Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/58575
|
| Title: | 台灣高中生英文寫作中副詞子句之使用
The use of English adverbial clauses in Taiwanese senior high school students’ writing |
| Authors: | 余佳玟
Yu, Jia Wen |
| Contributors: | 尤雪瑛
Yu, Hsueh Ying
余佳玟
Yu, Jia Wen |
| Keywords: | 副詞子句
附屬連接詞
副詞子句使用頻率
副詞子句錯誤分析
教科書
adverbial clauses
subordinate conjunctions
frequency
error analysis
textbook evaluation |
| Date: | 2010 |
| Issue Date: | 2013-06-27 13:46:57 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 本研究旨在探討台灣高中生副詞子句的使用，並且探究台灣高中生在副詞子句使用上所產生的錯誤。此外，為更進一步了解台灣高中生對於副詞子句的認知，本研究亦檢視了目前國內高中生普遍所使用的英語教科書，以了解英語副詞子句的呈現方式以及內容的編排。本研究受試者為兩班高二學生，一共43位。研究工具為學生高二上學期三篇指定英文作文寫作。
研究結果顯示，副詞子句為一高中生作文中常出現之句型結構。受試者能夠使用不同語意種類的副詞子句來補充說明主要子句的訊息。在各式不同種類副詞子句當中，時間副詞子句出現頻率最高。限定副詞子句(finite adverbial clauses)使用的頻率遠多於非限定副詞子句(non-finite adverbial clauses)。限定副詞子句使用當中，時間副詞子句、因果副詞子句、條件副詞子句、目的副詞子句以及讓步副詞子句，依序為最常使用的副詞子句；非限定副詞子句使用當中，目的副詞子句以及時間副詞子句為使用頻率最高的副詞子句。
雖然副詞子句是基本句型，但經錯誤分析的結果顯示，學生對於副詞子句沒有完整的了解，仍有不正確的使用。整體而言，句子不完整( sentence fragment)以及使用錯誤（不恰當）副詞連接詞使用(illogical subordinate conjunction)為最常發生的錯誤。在限定副詞子句使用上，最常犯的錯誤為不完整句子、錯誤或不恰當的副詞連接詞使用、重複連接詞標記(double marking)以及無主語(null subject)。在非限定副詞子句使用上，不連結修飾語(dangling modifier)為最常出現之錯誤。這些錯誤很可能是因為中文以及英文之間的差異以及對副詞子句沒有充分的理解所導致。
而教科書當中對副詞子句的介紹，也可以解釋學生學習使用副詞子句所犯的錯誤及遭遇的問題。從檢視教科書以及教師手冊當中的句型以及寫作兩個單元發現，在句型呈現上，副詞子句的介紹以及呈現主要著重在單句句型結構以及語意相近的句型結構替換。副詞子句的篇章功能以及副詞連接詞的使用則較被忽略。句型練習中，也較少有情境式的真實語言呈現。在寫作單元上，副詞子句也多半侷限於其句型結構上，而忽略了其詳細語用以及篇章功能概念。綜合研究結果，本研究提出較完善的教學建議，以幫助教學工作者以及學習者對副詞子句在教學上及學習上有更進一步的了解。
The purpose of the present study is to investigate how adverbial clauses are used in Taiwanese senior high school students’ written production and what kinds of difficulties students encounter in employing the structure. In addition, to understand how Taiwanese EFL learners construct their knowledge of adverbial clauses, senior high school students’ English textbooks and teachers’ manuals are also examined to find out the presentation of adverbial clauses. Forty-three senior high school students from two different classes in their second year participated in the research. Three assigned compositions in one semester were collected for data analysis.
The result showed that adverbial clauses are commonly utilized to express various types of circumstantial meanings in the learners’ writing. Temporal adverbial clauses are of the most use among different kinds of adverbial clauses. Adverbial clauses are further categorized into two types: finite and non-finite adverbial clauses. The use of finite adverbial clauses is far more frequent than the use of non-finite adverbial clauses. This may attribute to the amount of exposure to the finite adverbial clauses and syntactic complexities of non-finite clauses. In finite clauses, temporal adverbial clauses are the most frequently used, followed by causal, conditional, purpose and concessive adverbial clauses respectively. In non-finite adverbial clauses, adverbial clauses of purpose are the most used, then clauses of time.
