政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/54369
English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  全文笔数/总笔数 : 113318/144297 (79%)
造访人次 : 51094253      在线人数 : 954
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/140.119/54369


    题名: 臺灣英語為外語師生語用教學動機相關經驗：一個質化個案研究
    A Qualitative Case Study on Teacher’s and Students’ Motivation-related Experiences of L2 Pragmatics in Taiwan
    作者: 謝明宏
    Hsieh, Ming Hung
    贡献者: 余明忠
    Yu, Ming Chung
    謝明宏
    Hsieh, Ming Hung
    关键词: 第二語言語用
    學習英語為外語
    質化個案研究
    學習動機
    L2 pragmatics
    EFL
    qualitative case study
    learning motivation
    日期: 2011
    上传时间: 2012-10-30 10:53:19 (UTC+8)
    摘要: 語用教學研究大多專注在教學成效，並以量化研究比較跨文化語用文化規範和溝通策略之差異，然，只有少數的質化研究探討語用研究理論如何落實在外語教學師生的學習動機。準確來說，本研究檢視以英語為外語師生如何看待語用能力培養，以及學習社會語言之動機相關經驗。先前文獻已經指出，第二語言語用學習動機研究，需要投入更多的努力。

    因此，本質化個案研究旨在探討臺灣以英語為外語師生學習語用動機。資料蒐集透過面訪、課室觀察和課堂筆記以及研究者的省思日誌，從學習動機的角度審視外語語用教學，洞悉多層次語言學習動機。

    研究結果顯示，受訪師生均認為語用教學對第二語言發展極為重要，縱使社會政治情境因素的干擾，諸如考試領導教學、授課時數嚴重不足和偏重語法教學，然而，在學習語言禮貌和適切性方面，受訪者均偏好語言實用功能和實際生活應用，甚於傳統單一語法教學。受訪老師指出在語言四項技能統整課程，語用教學比例明顯偏低，認為語用教學在臺灣並不普及。另外，臺灣英語為外語老師普遍未能滿足學生語用學習需求。

    雖然師生起初對學習外語語用似乎未注意其重要性，然而，在回顧外語學習的歷程中，受訪者提高對於文化適切表達之醒覺。本研究期許幫助臺灣學習英語為外語師生了解語用教學在溝通功能中扮演的重要角色，促進未來語用教學研究之實踐，發展語言使用者之溝通能力。
    Though much of L2 pragmatics research has focused on the effectiveness of instructional pragmatics and cross-cultural variations of pragmatic norms and strategies used in the target language via cross-sectional quantitative research, little, however, has been conducted to explore teachers’ and students’ motivational experiences of implementing pragmatics instruction in real-life teaching and learning practices in EFL contexts. Specifically, little was known about what and how teachers and students perceive the role of developing pragmatic ability and their motivations to teach and learn socio-pragmatic functions since prior research has suggested that more research efforts should be done in the line of L2 pragmatics research.

    Therefore, this study aims to investigate both teachers’ and students’ motivations of learning and teaching pragmatics through qualitative research. Multiple data sources were collected through face-to-face interviews, classroom observations and field notes as well as the researcher’s reflective journals, to illuminate the dynamic, multifaceted motivational experiences of L2 instructional pragmatics.

    The findings suggest that both teachers and students considered the role of teaching and learning pragmatics essential to second language development pertaining to the polite and appropriate use of the target language, and its learning utility, practical functions and intrinsic interest in using language for authentic communication purposes despite the sociopolitical factors, such as exam-oriented teaching, lack of top-down institutional support and the implementation of English language policy in Taiwan.
    Nevertheless, the teacher voiced her inadequacy of teaching L2 pragmatics in a four-skill integrated course and demonstrated her concerns about the prevalence of teaching students how to speak English in a culturally appropriate way, which is, however, contrary to students’ eager expectations to learn L2 pragmatics.

