林雪娥教授Dr. Hsueh-O Michelle Lin沈子琪Tzu Chi Theresa Shen2019-09-032006-8-222019-09-032006http://etds.lib.ntnu.edu.tw/cgi-bin/gs32/gsweb.cgi?o=dstdcdr&s=id=%22GN0690210235%22.&%22.id.&http://rportal.lib.ntnu.edu.tw:80/handle/20.500.12235/97594本研究旨在探討英語為外國語的台灣英語研究所研究生，在撰寫英語教學與語言學學術文章時，使用英語連接性副詞和英語為母語的學術人士有何差異。資料來源於台灣當地英語教育學術論文集以及國際級語言學術期刊，將所收集到的期刊文章，備份成電子檔分別儲存在「台灣學生語料庫」與「專業母語人士語料庫」當中。 本研究運用語料庫大量語料的特色採取量化研究，並針對學生相較於母語人士使用情況找出較常使用及較少使用的連接副詞，來進行質性分析。該研究方向分成五大類：(一)台灣學生在使用副詞連接詞的總體頻率是否與英語為母語的學術人士相近 (二)台灣學生利用連接副詞來表達各語意頻率是否與英語為母語的學術人士相近 (三)台灣學生將連接副詞置於句子當中的位置是否與英語為母語的專業人士相同 (四)台灣學生是否能選用符合文章形式的連接副詞 (五)質性探討台灣學生使用連接副詞的問題。 研究結果顯示，台灣學生與專業母語人士一般，傾向於使用固定種類的連接副詞，於此使用的類型侷限於少數，而在總體頻率上沒有顯著的差異，然而台灣學生在連接副詞總體頻率上，與先前研究一致，傾向偏高。而各語義類型的連接副詞總體數量上，兩組人員也沒有顯著的差異，然而台灣學生有偏好使用連接副詞來表達某些語義的傾向，且有些語義偏向少用。就連接副詞於句子中的擺放位置，近乎顯著水準的，台灣學生偏好將連接副詞置於首位；針對連接副詞的形式，台灣學生與專業母語人士一般，多用正式的連接副詞於學術文章當中，只有少數的三個連接副詞的形式選擇上兩組人士有所差異。 綜合量化研究，結果顯示該批台灣研究生在連接副詞使用上近乎與專業母語人士類似，而就質性分析所得結果，研究發現這批台灣學生仍舊有些問題，問題可歸類成誤用與冗贅使用兩種。誤用的情形有兩類，一是語意相近的連接副詞混淆，誤以為語意相近在各種情況都能互通使用，二是利用連接副詞來掩飾篇章上下語意不連貫情形，誤以為使用連接副詞即可平飾文章前後語順不連接情況。至於冗贅使用情形也可歸類成兩類，一類是過度泛用，尤其是連結性的連接副詞(additives)，經常的出現在學生文章當中，這一類型基本上並不至於造成語意衝突而影響閱讀理解，然而另一類的冗贅使用，例如相對類型的連接副詞(contrastives)，台灣學生語料庫當中出現過在沒有語意相對情況下使用相對類型的連接副詞，這類型的冗贅使用，容易誤導讀者，造成閱讀理解困難。 有鑑於此研究發現，本文末提出了一些語料庫為本的課堂可行的活動，來訓練研究生連接副詞於學術性文章的運用。並期待未來研究能進一步的深入探討該主題。The present study aims to explore the use of conjunctive adverbials in academic writing by Taiwanese graduate students of English and to examine if there is any discrepancy between their use with that of the professional native writers. Data for investigation were collected from ELT-related proceedings published in Taiwan and from relevant international applied linguistics journals. These articles were transformed into machine-readable formats and categorized and respectively stored in the Taiwanese Learner Corpus and Professional Writer Corpus. This research benefiting from the advantages of corpus analysis adopts a quantitative approach to examine data. Qualitative analysis is also employed to study the conjunctive adverbials which are more frequently and less frequently applied in the Taiwanese writers’ writing based on the results of per 10,000 word discrepancy analysis. Quantitative results have indicated that the Taiwanese writers applied conjunctive adverbials almost to the same extent as the professional native writers. Both groups of writers were inclined to employ a fixed and limited set of conjunctive adverbials. The discrepancies of the overall occurrences of conjunctive adverbials between the two groups did not indicate significant differences. Yet, the result of the overall frequency analysis was consistent with previous research that non-native writers tend to apply more conjunctive adverbials in writing. Regarding the semantic relations realized by the used of conjunctive adverbials, both the Taiwanese writers and professional native writers did not show significant differences. Some semantic relations, however, tended to be marked more frequently by the Taiwanese writers. Furthermore, the Taiwanese writers also had a strong preference for the initial use of conjunctive adverbials and such a difference between the two groups of writers nearly hit a significant difference. As to register sensitivity, these Taiwanese writers had little difficulty selecting stylistically appropriate conjunctive adverbials in academic writing as few instances of informal register occurred but three conjunctive adverbials occurred differing in styles in the two groups’ writing. Similar to the results of the quantitative analysis, the qualitative analysis indicated that most conjunctive adverbials examined were used quite effectively. However, there were still instances of deviant use identified. The deviant use included misuse and redundant use. The misuse resulted from two major sources: one is that conjunctive adverbials of similar semantic meanings were treated interchangeably when the situation did not allow so; the other is due to poor logicality shown in the inappropriate choice of adverbials to chunk irrelevant ideas together with the use of additives. The redundant use can also be categorizedinto two kinds. One is excessive use and this is particularly common in the use of additives to mark overtly the connectedness between sentences. This type of use after all will not hinder comprehension. However, the second type of redundant use, such as the use of contrastives to connect information with no contrastive value, will impede mental processing and cause confusion. In the end of this research, concordancing-based classroom activities are suggested to train graduate students’ use of conjunctive adverbials in academic writing. Further research is expected to further look into this very subject.學術寫作連接詞/連接副詞學生語料庫/語料庫外語學習者高級班語言學習者academic writing/EAP/ESPconjunctors/conjunctive adverbialslearner corpus/cprporaEFL learnersadvanced learners