English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  Items with full text/Total items : 94586/125118 (76%)
Visitors : 30588510      Online Users : 263
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
  • Adv. Search
    HomeLoginUploadHelpAboutAdminister Goto mobile version
    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/37281


    Title: 台灣高中階段英文課程言語行為教學之探討
    Teaching speech act in high school EFL classrooms in Taiwan: a case of invitation
    Authors: 黃宗彥
    Huang, Tsung-yen
    Contributors: 詹惠診
    Chan, Hui-chen
    黃宗彥
    Huang, Tsung-yen
    Keywords: 語言功能教學
    禮貌性
    間接性
    語言策略
    邀請行為
    teaching language functions
    politeness
    indirectness
    linguistic strategy
    the speech act of invitation
    Date: 2008
    Issue Date: 2009-09-19 13:01:58 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 在台灣,由於中學英語課程的設計大都是考試導向,教學過程中幾乎完全著重於語言形式的教導,而忽略語言使用功能的重要性,所以台灣的英語學習者在中學階段很少有機會接受語言功能教學。本研究主要是要調查間接性以及禮貌性這兩個語用功能對於邀請句式選擇的適當性是否有所影響,進而調查語言功能教學對於本國的中學生學習英語的可行性與成效性。
    本研究先分析了20位美國人在間接性與禮貌性的考量之下,對邀請句式的選擇為何,以便建立美國文化在這方面的規範。然後,再以此規範,設計一套四個單元的語言功能教學課程。有135位來自台灣北部兩所高中的高一學生接受了這項課程。這兩所學校的基測成績高低不同;每間學校各有兩班學生分別接受以功能為主的教學和以結構為主的教學。
    前測及後測的結果顯示語言功能教學有效地改善了台灣學生的語言功能表現。再者,語言形式選擇的適當性的確受制於間接性及禮貌性的宰制。此外,情態策略也被驗証比直接策略及暗示策略要來得困難及複雜許多。又,基測成績較高的學校的學生比基測成績較低的學校的學生在學習語言功能的過程中表現較好。整體而言,實驗結果顯示,對於以英語為外國語的學生而言,語言功能教學是有效的、可行的,也是必須的。
    另外,雖然台灣學生較偏好結構為主的教學法,但是本研究發現功能為主的教學法比結構為主的教學法成效較佳。最後,從學生對於本課程的評量得知,雖然學生們覺得語言功能學習法不是很有趣,但是他們大多認為這樣的教學方法對學習英語是有幫助的,而且是重要的。
    EFL learners in Taiwan are hardly taught language functions in high schools since most of the English courses are designed in accordance with the examination-oriented goal, which is far more focused on teaching language form than on teaching language use. The purpose of the present study is to investigate whether indirectness and politeness would influence appropriate linguistic choice for invitation, and to investigate the effectiveness of teaching language functions to high school students in EFL classrooms.
    In this study, 20 American subjects’ ratings of eight linguistic forms for invitation by indirectness and politeness were analyzed to obtain the American norm, based on which a four-unit program of teaching language functions was designed. 138 senior high school students from two senior high schools in northern Taiwan took a pre-test before receiving the instruction and a post-test afterwards. Two classes from each school received function-based teaching method and structure-based teaching method respectively.
    The results of the pre-test and the post-test, in comparison with the American norm, indicate that teaching language functions is effective in improving Chinese students’ competence of the functional aspect of English. Next, the test results verify that the appropriate choice of linguistic forms is indeed influenced by politeness and indirectness, although these two functional factors are not in a systematic relationship. Moreover, Modality strategy is found to be more difficult and more complex than Direct strategy and Hinting strategy. In addition, although the students from the school of high BCT scores tend to perform better than those from the school of low BCT scores, students of both schools made significant improvement in learning the concepts of indirectness and politeness. The findings given above imply that teaching language functions to high school students in EFL classrooms is feasible, necessary, and effective.