To identify Taiwanese senior high school students’ difficulties in using adverbial clauses, an error analysis was conducted. It was found that adverbial clauses are problematic to the learners. Overall, sentence fragment and illogical subordinate conjunction are the two main error types. Most of the errors occur in finite clauses, including sentence fragment, illogical subordinate conjunction, double marking and null subject. In non-finite clauses, error type is exclusively dangling modifier. The reasons for the errors may be due to learners’ incomprehensive understanding toward the use of adverbial clauses and the differences between Chinese and English.
In addition, learners’ textbooks were evaluated to see how adverbial clauses were generally introduced and presented. An examination of grammar (sentence patterns) and writing sections revealed that in grammar section, the emphasis is mainly on the introduction of various linguistic forms of adverbial clauses and syntactic structures that bear similar semantic meanings. Moreover, they are presented mostly in isolation without meaningful and contextual presentations. The functional aspect of adverbial clauses and the contextual presentation of subordinate conjunctions are quite neglected. Likewise, in writing section, the focus is mostly limited to the introduction of various types of adverbial clauses and subordinate conjunctions. Clearer explanations of the conjunctions and the functional role of adverbial clauses in writing are relatively overlooked. Concluding from the previous findings, it is suggested that more explicit and contextual presentations are needed to help learners to develop a more complete understanding of the use of adverbial clauses. |
| Reference: | Azar, B. S. (1999). Understanding and using English grammar (3rd ed.). White Plains, NY: Pearson Education.
Bache, C., & Davidsen-Nielsen, N. (1997). Mastering English: An Advanced Grammar for Non-Native and Native Speakers. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Bendall, P. (2004). Conjunction and conjunct: When can they go together? Met, 13(4). Retrieved February 5, 2010, from http://www.makassed.org.lb/Article/conjuntion%20and%20conjunct%20int.pdf
Berman, R.A. & Slobin, D. I. (1994). Relating events in narrative: a crosslinguistic developmental study. Hillsdale,NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bland, S. K. (2003). Grammar sense 3. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Breen, M.,& Candlin, C. (1980). The essentials of a communicative curriculum in language teaching. Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 89-112.
Brown, H. D. (2000). Principles of language learning and teaching (4th ed.). New York: Pearson Education.
-----. (2000). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy (2nd ed.). New York: Prentice-Hall Regents.
Byrd, P. (2001). Textbooks: Evaluation for selection and analysis for implementation.In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language.Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Byrd, P., & Reid, J. (1998). Grammar in the composition classroom. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1-47.
Candlin,C.N. (1974). Preface. In J.C. Richards (Eds.),Error analysis: Perspective on second language. London: Longman.
Celce-Murcia, M. (1991). Grammar pedagogy in second and foreign language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 459-512.
Celce-Murcia, M. (2002). Why it makes sense to teach grammar in context and through discourse.In E. Hinkel & S. Fotos (Eds.), New perspectives on grammar teaching in second language classrooms (pp. 119-134). New Jersey: Laurence Erlbaum Associates.
Chafe, W. L. (1984). How people use adverbial clauses. In The proceedings of the tenth annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 437-449. Berkeley Linguistics Society.
Chan, Y. C. (1998). Background and Foreground Structures in EFL English Written Narratives: A Case Study in Senior High School. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Chang, Y. F. (2002). An investigation of parts of speech in interlanguage: subordinators in Taiwan learners’ English writing. Unpublished master’s thesis, Kamkung university, Taipei, Taiwan.
Chang, Y. L.,& Chang, H. C. (2009). When and While: Typical Errors Made by Taiwanese EFL Learners. Paper presented in The Eighteenth International Symposium and Book Fair on English Teaching. Conference held at Chientan Overseas Youth Activity Center, Taipei, Taiwan.
Cooper, T. C. (1976). Measure written syntactic patterns of second language learners of German. The Journal of Educational Research. 69, 176-183.
Corder, S. P. (1967). The Significance of Learners’Errors. In Jack C. Richards (Ed.), Error Analysis: Perspectives on Second Language Acquisition (pp. 19-27). London: Longman.
-----. (1974). Idiosyncratic dialects and error analysis. In Jack C. Richards (Ed.), Error Analysis: Perspectives on Second Language Acquisition (pp. 158-171). London: Longman.
