Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/33368
|
| Title: | 英文限定性關係子句的篇章功能及其在英語教學上的啟示
Discourse Functions of English Restrictive Relative Clauses and Its Pedagogical Implications |
| Authors: | 陳良鳳
Chen，Liang-feng |
| Contributors: | 尤雪瑛
Yu，Hsueh-ying
陳良鳳
Chen，Liang-feng |
| Keywords: | 英文限定性關係子句
篇章功能
英語教學
English restrictive relative clauses
discourse functions
pedagogical implications |
| Date: | 2003 |
| Issue Date: | 2009-09-17 16:24:10 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 本研究主要探討在英文敘述文和論說文文本中，英文限定關係子句的篇章功能(discourse functions)。我們主要是從句法、語意、語用和篇章結構(discourse structure)的觀點，來探討限定性關係子句的功能與它在篇章單位(discourse unit)所出現的位置有何關聯。研究結果顯示多數的限定性關係子句出現在篇章單位最前面的位置，而且他們往往引導他們新的先行詞(new head NPs)作為整個篇章單位的主題(topic)。因此我們認為，大多數限定性關係子句會出現在篇章單位最前面的位置，是因為它們有一個很重要的篇章功能，那就是它們要引介新的先行詞作為整個篇章單位的主題。此外，本論文也探討大學英文系學生在他們的英文寫作中，使用限定性關係子句的情形。研究結果發現，在大學生的寫作中，限定性關係子句的先行詞常是泛指，而且限定性關係子句的內容常常是舊有的訊息。因此，台灣大學生鮮少使用限定性關係子句來引導新的先行詞作為篇章單位的主題。我們推論大部份學生並未習得限定性關係子句的篇章功能。本論文根據此研究結果提出一些在英語教學上的建議：在課堂上教導英文限定性關係子句時，應以篇章單位為主，使學生了解限定性關係子句的篇章功能。
The findings of the previous studies on discourse functions of English restrictive relative clauses are mainly based on spontaneous conversations and written narrations. Rare studies were found on the discourse functions of English restrictive relative clauses in written data. The purpose of the present study, thus, is to investigate the discourse functions of English restrictive relative clauses in written expositions and argumentations by native speakers of English. Also, we study the use of English restrictive relative clauses in the compositions by Taiwanese college students. In particular, we want to know how the discourse functions of English restrictive relative clauses are related to their occurrences in discourse structures. Thus, our analysis includes considerations from four dimensions: syntax, semantics, pragmatics and discourse. We found that the majority of English restrictive relative clauses occur in the beginning position of discourse units. And they serve as a device to introduce their new head NPs as the topics in the subsequent discourse when occurring in such a position. Therefore, we conclude that the main purpose of using a restrictive relative clause is to introduce a new head NP as the topic when the new referent is firstly mentioned in a new discourse unit. Moreover, we examined English restrictive relative clauses in the compositions by English Department juniors to see if the factors found in native speakers’ writings are also at work in their compositions. We found that students have not fully understood the discourse functions of English restrictive relative clauses. Based on our findings, we offer pedagogical implications with the aim of hoping that students can learn the discourse functions of English restrictive relative clauses. |
| Reference: | Anderson, M. 1999. Keys to Successful Writing. New York: Longman.
Beaman, K. 1984. Coordination and subordination revisited: syntactic complexity in spoken and written narrative discourse, In Deborah, Tennen (Ed.), Coherence in spoken and written discourse (pp. 45-80). Norwood, NJ: ABLEX Publishing.
Bernardo, R. 1979. The function and content of relative clauses in spontaneous oral narratives. Berkeley Linguistic Society, 5: 539-51.
Biber, D., Susan, Conrad and Randi, Reppen. 2000. Corpus linguistics: investigating language structure and use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brown, G. and George, Yule. 1983. Discourse analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Bushell, B. and Brenda Dyer. 2003. Global outlook: High intermediate reading. New York: the McGraw-Hill Companies.
Bushell, B. and Brenda Dyer. 2003. Global outlook: Advanced reading. New York: the McGraw-Hill Companies.
Chafe, W. L. 1974. Language and Consciousness. Language, 50: 111-33.
-----. 1976. Givenness, contrasiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view. In Li, Charles N. (Ed.), Subject and Topic (pp. 25-55). New York: Academic Press.
-----. 1987. Cognitive Constraints on Information Flow. In Tomlin, Russell S. (Ed.), Coherence and Grounding in Discourse (pp. 21-51). Amsterdam: J. Benjamins.
-----. 1994. Discourse, consciousness, and time. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Du Bois, John W. 1987. The discourse basis of ergativity. Language, 63(4): 805-55.
Fox, B. 1987. The noun phrase accessibility hierarchy reinterpreted: subject primacy or the absolutive hypothesis? Language, 63(4): 856-70
Fox, B. and S. A. Thompson. 1990. A discourse analysis of the grammar of relative clauses in English conversation. Language, 66(2): 297-316.
