系統識別號 | U0002-0409200902093500 |
---|---|
DOI | 10.6846/TKU.2009.00104 |
論文名稱(中文) | 方向性動詞在外語教室的學習成效:以Bring及Take為例 |
論文名稱(英文) | Bring or Take: That’s the Question in Teaching Deictic Shifts in FL Classrooms |
第三語言論文名稱 | |
校院名稱 | 淡江大學 |
系所名稱(中文) | 英文學系碩士班 |
系所名稱(英文) | Department of English |
外國學位學校名稱 | |
外國學位學院名稱 | |
外國學位研究所名稱 | |
學年度 | 97 |
學期 | 2 |
出版年 | 98 |
研究生(中文) | 康雅禎 |
研究生(英文) | Ya-Chen Kang |
學號 | 694010645 |
學位類別 | 碩士 |
語言別 | 英文 |
第二語言別 | |
口試日期 | 2009-06-22 |
論文頁數 | 116頁 |
口試委員 |
指導教授
-
胡映雪(sue_hu@mail.tku.edu.tw)
委員 - 衛友賢(wible45@yahoo.com) 委員 - 張雅慧(yechang@mail.tku.edu.tw) |
關鍵字(中) |
方向性動詞 認知教學 文法翻譯 |
關鍵字(英) |
deictic verb cognitive instruction grammar translation |
第三語言關鍵字 | |
學科別分類 | |
中文摘要 |
本研究旨在探討教授英語學習者方向性動詞的新方法,此實驗以bring與take為例,藉由兩組北台灣大學生各約四十人的學習成效進行對比,對照組施行傳統的文法翻譯教學,實驗組則施行認知教學法,為了記錄學生的學習成效,在六次的教學實驗前後各實施前後測驗,另也實施兩次延遲測驗。實驗結果顯示,實驗組不僅有顯著性進步,進步幅度更是遠超過對照組,對照組甚至呈現退步的現象,這也映證缺乏情境的語句教學在某些語言學習上的不足,例如含方向性的字詞。這份研究強調,為了有效地幫助外語學習者學習高情境相關的語言技能,英語教師需要對學生的認知模式有多一層的認識。 |
英文摘要 |
The objective of this study is to investigate an alternative pedagogy to teach motion deixis in a FL environment such as Taiwan. The study examined two deictic verbs bring and take by recruiting approximately 40 freshmen from a university in Northern Taiwan for a comparative experiment. They were divided into two groups, with one group, the control group, instructed with traditional teaching method, namely, the Grammar-Translation Method (GTM), while the other, the experimental group, with the Cognitive Instruction (CI) approach. Each group received six sessions of respective treatment, and a pretest prior to and a posttest after the treatment were administered to gauge participants’ performance. Moreover, the delayed posttest was conducted to investigate participants’ retention. Results indicate that CI group not only made considerable improvement, it also outperformed the GTM group significantly. GTM group, in fact, showed regression instead of progress after treatment. Such results support our hypothesis that context-free, sentence-level instruction, which makes up most of the GTM, could not fulfill the need of mastering some aspects of language learning, particularly those of deixis learning. Instead, our study underlines the urgency for FL teachers to have the knowledge of language from a cognitive perspective when the language focus is highly context-dependent in order to facilitate effective learning. |
第三語言摘要 | |
論文目次 |
Table of Contents Acknowledgement i Abstract ii Table of Contents v List of Tables viii List of Figures ix Chapter One Introduction 1 1.1 Significance of the Study 3 1.2 Purpose of the Study and Research Questions 4 1.3 Structure of the Thesis 5 Chapter Two Literature Review 6 2.1 Research Background 6 2.1.1 Deictic Conceptualization 7 2.1.2 Deictic Shift 9 2.1.3 The Acquisition of Deictic Verbs in L1 13 2.1.4 Deictic Verbs Among Different Languages 16 2.1.5 Bring and Take in Chinese 17 2.2 Suggested Pedagogies 22 2.2.1 Embodiment Hypothesis 22 2.2.2 Image Schemas 25 2.2.3 Spatial Semantics 27 2.2.4 Context-based Instruction 30 2.2.5 Challenges for Cognitive Based Methodology 31 2.3 Polysemous Nature of Target Verbs 32 2.3.1 Polysemous Senses of Bring 33 2.3.1.1 Deictic Senses of Bring 34 2.3.1.2 Non-deictic Senses of Bring 37 2.3.2 Semantics for Take 39 2.3.2.1 Deictic Senses of Take 40 2.3.2.2 Non-deictic Senses of Take 42 2.4 Summary 45 Chapter Three Methodology 47 3.1 Participants 47 3.2 Design 50 3.3 Treatments 53 3.3.1 Materials 53 3.3.2 The Experimental Lesson 55 3.3.3 The Control Lesson 57 3.3.4 The Pretest, Immediate Posttest and Delayed Posttest 58 3.3.5 Analysis of the Data 59 3.4 Teachers’ Interview 60 Chapter Four Results and Discussion 62 4.1 Result of the Trial-run Test Study 62 4.1.1 The Reliability and Validity of the Test 63 4.1.2 Results of the Trial-run Test Study 64 4.2 Discussion of Research Questions 65 4.2.1 Result and Discussion of the Research Question 1 68 4.2.2 Result and Discussion of the Research Question 2 69 4.2.3 Result and Discussion of the Research Question 3 