-----. (1987). Error analysis and interlanguage. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Cosme, C (2008). Participle clauses in learner English: the role of transfer. Language and Computers, 66, 177-198.
Cowan, R. (2008). The teacher’s grammar of English: A Course Book and Reference Guide. CUP.Davison, W. F. (1976). Factors in evaluating and selecting texts for the foreign-language classroom. ELT, 30, 301-314.
Decapua, A. (2008). Grammar for teachers: A guide to American English for native and non-native speakers: Springer.
Diessel, H.(2001). The ordering distribution of main and adverbial clauses: a typological study. Language, 77, 433-455.
-----.(2005). Competing motivations for the ordering of main and adverbial clauses. Linguistics: an interdisciplinary journal of the language science, 43(2), 449-470.
Doughty, C. (1991). Second language instruction does make a difference:evidence from an empirical study of SL relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 431–469.
Dulay, H., & Burt, M. (1974). You can’t learn without goofing. In J. C. Richards (Ed.), Error analysis. London: Longman.
Ellis, R. (1990). Instructed second language acquisition: learning in theclassroom. Oxford: Blackwell.
-----.(2001). Investigating form-focused instruction. Language Learning, 51(1), 1-46.
Erdoğan, V. (2005). Contribution of error analysis to foreign language teaching. Mersin University Journal of the Faculty of Education. Retrieved March 2, 2010, from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.133.5184&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Field, Y. & Yip, O. (1992). A comparison of internal conjunctive cohesion in the English essay writing of Cantonese speakers and native speakers. RELC Journal, 23(1), 15-28.
Ford, C. E. (1993). Grammar in interaction: Adverbial Clauses in American English Conversations. Cambridge University Press.
Gass, S. M., & Selinker, L. (1983). Language transfer in language learning. Rowley,MA: Newbury House.
Gilquin, G. & Paquot, M. (2007). Spoken features in learner academic writing: identification, explanation and solution. In Proceedings of the Fourth Corpus Linguistics Conference, University of Birmingham, 27-30 July 2007. Retrieved September 30, 2010, from http://ucrel.lancs.ac.uk/publications/CL2007/paper/204_Paper.pdf
Givon,T. (1979). Discourse and syntax. New York: Academic Press.
-----.(1993). English Grammar: A Function-based Introduction. Vol. II. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Granger, S. (1997). On identifying the syntactic and discourse features of participle clauses in academic English: native and non-native writers compared. In J. Aarts, I. de Mönnink, and H. Wekker (Eds.), Studies in English Language and Teaching. In Honour of Flor Aarts (pp.185-198). Amsterdam & Atlanta: Rodopi.
Granger, S., & Tyson, S. (1996). Connector usage in the English essay writing of native and non-native EFL speakers of English. World Englishes, 15(1), 17-27.
Grant, N. (1987). Making the most of your textbook. Oxford: Heinnemann Publishers Ltd.
Greenbaum, S., & Quirk, R. (1990). A Student’s Grammar of the English Language. Harlow:Longman.
Greenbaum, S. (1991). An Introduction to English Grammar. Harlow: Longman.
Hacker, M. (1999). Adverbial clauses in Scots: a semantic-syntactic study. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Hedge, T. (2000). Teaching and learning in the language classroom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hinkel, E. (2003). Adverbial markers and tone in L1 and L2 students` writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 35(7), 1049-1068.
-----. (2004). Backgrounding discourse and information:subordinate clauses. In Teaching academic ESL writing: Practical techniques in vocabulary and grammar (pp. 241-252). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Eribaum Associates.
Hung, L. C. (2007). Grammatical Structure Recycling in Junior High School English Textbooks for Nine-year Integrated Curriculum. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Hutchinson, T., & Torres, E. (1994). The textbook as agent of change. ELT Journal, 48(4), 315-328.
Hunt, K. W. (1970). Recent measures in syntactic development. In M. Lester (Ed.), Reading in applied transformational grammar (pp. 187-200). New York: Holt, Rinehart.
Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. In J. B. Pride and J. Holmes (Eds.), Sociolinguistics (pp.269-93). Harmmondsworth: Penguin.
Izzo, J. (1995). Usage of Subordinating Conjunctions by University of Aizu Freshman Students: A Pilot Study. University of Aizu Center for Language 1994 Annual Review, 37-42. Retrieved February 12, 2010, from http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED394284&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED394284.
