中介語用學研究:以台灣英語學習者之糾正語為例

No Thumbnail Available

Date

2008

Journal Title

Journal ISSN

Volume Title

Publisher

Abstract

中介語用學在外語教學研究中是近來日趨重要的一個領域。在中介語用學研究中,語言行為(speech acts)常為廣泛討論。然而,糾正語(correction)則是一個長期以來一直被忽略但卻極為重要的語言行為。有鑒於此,本論文的研究目的主要有二: 一為比較中文和美語的糾正語之異同,二為探討台灣英語學習者如何表達糾正語。 研究語料蒐集自四組受試者,第一組為30位中文母語人士,第二組為30位英語程度較低的台灣英語學習者,第三組為30位英語程度較高的台灣英語學習者,第四組為30位美語母語人士。研究工具為問卷調查,包含三個主要的部份:尺度量表(Scaled Response Questionnaire)、言談情境填充問卷(Discourse Completion Task)及不糾正的理由(reasons of opting out)。問卷中的情境包含12個糾正語情境題及3個拒絕語情境題,共15個情境題。全部的情境題皆依社會地位高低(social status)與社會距離遠近(social distance)此兩個情境變數(contextual factor)來設計。所蒐集之語料都進行量化與質化之研究分析。 研究結果顯示,中文和美語的糾正語表達方式有相同之處亦有跨文化的差異之處。此外,質化與量化的分析結果顯示,台灣英語學習者在糾正語中表現出趨近於外語(approximation to L2)、語用轉移(pragmatic transfer)及中介語發展(interlanguage development)。值得注意的是,學生的語用轉移與中介語發展常常突顯出學生不正確使用外語的情形,這常導致語用失敗(pragmatic failure)。為了讓學生能夠使用更道地的美語,近一步的語用教學是有其必要性。本研究最後點出研究發現的啟示及未來的研究方向。雖然本研究仍存有一些缺點,但本研究已使得跨文化及中介語用學研究領域更往前邁進一大步,也對英語教學領域有所貢獻及啟發。
Interlanguage pragmatics (ILP) has become an increasingly important field in foreign language teaching and learning. Among ILP studies, speech acts are the most widely discussed areas for they can be easily observed in daily life. However, the speech act of correction has been long ignored by previous studies. Thus, the present study aimed to bridge this gap and had two major purposes. One was to examine the cross-cultural differences between Mandarin Chinese and American English correction. The other was to investigate how Chinese EFL learners’ perceived and performed the speech act of correction. Our data were recruited from four participant groups: 30 native speakers of Mandarin Chinese in Taiwan (NSC), 30 Chinese EFL learners of lower proficiency level in Taiwan (EFL-L), 30 Chinese EFL learners of higher proficiency level in Taiwan (EFL-H), 30 native speakers of American English in the United States (NSE). The research instrument was a questionnaire consisting of three major parts: Scaled Response Questionnaire (SRQ), Discourse Completion Task (DCT), and reasons of opting out. The questionnaire included 12 scenarios of correction and 3 scenarios of refusals. All the scenarios varied according to two contextual factors, social status and social distance. Elicited data were coded on the basis of a data-driven coding scheme, consisting of 13 head act strategies, softening devices, and reasons of opting out. Twenty percent of the data were randomly selected to be coded by a second researcher, and the interrater reliability was 87 %. Both quantitative and qualitative analyses were conducted to examine participants’ correction. The results showed that there were similarities and differences between Chinese and Americans’ correction. Furthermore, the quantitative and qualitative analyses revealed that our EFL learners’ correction exhibited pragmatic transfer of L1, approximation to L2, and their interlanguage development. Learners’ L1 transfer and interlanguage development demonstrated their aberrant use of L2, which would frequently result in pragmatic failure and communication breakdown. In order to help learners use L2 in a more native way, further instructions are necessary. This study ended up with implications and suggestions for future studies. Despite some limitations, this study has advanced the field of cross-cultural and interlanguage pragmatics, and has shed light on English teaching.

Description

Keywords

中介語用學, 語言行為, 糾正語, 中英文比較, 跨文化, 語用轉移, 策略使用, 言談情境填充問卷, 尺度量表, interlanguage pragmatics, speech act, correction, Mandarin Chinese - American English comparison, cross-cultural, pragmatic transfer, strategy use, Discourse Completion Task, Scaled Response Questionnaire

Citation

Collections