69 4.2.4 Result and Discussion of the Research Question 4 70 4.2.4.1 Analysis of Deictic Bring 71 4.2.4.2 Analysis of Non-deictic Bring 72 4.2.4.3 Analysis of Deictic Take 73 4.2.4.4 Analysis of Non-deictic Take 75 4.3 Analysis of the Protocol in Pre- and Immediate Posttest 76 4.4 The Result of Teachers’ Interview 79 4.5 Summary 80 Chapter Five Conclusion 82 5.1 Significance of the Study 82 5.2 Limitations of the Study 83 5.3 Suggestions for Future Research 84 Reference 86 Appendix I 50-Item Test 92 Appendix II Material of Bring for the CI Group 95 Appendix III Material of Take for the CI Group 99 Appendix IV Material of Bring for the GTM Group 104 Appendix V Material of Take for the GTM Group 108 Appendix VI Teachers’ Interview 113 Appendix VII Sample of Protocol of the CI Group 115 Appendix VIII Sample of Protocol of the GTM Group 116 List of Tables Table 3.1 46 International Trade Majors 49 Table 3.2 42 Business Administration Majors 50 Table 3.3 Time and Activities Allotted for Each Session 53 Table 3.4 Treatment of GTM Group 54 Table 3.5 Treatment of CI Group 54 Table 4.1 Reliability Result 63 Table 4.2 Result of Validity of Test Item 64 Table 4.3 LSD Test of Multiple Comparisons in CI Group 66 Table 4.4 LSD Test of Multiple Comparisons in GTM Group 67 Table 4.5 Descriptive Statistics for CI and GTM 20 Participants’ Pretest 68 Table 4.6 Descriptive Statistics for Pre- and Posttest Different Scores 68 Table 4.7 Descriptive Statistics for Pre- and a Second Delayed Posttest Difference 69 Table 4.8 Independent Samples T-Test of the Pre-, Post-, and Delayed Posttest Difference of CI-H and CI-L 70 List of Figures Figure 2.1 The Proto-Scene for Over 28 Figure 2.2 Schematization of The Cat Jumped Over the Wall 29 Figure 2.3 Schematization of the Motion towards Speaker 34 Figure 2.4 Schematization of Object Being Carried to Speaker’s Viewpoint 35 Figure 2.5 Schematization of Viewpoint Shifting in Person Deixis 36 Figure 2.6 Schematization of Viewpoint Shifting in Time Deixis 36 Figure 2.7 Schematization of Causative Bring 37 Figure 2.8 Schematization of Producing Profit or Income 38 Figure 2.9 Schematization of Object’s State or Feeling 38 Figure 2.10 Schematization of Energy Transmission 39 Figure 2.11 Schematization of the Conducting Sense 40 Figure 2.12 Schematization of the Conveying Sense 41 Figure 2.13 Schematization of Removal 41 Figure 2.14 Schematization of Enabling Sense 42 Figure 2.15 Schematization of Possession 42 Figure 2.16 Schematization of Acceptance or Reception 43 Figure 2.17 Schematization of Enduring 43 Figure 2.18 Schematization of Accepting a View or Attitude 44 Figure 2.19 Schematization of Identifying Others 45 Figure 2.20 Schematization of Selection 45 Figure 3.1 The Percentage of the Grade Category in Academic Year 2007 48 Figure 4.1 Correctness Ratio of Bring and Take Use 65 Figure 4.2 Means of Pre-, Immediate Post-, and Delayed Posttest 66 Figure 4.3 Protocol Analysis of Deictic Bring 71 Figure 4.4 Protocol Analysis of Non-deictic Bring 72 Figure 4.5 Protocol Analysis of Deictic Take 74 Figure 4.6 Protocol Analysis of Non-deictic Take 75 Figure 4.7 Coding of CI Students’ Protocols in Pre- and Immediate Posttest 77 Figure 4.8 Coding of GTM Students’ Protocols in Pre- and Immediate Posttest 77 |
參考文獻 |
Abkarian, G. G. (1988). Acquiring Lexical Contrast: the Case of Bring-Take Learning. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, Vol 31 (Sep): 317-326. Bailey, David, Jerome Feldman, Srini Narayanan, and George Lakoff (1997). Modeling Embodied Lexical Development. Neural Theory of Language Publication. International Computer Science Institute and University of California, Berkeley. <http:// www.icsi.berkeley.edu/NTL/papers/ cogsci97.pdf> Blakemore, Diane (1996). Understanding Utterances. UK, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd. British National Corpus (2005). Simple Search. University of Oxford. <http://www.natcorp.ox.ac. uk/ > Brugman, C. (1988). The Story of Over: Polysemy, Semantics, and the Structure of the Lexicon. New York, London: Garland. Brugman, C. & G. Lakoff (1988). ‘Cognitive topology and lexical networks’. In S.Small, G. Cottrell, & M. Tannenhaus, eds., Lexical Ambiguity Resolution. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufman. 477-507. Clark, Eve V. and Olga K. Garnica (1974). Is He Coming or Going? On the Acquisition of Deictic Verbs. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 13 (5), 559-574. Coe, Norman (1973). ‘Come’, ‘Go’, ‘Bring’ and ‘Take’. English Language Teaching, 27 (2), 137-142. Croft, William and D. Alan Cruse (2004). Cognitive Linguistics. United Kingdom: University Press, Cambridge. Darwin, Clayton M. and Loretta S. Gray (1999). Going After the Phrasal Verb: An Alternative Approach to Classification. TESOL Quarterly, 33 (1), 65-83. Ellis, Rod (1997). The Study of Second Language Acquisition, 5th Edition. UK: Oxford University Pree Evans, Vyvyan (2004). The Structure of Time. Language, Meaning and Temporal Cognition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Evans, Vyvyan and Melaine Green (2006). Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Evans, Vyvyan (2007). A Glossary of Cognitive Linguistics. UK: Edinburgh University Press Ltd. Feldman, Jerome and Sarinivas Narayanan (2004). Embodied Meaning in a Neural Theory of Language. Brain and Language, 89 (2), 385-392. Fillmore, Charles J. (1966). Deictic Categories in the Semantics of ‘Come’. Foundations of Language, 2, 219-227. Fitikides T.J. (1999). Common Mistakes in English, 5th Ed. England: Person Education Limited. Grundy, Peter (2000). Doing Pragmatics, 2nd ed. London: Arnold, a member of the Hodder Headline Group. Her, One-Soon (2008). Grammatical Functions and Verb Subcategorization in Mandarin Chinese. Taiwan: The Crane Publishing Co. LTD. Hockett, Charles F (1990). Bring, Take, Come, and Go. Journal of English Linguistics, 23 (1/2): 239-244. Hornby, A.S. (2004). Oxford Advanced Learner’s English-Chinese Dictionary, 4th Edition. Hong Kang: Oxford University Press. Huang, Han-Chun (1998). Lexical Polysemy and Sense Extension in Verbs of Movement in Taiwanese Southern Min. Master’s thesis, National Tsing-Hua University, Hsinchu, Taiwan. Johnson, Mark (1987). The Body in the Mind: The bodily basis of Meaning, Imagination, and Reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Kusuyama, Yuri (2005). The Acquisition of Deictic Verbs by Japanese ESL Learners. NUCB JLCC, 7 (2), 31-43. Langacker, Ronald W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol.1, Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Langacker, Ronald W. (1991). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol.2, Descriptive Application. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Langacker, Ronald W. (2002). Concept, Image, and Symbol: The Cognitive Basis of Grammar, 2nd Edition. New York: Mouton de Gruyter, a Division of Walter de Gruyter & Co., Berlin. Lakoff, George (1987). Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lakoff, George and Mark Johnson (1980). Metaphors We Live By. USA: University of Chicago Press Ltd. Lee, David (2002). Cognitive Linguistics – An Introduction. UK: Oxford University Press. Leech, Geoffrey (1990). Principles of Pragmatics. New York: Longman Group UK Limited. Levinson, Stephen C. (1995). Pragmatics. UK: Cambridge University Press. Li, Charles N. and Sandra A. Thompson (2008). Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference Grammar. Taiwan: The Crane Publishing Co. Ltd. Lightbown, Patsy M. and Nina Spada (2008). How Languages are Learned, 2nd Ed. UK: Oxford University Press. Long, Michael H (1996). The Role of the Linguistic Environment in Second Language Acquisition. In William C. Ritchie and Tej K. Bhatia, eds., Handbook of Second Language Acqusition 413-468. California: Academic Press. Mey, Jacob L. (2002). Pragmatics: an Introduction, 2nd Ed. US: Blackwell Publishers Inc. Nakazawa, Tsuneko (2007). A Typology of the Ground of Deictic Motion Verbs as Path-conflating Verbs: the Speaker, the Addressee, and Beyond. Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, 43 (2): 59-82. Oakley, Todd (2007). Image Schemas. In Dirk Geeraerts and Hubert Cuyckens, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics 214-235. New York: Oxford University Press Inc. O’Grady, William, Michael Dobrovolsky, & Francis Katamba (1997). Contemporary Linguistics – An Introduction. London: Pearson Education Limited Oshima, David Y. (2006). Go and Come Revisited: What Serves as a Reference Point? Proceedings of Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, (32). <linguistics.berkeley.edu/BLS/abstracts/bls32_oshimaLA.pdf> Perkins, Revere Dale (1992). Deixis, Grammar, and Culture. US: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Richards, Meredith Martin (1976). Come and Go Reconsidered: Children’s Use of Deictic Verbs in Contrived Situations. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 15 (6): 655-665. Rohrer, Tim (2007). Embodiment and Experientialism. In Dirk Geeraerts and Hubert Cuyckens, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics 25-47. New York: Oxford University Press Inc. Sinclair, John (2004). Collins Cobuild English Usage, 2nd Edition. Great Britain: HarperCollins Publishers Limited. Sinha, Chris and Kristine Jensen De Lopez (2000). Language, Culture and the Embodiment of Spatial Cognition. Cognitive Linguistics, 11: 17-41. Summers, Della (2003). Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, 4th Edition. UK: Person Education Limited. Sweetser, E. E. (1986). Polysemy vs. abstraction: Mutually exclusive or complementary? In K. Nikikoridou, M. Varclay, M. Niepokuk & D. Feder (Eds.), Proceedings of the 12th annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistic Society, 528-538. Sweetser, E. E. (1990). From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantics Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Talmy, Leonard. (2000). Toward a Cognitive Semantics (Vol. 2): Typology and Process in Concept Structuring. Cambridge, London: MIT Press. Tuggy, David (2007). Schematicity. In Dirk Geeraerts and Hubert Cuyckens, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics 82-116. New York: Oxford University Press Inc. Turton, N. D. & Heaton, J. B. (1996). Longman Dictionary of Common Errors, 2nd Edition. England: Person Education Limited. Tyler, Andrea (2008). Cognitive linguistics and second language instruction. In Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition, Peter Robinson and Nick C. Ellis (eds.), 456-488. New York and London: Routledge. Tyler, Andrea and Vyvyan Evans (2003). The Semantics of English Prepositions: Spatial Senses, Embodied Meaning and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge Press. Tyler, Andrea and Vyvyan Evans (2004 a). Applying Cognitive Linguistics to Pedagogical Grammar: The Case of Over. In Michel Achard and Susanne Niemeier eds., Cognitive Linguistics, Second Language Acquisition, and Foreign Language Teaching 257-280. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Tyler, Andrea and Vyvyan Evans (2004). Spatial Experience, Lexical Structure and Motivation: the Case of In. In G. Rudden & K. Panther eds., Studies in Linguistic Motivation 157-192. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Ungerer, Friedrich and Hans-Jorg Schmid (1996). An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics. USA: Addison Wesley Longman Limited. Walter, Elizabeth (2005). Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, 2nd Edition. England: Cambridge University Press. Xu, Zong-Gui (1988). 漢語動詞的分類研究 [The category of Verbs in Mandarin Chinese]. Master’s thesis, National Kaohsiung Normal University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan. Zlatev, Jordan (2007). Spatial Semantics. In Dirk Geeraerts and Hubert Cuyckens, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics 318-350. New York: Oxford University Press Inc. 各科級分人數分布表 [Ability Exam Statistic] (2007). College Entrance Examination Center. <http://www.ceec.edu.tw/AbilityExam/ AbilityExamStat/96AbExamStat/3各科級分人數分布表96.xls.> |
論文全文使用權限 |
如有問題,歡迎洽詢!
圖書館數位資訊組 (02)2621-5656 轉 2487 或 來信