政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/33368

政大典藏 > College of Foreign Languages and Literature > Graduate Institute of Linguistics > Theses > Item 140.119/33368

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:	[Graduate Institute of Linguistics] Theses

Files in This Item:

File	Size	Format
55501201.pdf	55Kb	Adobe PDF2	857	View/Open
55501202.pdf	69Kb	Adobe PDF2	1028	View/Open
55501203.pdf	26Kb	Adobe PDF2	782	View/Open
55501204.pdf	31Kb	Adobe PDF2	1058	View/Open
55501205.pdf	83Kb	Adobe PDF2	960	View/Open
55501206.pdf	122Kb	Adobe PDF2	987	View/Open
55501207.pdf	70Kb	Adobe PDF2	820	View/Open
55501208.pdf	46Kb	Adobe PDF2	945	View/Open
55501209.pdf	53Kb	Adobe PDF2	1162	View/Open
55501210.pdf	61Kb	Adobe PDF2	977	View/Open

社群 sharing

Loading...