Jackson, H. (1990). Grammar and Meaning. London: Longman.
Jain, M.P. (1974). Error Analysis: Source, Cause and Significance. In Jack C. Richards (Ed.), Error Analysis: Perspectives on Second Language Acquisition (pp. 189-215). London: Longman.
James, C. (1998). Errors in language learning and use: Exploring error analysis. London: Longman.
Karsen-Freeman, D. (1991). Issues in the teaching of grammar. In M.Celce-Murcia and L. McIntosh (Eds), Teaching English as a second language or foreign language (pp. 217-228). Cambridge: Newbury House publishers.
Kennedy, G. (1998). An Introduction to Corpus Linguistics. London and New York: Longman.
Kettemann, B. (1993). Current Issues in European Second Language Acquisition Research. Tübingen: Gunter.
Khalil, E. N. (2000). Grounding in English and Arabic News Discourse. John Benjamin Amsterdam.
-----. (2002). Grounding in text structure. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 22(2), 173-190.
Kortmann, B. (1996). Adverbial subordination: A typology and history of adverbial subordinators based on European languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Krashen, S., & Terrell, T. D. (1983). The natural approach. Oxford: Pergamon.
Richards, J., & Rodgers, T. (1986). Approaches and methods in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (1991). Teaching grammar. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (2nd ed.). Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1994). A Communicative grammar of English (2nd ed.). London: Longman.
Li, C.N., & Thompson, S.A. (1976). Subject and topic: A new typology of language. In C. N. Li (Ed.), Subject and topic (pp. 457-489). New York; Academic Press.
Lin, F. Y. (2001). Preferred Structures in Chinese-English Translation. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Changhua Educational University, Changhua, Taiwan.
Lintermann-Rygh, I. (1985). Connector density – an indictor of essay quality? Text 5, 347-357.
Littlewood, W. (1984). Foreign and second language learning: Language acquisition research and its implications for the classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Liu, J. (2005). Understanding models in L2 writing. Selected Papers from the Fourteenth International Symposium on English Teaching (pp.91-102). Taipei: Crane.
Long, M. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In K. de Bot, D. Coste, R. Ginsberg, & C. Kramsch (Eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective (pp. 39-52). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Lorenz, G. (1999). Learning to cohere: Causal links in native vs. non-native argumentative writing. In W. Bublitz, U. Lenk, & E. Ventola (Eds.), Coherence in spoken and written discourse (pp.55-75). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Mala, M. (2005). Semantic roles of adverbial participial clauses. Theory and Practice in English Studies 3: Proceedings from the Eighth Conference of British, America and Canadian studies. Brno: Masarykova univerzita.
Mathiesen, 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.175-329).
Miller, J. E. (2002). An Introduction to English Syntax. Edinburgh University Press.
Milton, J., & E. Tsang. (1993). .A corpus-based study of logical connectors in EFL students’ writing. In R. Pemberton & E. Tsang (Eds.) Studies in Lexis. Language Centre (pp.215-246). The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology.
Norris, J., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417-528.
Nunan, D. (1998). Teaching grammar in context. ELT Journal, 52, 101-109.
O’ Donnell, R. C. (1976). A critique of some indices of syntactic maturity. Research in the Teaching of English, 10, 33-38.
Olshtain, E. (1991). Functional task for mastering the
mechanics of writing and going just beyond. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a second or Foreign language (pp.235-244). New York: Newbury House.
Parrott, M. (2000). Grammar for English language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Peng, P. H. (2003). Evaluation of Learning Activities in Junior High School English Textbooks for Nine-year Integrated Curriculum. Unpublished master thesis, Department of English, National Taiwan Normal University.
Pretorius, E. J. (2006). The comprehension of logical relations in expository texts by students who study through the medium of ESL. System, 34, 432-450.
Puscasu, G., Barco, P., & Boro, E. (2006). On the identification of temporal clauses. In proceeding of the Mexican International Coference on Artificial Intelligence. Retrieved March 20, 2010, from http://clg.wlv.ac.uk/papers/puscasu_micai06.pdf.