    Albeit both the teacher and the students tended to ignore L2 pragmatics at first, after the initial reflections they raised their awareness of culturally speaking in an appropriate way. In this study, it was hoped to empower both teachers and students to understand their teaching and learning practices by sensitizing them to L2 pragmatics in EFL contexts, to facilitate the implementation of L2 pragmatics instruction in the classroom and to underscore the importance of developing learners’ communicative competence in Taiwan.
    參考文獻: Alcón-Soler, E. (2005). Does instruction work for learning pragmatics in the EFL context? System, 33, 417-435.
    Alcón-Soler, E. (2007). Fostering EFL learners’ awareness of requesting through explicit and implicit consciousness-raising tasks. In M. De Pilar Garcia Mayo (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp. 221-241). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
    Alcón-Soler, E., & Martínez-Flor, A. (2008). Pragmatics in foreign language contexts. In E. Alcón Soler & A. Martínez-Flor (Eds.), Investigating pragmatics in foreign language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 3–21). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
    Banks, J. A., & Banks, C. A. (Eds.). (2007). Multicultural education: Issues and perspectives (6th ed.) San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
    Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2001). Evaluating the empirical evidence: Grounds for instruction in pragmatics? In K. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 13–32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Hartford, B. (1996). Input in an institutional setting. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 233-262.
    Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Mahan-Taylor, R. (2003). Teaching pragmatics. Washington DC: U.S. Department of State, Office of English Language Programs.
    Barron, A. (2003). Acquisition in interlanguage pragmatics: Learning how to do things with words in a study abroad context. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
    Bell, (2011). Humor scholarship and TESOL: Applying findings and establishing a research agenda. TESOL Quarterly, 45(1), 134-159.
    Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G. (1989). Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies. Norwood, NJ: Albex.
    Brown, H. D. (2007). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy. San Francisco, CA: San Francisco State University.
    Burnaby, B., & Sun, Y. (1989). Chinese teachers’ views of Western language teaching: Context informs paradigms. TESOL Quarterly, 23(2), 219-238.
    Butler, Y. G. (2004). What level of English proficiency do elementary school teachers need to attain in order to teach EFL?: Case studies from Korea, Taiwan, and Japan. TESOL Quarterly, 38, 245-278.
    Butler, Y. G. (2005). Comparative perspectives towards communicative activities among elementary school teachers in South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan. Language Teaching Research, 9, 423-446.
    Butler, Y. G. (2011). The implementation of communicative and task-based language teaching in the Asia-Pacific region. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 36-57.
    Canale, M. & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical aspects of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 27, 45-75.
    Chang, W. (2009). Examining Taiwan English language policy. Taipei: Crane Publishing.
    Chen, J., Warden, C., & Chang, C. (2005). Motivators that do not motivate: The case of Chinese EFL learners and the influence of culture on motivation. TESOL Quarterly, 39(4), 609-633.
    Chen, S., & Tsai, Y. (2012). Research on English teaching and learning: Taiwan (2004-2009). Language Teaching, 45(2), 180-201.
    Choi, S. (2000). Teachers’ beliefs about communicative language teaching and their classroom teaching practices. English Teaching, 55, 3-32.
    Chung, I., & Huang, Y. (2009). The implementation of communicative language teaching: An investigation of students’ viewpoints. The Asia-Pacific Educational Researcher, 18, 67-78.
    Clandinin, & Connely, (2000). Narrative inquiry: experience and story in qualitative research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
    Cohen, A. (2005). Strategies for learning and performing L2 speech acts. Intercultural Pragmatics, 2(3), 275–301.
    Cortazzi, M., & Jin, L. (1996). English teaching and learning in China. Language Teaching, 29(2), 61-80.
    Cortazzi, M., & Jin, L. (1999). Cultural mirrors: Materials and methods in the EFL classroom. In E. Hinkel, Culture in second language teaching and learning (pp.196-219), England: Cambridge University Press.
    Crystal, D. (2003). English as a global language (2nd ed). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Crystal, D. (2009). The Cambridge encyclopedia of language (2nd ed). Beijing: Cambridge University Press.
    Deci, E, & Ryan, R. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Plenum, New York.
    Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (2005). The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd Eds.). Sage Publications.
    Dörnyei, Z. (2005). Teaching and researching motivation. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press (FLTRP).
    Dörnyei, Z., & Ottó, I. (1998). Motivation in action: A process model of L2 motivation. Working Papers in Applied Linguistics, 4, 43-69.
    Ellis, R. (2005). Principles of instructed language learning. Asian EFL Journal, 7(3), 9-24.
    Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford University Press.
    Freeman, D. (1998). Doing teacher research: From inquiry to understanding. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