    In addition, according to the results of the general evaluations to this teaching program offered by the students and the English teachers involved, although the Taiwanese students showed preference to structure-based method, function-based method is verified to be more effective. In conclusion, the students’ and the teachers’ evaluations of this program indicate that learning language functions may not be interesting, but it is helpful and important to the students.
    Reference: Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
    Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Dörnyei, Z. (1998). Do language learners recognize pragmatic violations? Pragmatic vs. grammatical awareness in instructed L2 learning. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 233–259.
    Bardovi-Harlig K., & Hartford B. S. (1993). Learning the rules of academic talk: A longitudinal study of pragmatic change. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 279-304.
    Beebe, L, Takahashi, T., and Uliss-Weltz, R. (1990). Pragmatic transfer in refusals. In R. C. Scarcella, E. Andersen, & S. D. Krashen (Eds.), Developing communicative competence in a second language (pp. 55-73). New York, NY: Newbury House.
    Blum-Kulka, S. (1987). Indirectness and politeness in requests: Same or different? Journal of Pragmatics, 11, 145-160.
    Blum-Kulka, S., & House, J. (1989). Cross-cultural and situatonal variation in respective behavior. In S. Blum-Kulka, J. House, & G., Kasper (Eds.), Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies (pp. 123-154). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
    Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G. (1989). Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
    Blum-Kulka, S., & Olshtain, E. (1984). Requests and Apologies: A Cross Cultural Study of Speech Act Realization Patterns. Applied Linguistics, 5, 196-213.
    Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1978). Universals in language use: Politeness phenomena. In E. N. Goody (Ed.), Questions and politeness: Strategies in social interaction (pp. 56-289). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theory bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1-47.
    Carrell, P. L., & Eisterhold, J. (1983). Schema theory and ESL reading pedagogy. TESOL Quarterly, 17, 553-573.
    Carrell, P. L., & Konneker, B. H. (1981). Politeness: comparing native and non-native judgments. Language Learning, 31(1), 17-30.
    Celce-Murcia, M., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (1999). An ESL/EFL teacher’s course. Boston, MA.: Heinle and Heinle Publishers.
    Chan, H. (2008). Interaction between indirectness, politeness, and intimacy. Unpublished manuscript.
    Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspect of the theory of syntax. Cambridge: M. I. T. Press.
    Choi, I., Nisbett, R. E., & Norenzayan, A. (1999). Causal attribution across cultures: Variation and universality. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 47–63.
    Cohen, A.D. (1996). Speech acts. In S.L. McKay, & N. Hornberger (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language teaching (pp. 383-420). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Cohen, A. D., Olshtain, E., & Rosenstein, D. S. (1986). Advanced EFL apologies: What remains to be learned? International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 62(6), 51-74.
    Cook, M., & Liddicoat, A. J. (2002). The development of comprehension in interlanguage pragmatics: The case of request strategies in English. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 19-39.
    Cross, D. (1999). A practical handbook of language teaching. NY: Pearson Education.
    Ellis, R. (1992). Learning to communicate: A study of two language learners’ requests. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 14(1), 1-23.
    Goffman, E. (1974). On face-work: An analysis of ritual elements in social interaction. In B. G. Blount (Ed.), Language, culture, and society: A book of readings (pp.224-249). Massachusetts: Winthrop Publishers.
    Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics vol. 3: Speech acts (pp. 107-142). New York: Academic Press.
    Gu, Y. (1990). Politeness phenomena in modern Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 237-257.
    Gumperz, J. (1981). Communicative competence. In N. Coupland & A. Jaworski (Eds.), Sociolinguistics: A reader and coursebook (pp. 39-48). New York: PALGRAVE.
    Gumperz, J. (1982). Language and social identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Hancher, M. (1979). The classification of cooperative illocutionary acts. Language in Society, 8, 1-14.
    Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s Consequences. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
    Hofstede, G., & Bond, M. (1984). Hofstede’s culture dimensions. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 15, 417-433.
    Hong, W. (2002). How does power affect Chinese politeness? The Chinese Language Teachers Association, 37(2), 59-73.