Quintero, M. J. P. (2002). Adverbial Subordination in English, A Functional Approach, Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Wolfe-Quintero, K. , Inagaki, S. & Kim,H.Y. (1998). Second Language Development in Writing: Measures of Fluency, Accuracy and Complexity. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G.. & Svartvik, J. (1985). A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.
Ramsey, V. (1987). The Functional distribution of preposed and postposed ‘if’ and ‘when’ clauses in written discourse. In Russells Tomlin (Ed.), Coherence and Grounding in Discourse (pp.384-409). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Richards, J. C. (1974). A non-contrastive approach to error analysis. In J. C. Richards(Ed.), Error analysis: Perspectives on second language acquisition (pp. 172-188). London: Longman.
Rutherford, W., & Sharwood Smith, M. (1985). Consciousness-raising and universal grammar. Applied Linguistics, 6, 274-282.
Savignon, S. (1997). Communicative Competence: Theory and Classroom Practice. New York: McGraw-Hill.
-----. (2001). Communicative language teaching in the twenty-first century. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
-----. (2002). Communicative language teaching: Linguistic theory and practice. In S.J. Savignon (Ed.) Interpreting Communicative Language Teaching: Contexts and Concerns in teacher education (pp 1-27). New Haven, CT, Yale University Press.
Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage, International review of applied linguistics, 10, 209-230.
Schleppegrell, M. (1991). Paratactic because. Journal of Pragmatics, 16, 121–135.
-----. (1996). Conjunction in spoken English and ESL writing. Applied Linguistics, 17(3), 271-285.
Schmidt, R.W. (1990) The role of consciousness in second language learning.Applied Linguistics, 11, 129–158.
Shih. H. J. (2002). Grounding in Adverbial Clauses in High School Students` English Narrative Compositions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Tan, H. M. (2008). A Study of EFL learners` writing Errors and instructional Strategies. Center for General Education Kun Shan University. Retrieved February 15, 2010, from http://ir.lib.ksu.edu.tw:8080/dspace/bitstream/987654321/3052/1/96%E8%AB%96%E6%96%87%E7%8D%8E%E5%8A%A9-%E8%AD%9A%E6%83%A0%E7%B6%BF%E8%80%81%E5%B8%AB(Writing%20Errors).pdf
Thompson, S. A., & Robert E. L. (1985). Adverbial clauses. In T. Shopen (Eds.), Language typology and syntactic description. (pp. 171-234). Cambridge.
Thompson, S. (1987). Subordination and Narrative Event Structure. In R. Tomlin (Ed.), Coherence and Grounding in Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co.
Tsao, F, F. (1977). Subject and topic in Chinese. In Robert L.Cheng et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of symposium on Chinese linguistics, Linguistic Institute of the LinguisticSociety of America (pp. 165-196).Taipei: Student Book Co.
Tseng, Y.M. (2004). The effects of online conjunction units on EFL college students’ writing. Unpublished master thesis, Department of Foreign Language and Literature, National Tsing Hua University. Hsin-chu, Taiwan.
Tyler, A. (1994). The role of syntactic structure in discourse structure: Signaling logical and prominence relations. Applied Linguistics, 15, 243-262.
Ventola, E.,& Mauranen, A. (1991). Non-native Writing and Native Revising of Scientific Articles. In E. Ventola (Eds.), Functional and Systemic Linguistics. Approaches and Uses (pp.457-492). Berlin: de Gruyter.
Wardhaugh, R. (1970). The contrastive analysis hypothesis. TESOL Quarterly, 4, 123-130.
Widdowson, H. G. (1978). Teaching Language as Communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Williams, D. (1983). Developing criteria for textbook evaluation. ELT Journal, 37(2),251-255.
Wolfe-Quintero, K., Inagaki, S., & Kim, H.Y. (1998). Second language development in writing: Measures of fluency, accuracy & complexity. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii at Manoa.
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.
Yuan, B. (1997). Asymmetry of null subjects and null objects in Chinese Speakers’ L2 English. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(4), 467-498. |
| Description: | 碩士
國立政治大學
英國語文學研究所
945510241
99 |
| Source URI: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0945510241 |
| Data Type: | thesis |
| Appears in Collections: | [英國語文學系] 學位論文
|
Files in This Item:
| File |
Size | Format | |
|---|
| 024101.pdf | 7068Kb | Adobe PDF2 | 995 | View/Open |
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