Firbas Jan. 1992. Functional Sentence Perspective in Written and Spoken Communication. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Givon, T. 1979. On understanding grammar. New York: Academic Press.
-----. 1984. Syntax: a functional-typological introduction, vol.1. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins.
-----. 1993. English Grammar. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins.
-----. 1995. Functionalism and Grammar. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins.
-----. 1997. Coherence in Text vs. Coherence in Mind. In M. A. Gernsbacher & T. Givon. (Eds.), Coherence in spontaneous text (pp.59-115). Amsterdam: J. Benjamins.
Halliday, M.A.K. 1967. Notes on Transitivity and Theme in English, part 2. Journal of Linguistics, 3: 199-244.
-----. 1974. The place of “functional sentence perspective” in the system of linguistic description. In F. Danes (Ed.), Papers on Functional Sentence Perspective (pp. 43-57). The Hague: Mouton.
-----. 1981. Options and Functions in the English Clause. In M.A.K Halliday & J. R. Martin (Ed.), Readings in Systemic Linguistics (pp. 138-45). London: Batford Academic and Educational.
-----. 1994. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
Hann, Pieter De. 1987. Relative clauses in indefinite noun phrases. English Studies, 2: 171-89.
Hawkin, J. A. 1991. On (in)definite articles: implicatures and (un)grammaticality prediction. Linguistics, 27: 405-42.
Hoey, M. P. 1983. On the surface of discourse. London: Allen and Unwin.
Hoey, M. P., and E. O. Winter. 1986. Clause Relations and the Writer’s Communicative Task. In B. Couture (Ed.), Functional Approaches to Writing Research Perspective. London: Frances Pinter.
Keenan, E. L. and B. Comrie. 1977. Noun accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry, 8(1): 63-99.
Kirn, Elaine and Pamela Hartmann. 1990. Interaction II: A Reading Skills Book. New York: McGraw-Hill Publishing Company.
Krahnke, K. 1998. Reading together: A reading/activities text. Cambridge: University Press.
Kuno, S. 1972. Functional Sentence Perspective: A Case Study from Japanese and English. Linguistic Inquiry, 3: 269-320.
-----. 1977. Generative Discourse Analysis in America. In W. U. Dressler (Ed.), Current Trends in Textlinguistics (pp. 275-294). New York: Walter de Gruyter.
-----. 1980. Functional Syntax. In E. A. Moravcsik & J. R. Wirth (Ed.), Syntax and Semantics Vol. 13: Current Approaches to Syntax (pp. 117-35). New York: Academic Press.
Liu Chen, Pi-fen. 1985. Determiners and Relative Clauses in English. MA. thesis, Michigan State University.
McCarthy, M. and Ronald Carter. 1994. Language as Discourse: Perspectives for Language Teaching. London: Longman.
McCarthy, M. 2001. Discourse analysis for language teachers. Cambridge: University Press.
Nuamthanom, L. 2003. A study of discourse functions of relative clauses from a functional sentence perspective framework. Ph. D. dissertation, Indiana University of Pennsylvania.
Prince, E. F. 1979. On the Given/New Distinction. In W. Hanks, C. Hofbauer & P. Clyne (Eds.), Papers from the Fifteenth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, Department of Linguistics, University of Chicago (pp. 267-78).
-----. 1981. Toward a taxonomy of given-new information. In Peter Cole (Ed.), Radical Pragmatics (pp. 223-55). New York: Academic Press.
Schachter, P. 1971. Focus and relativization. Language, 47: 19-46.
Stockwell, Robert P., Paul Schacter and Barbara Hall Partee. 1973. The Major Syntactic Structures of English. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Tabakowska, E. 1980. Existential presupposition and the choice of head noun determiner in English restrictive relative clauses. In Johan Van Auwera (Ed.), The Semantics of Determiners (pp.189-210). London : Croom Helm.
Quirk, R. 1972. A Grammar of Contemporary English. London: Longman.
Quirk, R., S. Greenbaum, G. Leech and J. Svartvik. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.
Vande Kopple, W. J. 1986. Given and new information and some aspects of the structures, semantics, and pragmatics of written texts. In C. R. Cooper & S. Greenbaum (Ed.), Studying writing: linguistic approaches (pp. 72-111). Baverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Wegmann Brenda and Miki Prijic Knezevic. 1990. Mosaic I: A Reading Skills Book. New York: McGraw-Hill Publishing Company.
Wegmann Brenda, Miki Prijic Knezevic and Marilyn Bernstein. 1990. Mosaic II: A Reading Skills Book. New York: McGraw-Hill Publishing Company.
陳純音 1998. 遠東新英文法：溝通式的文法教學 台北：遠東圖書公司
蘇玉如、應惠蕙 1999. 英文文法 台北：三民書局 |
| Description: | 碩士
國立政治大學
語言學研究所
90555012
92 |
| Source URI: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0090555012 |
| Data Type: | thesis |
| Appears in Collections: | [語言學研究所] 學位論文
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
