朱錫琴博士馮和平博士Dr. Hsi-chin Janet ChuDr. Ho-ping Feng陳姿蓉Tzu-jung Chen2019-09-032009-8-32019-09-032009http://etds.lib.ntnu.edu.tw/cgi-bin/gs32/gsweb.cgi?o=dstdcdr&s=id=%22GN0593211012%22.&%22.id.&http://rportal.lib.ntnu.edu.tw:80/handle/20.500.12235/97537本研究主要目的為比較台灣大學生的中英文作文及相關寫作觀念的不同。參與本研究的學生為五十四位國立台灣師範大學非主修英語的大一學生。他們被分成四組，每組以不同語言及寫作題目的順序在兩堂課中分別寫出一篇中文作文及英文作文。他們接著在另一天完成寫作觀念問卷(Rhetorical Conception Questionnaire)。這些文章之後以由Wu& Rubin’s (2000) 的研究中發展而來的寫作評分標準就其直接程度(directness)及風格特色 (stylistic features)進行分析。評改完文章及分析完寫作觀念問卷之後，研究者就在對中文論說文文體及自己的中文作文中的直接程度勾選不同的學生另外再進行事後訪談，以獲得進一步的答案。 研究結果顯示這些學生的中英文文章在各方面並無顯著差異。然而，在寫作觀念上，這些學生可分辨出不同的中英文論說文寫作模式，這些不同點主要在於直接程度(degree of directness)、風格特色(stylistic features)、及組織(organization)上。在直接程度上，這些學生認為中文論說文可以直接或間接的方式寫作，但英文論說文則偏向以直接的方式寫作。在組織上，這些學生認為起承轉合仍是中文論說文所強調的文章結構。此外，在寫作觀念上及此次寫作文章中直接程度的感知，這些學生認為他們在中文的部分有顯著差異，但英文的部分則沒有差異。學生們在寫作表現與寫作觀念的差異顯示出他們的認知過程與知識並不相等。在文章的章法方面，最大的不同在於中文的部分，原因可能是受到他們的語言能力、本次的寫作主題、本次寫作時間的限制、以及在第一節課所寫的英文作文所影響。在風格特色上，學生沒有出現大量的引經據典(use of proverbs and other canonical expressions)，原因為受到他們的語言能力限制及對此特徵的負面觀感。另一方面，這些學生的文章出現大量集體自我意識(collective self)，原因主要為從小受到的教育使然。最後，研究者也就教學及研究方法上提出一些相關建議。The present study aims to compare Taiwanese college students’ writing performance and rhetorical conceptions in Chinese and English. The participants were 54 non-English majors in NTNU. They were randomly divided into four groups, and each student in each group wrote a Chinese essay and an English one in different orders of topics and languages in two periods. On the other day, they filled out the Rhetorical Conception Questionnaire (RCQ). The participants’ essays were analyzed in terms of directness and four stylistic features (personal disclosure, use of proverbs and other canonical expressions, collective self, and non-assertiveness) with coding schemes developed from Wu and Rubin’s (2000) study. After analysis of students’ Chinese and English essays and their RCQs, a post hoc interview was implemented to supplement the ambiguity in students’ answers in the RCQ. The results showed that there was no significant difference between the participants’ Chinese and English essays on directness and the four stylistic features. However, students could identify different rhetorical patterns in Chinese and English argumentative writing. The differences lay in degree of directness, stylistic features, and organization. For degree of directness, these students considered Chinese argumentative writing was both direct and indirect, whereas English argumentative writing was generally more direct. For organization, these students regarded qi-cheng-zhuan-he as a currently emphasized structure in Chinese argumentative writing. In addition, there was a significant difference between students’ perception of directness in Chinese argumentative writing and their perception of directness in their own Chinese essays, but there was no significant difference between their perception of directness in English argumentative writing and their perception of directness in their own English essays. The discrepancy between the participants’ writing performance and their rhetorical conventions indicated that their cognitive process was not the same as their knowledge. For the directness in their Chinese essays, they were influenced by their language proficiency, the writing prompts, the time limits, the topics, the first essay they wrote, and Westernization. For their little canonical expressions, both the factors of language proficiency and their negative feelings toward fixed patterns were involved. For their copious collective self use, they were mainly influenced by their education. At the end of the thesis, several pedagogical and methodological implications are provided.寫作模式章法風格直接引經據典集體自我contrastive rhetoricorganizationstylistic featuresdirectnessproverbs and other canonical expressionscollective self