    House, J., & Kasper, G. (1981). Politeness markers in English and German. In F. Coulmas (Ed.), Conversational routine (pp. 157-185). The Hague: Mouton.
    House, J. (1996). Developing pragmatic fluency in English as a foreign language: Routines and metapragmatic awareness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 225-252
    Hu, H. (1944). The Chinese concepts of ‘face’. American Anthropologist, 46(1), 465-64.
    Hymes, D. (1966). On communicative competence. In A. Duranti (Ed.), Linguistic anthropology: A reader (pp. 53-73). Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishers.
    Hymes, D. (1967). Models of the interaction of language and social setting. Journal of Social Issues, 23(2), 8-28.
    Kallia, A. (2005). Directness as a source of misunderstanding: the case of requests and suggestions. In R. T. Lakoff, & S. Ide (Eds.), Broadening the horizon of linguistic politeness (pp. 217-234). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    Kasper, G. (1982). Teaching-induced aspects of interlanguage discourse. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 4, 99-113.
    Kasper, G. (1992). Pragmatic transfer. Second Language Research, 8, 203-231.
    Kasper, G. (1996). Developmental issues in interlanguage pragmatics. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 149-169.
    Kasper, G. (1998). Interlanguage pragmatics. In H. Byrnes (Ed.), Learning foreign and second languages (pp. 183–208). New York: Modern Language Association.
    Kim, U. (1994). Individualism and collectivism: Conceptual clarification and elaboration. In U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S. C. Choi, & G. Yoon, (Eds.), Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method and applications (pp. 19-40). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
    Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis. London: Longman.
    Lakoff, R. (1975). Language and woman’s place. New York: Harper & Row Publishers.
    Leech, G. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.
    Maeshiba, N., Yoshinaga, N., Kasper, G., & Ross, S. (1996). Transfer and proficiency in interlanguage apologizing. In S. M. Gass, & J. Neu (Eds.), Speech acts across cultures: Challenge to communication in a second language (pp. 155-187). Berlin: de Gruyter.
    Manes, J. (1983). Compliments: A mirror of cultural values. In N., Wolfson, & E., Judd (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language acquisition (pp. 96-102). Rowley, Massachusetts: Newbury House Publishers.
    Mao, L. (1992). Invitational discourse and Chinese identity. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication, 3(1), 79-96.
    Mao, L. (1994). Beyond politeness theory: ‘Face’ revisited and renewed. Journal of Pragmatics, 21, 451-486.
    Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224–253.
    Meshiba, N., Yoshinaga, N., Kasper, G., & Ross, S. (1996). Transfer and proficiency in interlanguage apologizing. In S. M. Gass, & J. Neu (Eds.), Speech acts across cultures: Challenge to communication in a second language (pp. 155-187). Berlin: de Gruyter.
    Morris, M. W., & Peng, K. (1994). Culture and cause: American and Chinese attributions for social physical events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 949–971.
    Nwoye, G. O. (1992). Linguistic politeness and socio-cultural variations of the notion of face. Journal of Pragmatics, 18, 309-328.
    O’Driscoll, J. (1996). About face: A defense and elaboration of universal dualism.
    Journal of Pragmatics, 25(1), 1-32.
    Olshtain, E., & Cohen, A. (1991). Teaching speech act behavior to nonnative speakers. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (pp. 154-65). New York: Newbury House.
    Omaggio, A. C. (2001). Teaching languages in context: Proficiency-oriented instruction. Boston: Heinle and Heinle.
    Oyserman, D., Coon, H. M., & Kemmelmeir, M. (2002). Rethinking individualism and collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 3-72.
    Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
    Rinnert, C., & Kobayashi, H. (1999). Requestive hints in Japanese and English. Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 1173-1201.
    Rubin, J. (1983). How to tell when someone is saying “no” revised. In N., Wolfson, & E., Judd (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language acquisition (pp. 10-17). Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House Publishers.
    Scarcella, R. C. (1990). Communication difficulties in second language production, development, and instruction. In R. Scarcella, E. S. Anderson, & S. D. Krashen (Eds.), Developing communicative competence in a second language (pp. 337-353). Boston: Heile and Heinle Publishers.
    Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. W. (1995). Intercultural communication: A discourse approach. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishers.
    Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech Acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. London: Cambridge University Press.
    Searle, J. R. (1975). Indirect speech acts. In S. Davis (Ed.), Pragmatics: A reader (pp. 265-277). New York: Oxford University Press.
    Searle, J. R. (1979). Expression and meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Spencer-Oatey, H. (1997). Unequal relationship in high and low power distance societies. A comparative study of tutor-student role relations in Britain and China. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 28(3), 284-302.
    Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in development. In S. Gass, & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235-256). Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.
    Takahashi, S. (1996). Pragmatic transferability. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 189-223.
    Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4, 91-109.
    Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Oxford: Westview Press.
    Tsuzuki, M., Takahashi, K., Patschke, C., & Zhang, Q. (2001). Selection of linguistic forms for request and offers. In A. Bayraktaroglu, & M. Sifianou (Eds.), Linguistic politeness across boundaries: The case of Greek and Turkish (pp. 283-298). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    Tu, W. (1985) Selfhood and otherness in Confucian thought. In A.J., Marsella, G., Devos, & F.L.K., Hsu, (Eds.), Culture and self: Asian and western perspectives (pp. 231-251). New York Tavistock.
    Wannaruk, A. (2009). Pragmatic transfer in Tai EFL refusals. RELC Journal, 39(3), 318-337.
    Wardhaugh, R. (1986). An introduction to sociolinguistics. New York: Blackwell.
    Wang, F. (1967). Li Ji zhangju. Taipei, Taiwan: Guangwen Book Bureau.
    Wierzbicka, A. (1987). English Speech Act Verbs: A Semantic Dictionary. Sydney: Academic Press.
    Wolfson, N. (1989). Perspectives: Sociolinguistics and TESOL. New York: Newbury House Publishers.
    Wolfson, N., D’Amico-eisner, L., & Huber, L. (1983). How to arrange for social commitments in American English: The invitation. In N., Wolfson, & E., Judd (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language acquisition (pp. 116-128). Rowley, Massachusetts: Newbury House Publishers.
    Wolfson, N., & Judd, E. (Eds.). (1983). Sociolinguistics and language acquisition. Rowley, Massachusetts: Newbury House Publisher.
    Yamaguchi, S. (1994). Collectivism among the Japanese: A perspective from the self. In U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S. C. Choi, & G. Yoon, (Eds.), Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method, and applications (pp. 175–188). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
    Yu, M. (2003). On the universality of face: evidence from Chinese compliment response behavior. Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 1679-1710.
    Yu, M. (2005). Sociolinguistic competence in the complimenting act of native Chinese and American English speakers: A mirror of culture value. Language and Speech, 48(1), 91-119.
    Yu, M. (2008). Teaching and learning sociolinguistic skills in university EFL classes in Taiwan. TESOL Quarterly, 42(1), 31-53.
    Description: 碩士
    國立政治大學
    英國語文學研究所
    95551020
    97
    Source URI: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0095551020
    Data Type: thesis
    Appears in Collections:[英國語文學系] 學位論文

    Files in This Item:

    File Description SizeFormat
    102001.pdf131KbAdobe PDF908View/Open
    102002.pdf65KbAdobe PDF902View/Open
    102003.pdf143KbAdobe PDF1020View/Open
    102004.pdf132KbAdobe PDF874View/Open
    102005.pdf72KbAdobe PDF921View/Open
    102006.pdf284KbAdobe PDF1992View/Open
    102007.pdf182KbAdobe PDF1050View/Open
    102008.pdf1075KbAdobe PDF1212View/Open
    102009.pdf452KbAdobe PDF989View/Open
    102010.pdf94KbAdobe PDF1041View/Open
    102011.pdf102KbAdobe PDF2837View/Open
    102012.pdf1145KbAdobe PDF1090View/Open


    All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告
    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。
    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。
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback