and respect the rights of copyright owners. For commercial use, please obtain authorization from the copyright owner in advance.

    2.本網站之製作，已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益，如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者，請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw)，維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    NCCU Institutional Repository is made to protect the interests of copyright owners. If you believe that any material on the website infringes copyright, please contact our staff(nccur@nccu.edu.tw). We will remove the work from the repository and investigate your claim.
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - 回馈