    Frölich, M., Spada, N., & Allen, P. (1985). Differences in the communicative orientation of L2 classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 19 (1), 27-56.
    Gorsuch, G. J. (2000). EFL educational policies and educational cultures: Influences on teachers’ approval of communicative activities. TESOL Quarterly, 34, 675-710.
    Hall, J. K. (2002). Teaching and researching language and culture. London: Pearson Longman.
    House, J., & Kasper, G. (1981). Zur Rolle der Kognition in Kommunikationskursen. Die Neueren Sprachen, 80, 42-55.
    Hsieh, M. (2010). Pre-service English teachers’ beliefs of sociolinguistic instruction in communicative language teaching: The Cinderella in Taiwan’s EFL classes. Paper presented at the 27th International Conference on English Teaching and Learning in the R.O.C., p. 153-163, Kaohsiung, Taiwan, May.
    Hu, G. (2002). Potential cultural resistance to pedagogical imports: The case of communicative language teaching in China. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 15(2), 93-105.
    Ishihara, N. (2007). Web-based curriculum for pragmatics instruction in Japanese as a foreign language: An explicit awareness-raising approach. Language Awareness, 16, 21–40.
    Ishihara, N. (2009). Teacher-based assessment for foreign language pragmatics. TESOL Quarterly 43(3), 415-470.
    Ishihara, N. & Cohen, A. (2010). Teaching and learning pragmatics: Where language and culture meet. London: Pearson Longman.
    Jenkins, J. (2003). World Englishes. London: Routledge.
    Jeon, E. H., & Kaya, T. (2006). Effects of L2 instruction on interlanguage pragmatic development: A meta-analysis. In J. M. Norris & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language teaching and learning (pp. 165–211). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
    Johnson, K. E. (1994). The emergent beliefs and instructional practices of preservice English as a second language teacher. Teaching and Teacher Education, 10(4), 439-452.
    Judd, E. (1999). Some issues in the teaching of pragmatic competence. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Culture in second language teaching and learning (pp. 152–166). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Kachru, B. B. (1992). World Englishes: Approaches, issues and resources. Language Teaching, 25, 1-14.
    Kasper, G. 1997. Can pragmatic competence be taught? Honolulu: University of Hawaii, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.
    Kasper, G. (2000). Data collection in pragmatics research. In Spencer-Oatey Culturally Speaking: Managing rapport through talk across cultures (pp.316-341).
    Kinginger, C., & Belz, J. (2005). Socio-cultural perspectives on pragmatic development in foreign language learning: Microgenetic case studies from telecollaboration and residence abroad. Intercultural Pragmatics, 2(4), 369-421.
    Kirkpatrick, T. A. (1984). The role of communicative language teaching in secondary schools: With special reference to teaching in Singapore. In B. K. Das (Ed.), Communicative language teaching (pp. 171-191). Singapore: Singapore University Press.
    Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). TESOL methods: Changing tracks, challenging trends. TESOL Quarterly, 40, 59-81.
    Kumaravadivelu, B. (2008). Cultural globalization and language education. New Haven: Yale University Press.
    Larsen-Freeman, D. (2000). Techniques and principles in language teaching. New York: Oxford University Press.
    Lee, I. (2008). Understanding teachers’ written feedback practices in Hong Kong secondary classrooms. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 69-85.
    Leech, G. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. Harlow, UK: Longman.
    Li, D. (1998). It’s always more difficult than you plan and imagine”: teachers’ perceived difficulties in introducing the communicative approach in South Korea. TESOL Quarterly, 32 (4), 677-703.
    Li, Y. (2007). Apprentice scholarly writing in a community of practice: An intraview of an NNES graduate student writing a research article. TESOL Quarterly, 41(1), 55-79.
    Lillis, T., & Curry, M. (2010). Academic writing in a global context: The politics and practices of publishing in English. London: Routledge.
    Liu, J. (2007). Critical period hypothesis retested: The effects of earlier English education in China. In J. Liu (Ed.), English language teaching in China: New approaches, perspectives and standards (pp. 170–191). London: Continuum International.
    LoCastro, V. (1997). Politeness and pragmatic competence in foreign language education. Language Teaching Research, 1, 239–267.
    Long, M. H. (1985). A role for instruction in second language acquisition: Task-based language teaching. In K. Hylstenstam & M. Pienemann (Eds.), Modeling and assessing second language acquisition (pp. 77-99). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
    Merriam, S. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
    Mey, J. (2001). Pragmatics: An introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.
    Ministry of Education (MOE) (2009). The revised nine-year integrated curriculum guidelines.
    Moran, P. (2001). Teaching culture: Perspectives in practice. Beijing: Cengage Learning.
    Narita, R. (2012). The effects of pragmatic consciousness-raising activity on the development of pragmatic awareness and use of hearsay evidential markers for learners of Japanese as a foreign language. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(1), 1-29.
    Nelson, G. (1998). Intercultural communication and related courses taught in TESOL master’s degree programs. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 22, 17–33.
    Nishino, T. (2008). Japanese secondary school teachers’ beliefs and practices regarding communicative language teaching: An exploratory survey. JALT Journal, 30, 27-50.
