台灣高中生英語關係子句使用之研究

Abstract

摘要 本研究旨在探討台灣學生在英語關係子句使用上的表現。有鑑於先前大部份的研究都著重在限定性關係子句以及關係子句的句法結構上，本研究主要是在探討：(1)非限定性關係子句的習得；(2)在不同語用及篇章情境中，關係子句的使用；這些情境包括指認(identifying)、描繪(characterizing)、引介(presentative)、補述(parenthetical)；以及(3)在寫作中使用關係子句來背景(backgrounding)次要訊息的能力。研究對象為120位高中一年級和三年級的學生。試題包括限定及非限定性關係子句判斷題、情境式翻譯題、以及短文改寫題。研究結果顯示出台灣學生在關係子句習得上的不足之處。首先，本研究發現受試者尚未完全習得非限定性關係子句。一方面因為未能明確地分別限定性和非限定性關係子句，受試者在大部分情境下會過度使用(overuse)限定性關係子句；而另一方面因為未能充分地瞭解非限定性關係子句的使用情境，受試者在非限定性關係子句的使用上，時常局限於“獨指”(uniqueness-referring)的名詞環境(包括人稱代名詞personal pronouns、專有名詞proper NPs、唯一名詞one-of-a-kind NPs)，而忽略其他同樣在指稱上明確(referentially accessible)的名詞環境。本研究也指出受試者未能完全習得關係子句的語用及篇章功能。受試者經常使用關係子句來指認已知之個體(to identify a known entity)或描繪特定之類型(to characterize a particular type)，但對於引介篇章之主題(to present a topical referent)或補述附加之資訊(to interpolate parenthetical assertions)的功能，他們卻很少使用關係子句，反而常用獨立子句(independent clauses)來表示。另外，當關係子句是用來描述或定義名詞時，受試者常常會誤用定冠詞(the)。而在寫作中的關係子句使用上，受試者大致上都能適當使用關係子句來背景(backgrounding)次要訊息。除了學習時間外，受試者在寫作中過度使用表附加子句(and-clauses)及表原因子句(because-clauses)來表達想法的習慣，也會影響他們在寫作中運用關係子句的能力。根據上述分析結果，本研究最後提出一些教學啟示以供參考。ABSTRACT The present study investigates the use of English relative clauses (henceforth RCs) by Taiwanese EFL learners. In view of the concentration by previous research on restrictive RCs (RRCs) and the structural dimensions of RCs, it concerns itself mainly with (1) the acquisition of non-restrictive RCs (NRRCs); (2) the use of RCs in different pragmatic/discourse contexts, including identifying, characterizing, presentative, and parenthetical; and (3) the use of RCs in writing as a useful backgrounding device. Analyses are based on the performance by 120 senior high school students, first- and third-graders, in an RC judgment test, a context translation test, and a passage-rewriting test. The results reveal some inadequacies in the acquisition of RCs by Taiwanese EFL learners. Firstly, it was found that the subjects did not completely acquire NRRCs. In the absence of a well-drawn distinction between RRCs and NRRCs in their mental grammar of English RCs, they exhibited a tendency to overuse RRCs in most contexts. Moreover, for lack of a full understanding of when to use NRRCs, they showed a propensity to limit the use of NRRCs to uniqueness-referring NP contexts (i.e. personal pronouns, proper NPs, and one-of-a-kind NPs) and disregard other referentially accessible NP contexts. Secondly, it was observed that the subjects did not fully acquire the pragmatic/discourse functions commonly served by RCs. Their use of RCs was associated more with identifying a known entity or characterizing a particular type, and less with presenting a topical referent or interpolating parenthetical assertions, for both of which they were inclined to use independent clauses instead. Besides, they to some degree tended to misuse the definite article the with RCs serving to describe or define NPs. Lastly, it was found that generally, the subjects performed rather satisfactorily in utilizing RCs in writing to background non-essential idea units, and that the extent of their RC use in written discourse hinged upon their tendency to package information with and- or because- clauses, as well as upon their years of learning. In the light of these deficiencies in the acquisition of RCs, the study concludes by proposing some pedagogical implications for language instructors to better assist L2 learners in mastering English RCs.