淡江大學覺生紀念圖書館 (TKU Library)

系統識別號 U0002-0409200902093500
中文論文名稱 方向性動詞在外語教室的學習成效:以Bring及Take為例
英文論文名稱 Bring or Take: That’s the Question in Teaching Deictic Shifts in FL Classrooms
校院名稱 淡江大學
系所名稱(中) 英文學系碩士班
系所名稱(英) Department of English
學年度 97
學期 2
出版年 98
研究生中文姓名 康雅禎
研究生英文姓名 Ya-Chen Kang
學號 694010645
學位類別 碩士
語文別 英文
口試日期 2009-06-22
論文頁數 116頁
口試委員 指導教授-胡映雪
中文關鍵字 方向性動詞  認知教學  文法翻譯 
英文關鍵字 deictic verb  cognitive instruction  grammar translation 
學科別分類 學科別人文學語言文學
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.
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 Deictic Senses of Bring 34 Non-deictic Senses of Bring 37
2.3.2 Semantics for Take 39 Deictic Senses of Take 40 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 Analysis of Deictic Bring 71 Analysis of Non-deictic Bring 72 Analysis of Deictic Take 73 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.
Blakemore, Diane (1996). Understanding Utterances. UK, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
British National Corpus (2005). Simple Search. University of Oxford.
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).
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.
  • 同意紙本無償授權給館內讀者為學術之目的重製使用,於2010-09-07公開。
  • 同意授權瀏覽/列印電子全文服務,於2010-09-07起公開。

  • 若您有任何疑問,請與我們聯絡!
    圖書館: 請來電 (02)2621-5656 轉 2486 或 來信