    Noels, K., Pelletier, L., Clément, R., & Vallerand, R. (2000). Why are you learning a second language? Motivational orientations and self-determination theory. Language Learning, 50, 57-85.
    Nunan, D. (1992). Research methods in language learning. London: Pearson Longman.
    Nunan, D. (2003). The impact of English as a global language on educational policies and practices in the Asia-Pacific region. TESOL Quarterly, 37(4), 589-613.
    Omaggio, A. C. (2001). Teaching languages in contexts: Proficiency-oriented instruction. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
    Oxford, R. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
    Paltridge, B., & Starfield, S. (2008). Thesis and dissertation writing in second language: A handbook for supervisors. London: Routledge.
    Pinto, D. (2011). Are Americans insincere? Interactional style and politeness in everyday America. Journal of Politeness Research, 7, 215-238.
    Prabhu (1987). Second language pedagogy. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
    Prapaisit de Segovia, L., & Hardison, D. M. (2008). Implementing education reform: EFL teachers’ perspectives. ELT Journal, 63, 154-162.
    Renn, D. , & Iannuzzi, S.(2008). Hemisphere 4. Singapore: McGraw-Hill.
    Richards, J., & Rodgers, T. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching. London: Cambridge University Press.
    Richards, K. (2009). Trends in qualitative language teaching since 2000. Language Teaching, 42(2), 147-180.
    Rose, K. (1999). Teachers and students learning about requests in Hong Kong. In Hinkel, E. (Ed.), Culture in second language teaching and learning (pp. 167-180). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
    Rose, K. (2005). On the effects of instruction in second language pragmatics. System, 33, 385–399.
    Rose, K., & Kasper, G. (Eds.). (2001). Pragmatics and language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Sakui, K. (2004). Wearing two pairs of shoes: Language teaching in Japan. ELT Journal, 58, 155-163.
    Samimy, K., & Kobayashi, C. (2004). Toward the development of intercultural communicative competence: Theoretical and pedagogical implications for Japanese English teachers. JALT Journal, 26, 245-261.
    Samovar, L., Porter, R., & McDaniel, E. (2010). Communication between cultures. Boston: Wadsworth/Cengage Learning.
    Sarah, T. (2010). Qualitative quality: Eight “big-tent” criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(10), 837-851.
    Seidlhofer, B. (2005). English as a lingua franca. ELT Journal, 59(4), 339-341.
    Skehan, P. (2003). Task-based instruction. Language Teaching, 36, 1-14.
    Spencer-Oatey, H. (2000). Culturally speaking: Managing rapport through talk across cultures. New York: Continuum International Publishing Group.
    Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
    Takahashi, S. (2010a). Assessing learnability in second language pragmatics. In A. Trosborg (Ed.), Handbook of pragmatics: Vol. VII (pp. 391-421). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
    Takahashi, S. (2010b). The effect of pragmatic instruction on speech act performance. In A. Martinez-Flor & E. Uso-Juan (Eds.), Speech act performance: Theoretical, empirical and methodological issues (pp. 127-144). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
    Takimoto, M. (2009). The effects of input-based tasks on the development of learners’ pragmatic proficiency. Applied Linguistics, 30, 1-25.
    Takimoto, M. (2010). Evaluating the effects of task repetition on learners’ recognition and production of second language pragmatic chunks. Paper presented at the International Conference of Malaysian English Language Teaching Association, Selangor, Malaysia, June.
    Taguchi, N. (2003). Pragmatic performance in comprehension and production of English as a second language. Unpublished Dissertation, Northern Arizona University.
    Taguchi, N. (2011). Teaching Pragmatics: Trends and Issues. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 289-310.
    Taguchi, N. (2012). Context, individual differences and pragmatic competence. UK: Multilingual Matters.
    Tsai, C.C. & Kuo, P.C. (2008). Cram school students’ conceptions of learning and learning science in Taiwan. International Journal of Science Education, 30, 351-373.
    Vallerand, R. J. (1997). Toward a hierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 29, 271-360.
    Vásquez, C. & Sharpless, D. (2009). The role of pragmatics in the master’s TESOL curriculum: Findings from a nationwide survey. TESOL Quarterly, 43(1), 5-28.
    Walcott, H. F. (1990). Writing up qualitative research. London: Sage.
    Wen, Q. (2011). Applied linguistics research methods and thesis writing. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press (FLTRP).
    Williams, D. (2001). An overview of the relationship between assessment and the curriculum. In D. Scoot (Ed.), Formative assessment: Improving learning secondary classroom (pp. 165-181). Westport, CT: Ablex Publishing.
    Williams, M., & Burden, R. (1997). Psychology for language teachers. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
    Wolfson, N. (1989). Perspectives: Sociolinguistics and TESOL. University of Pennsylvania.
    Xu, Y., & Liu, Y. (2009). Teacher assessment knowledge and practice: A narrative inquiry of a Chinese college EFL teacher’s experience. TESOL Quarterly, 43(3), 493-513.
    Yu, M. (2008). Teaching and learning sociolinguistic skills in university EFL classes in Taiwan. TESOL Quarterly, 42(1), 31-52.
    描述: 碩士
    國立政治大學
    英國語文學研究所
    98551018
    100
    資料來源: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0985510181
    数据类型: thesis
    显示于类别:[英國語文學系] 學位論文

    文件中的档案:

    档案 大小格式浏览次数
    018101.pdf742KbAdobe PDF21078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