淡江大學覺生紀念圖書館 (TKU Library)
進階搜尋


下載電子全文限經由淡江IP使用) 
系統識別號 U0002-1308200917295800
中文論文名稱 認知教學於英文普通名詞之可數/不可數區辨概念:以英語為外語學習者之個案研究
英文論文名稱 Cognitive Categorization of Count/Mass Distinction in English Common Nouns: A Case Study Among Learners of English as a Foreign Language
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 林昆輝
研究生英文姓名 Kun-Hui Lin
電子信箱 quinneiro@gmail.com
學號 694010157
學位類別 碩士
語文別 英文
口試日期 2009-06-22
論文頁數 103頁
口試委員 指導教授-胡映雪
委員-張雅慧
委員-范瑞玲
中文關鍵字 認知教學  文法翻譯  認知分類 
英文關鍵字 Cognitive Instruction  Grammar Translation  Categorization 
學科別分類 學科別人文學語言文學
中文摘要 英文的可數與不可數名詞的觀念,對外國語言的教學一直是一個挑戰。而傳統的文法和實體論的解釋均無法成功地幫助學習者針對名詞可數/不可數的使用方法,建立有系統且一致的概念。如Lakoff (1986)表示,語言是人類認知的產物,因此可數/不可數區辨應被視為分類名詞時的一種概念性的活動。此論述已為本研究導引出另一種更能適切地解釋可數/不可數名詞的教學方法。

此研究探討以英語為外國語言學習的大學學生,藉由圖解式分類的認知教學於學習可數/不可數普通名詞區辨概念時的成效。此研究使用一份具有信度與效度的題庫作為評估研究對象學習進步的依據。此題庫共有四十一道題目,其中的二十一道題目使用名詞的原義,而其他二十道題目為衍生義。為測試新方法的效度,實驗者執行一份試驗性研究並發現受測者均有顯著進步的表現。本研究主要對象為六十位中低英文程度的大一學生,並對他們進行四週的教學及隔四週的延遲後測。研究對象均隨機編組,分別列入兩個組別,一組使用認知教學法,另一組使用文法翻譯法。在教學研究過程中,認知教學組使用七組圖像,而每一組圖像分別表示一種名詞分類,並附概念性的解釋。然而,使用文法翻譯組亦使用七組圖像表示一種名詞分類,並附文法的解釋和翻譯。

研究結果顯示,認知教學組與文法翻譯組分別有顯著的進步。不過,認知教學組在後測及延遲後測中,表現的比使用文法翻譯法的組別更好。這個結果意味著認知教學法能確實地幫助受測者學習可數與不可數名詞,並且能夠比文法翻譯組記得久。就學習名詞的原義與衍生義而言,認知教學組雖然表現比文法翻譯組好,但是在比較兩組的立即後測成績時,前者在學習衍生義上有顯著退步。受測者的觀點記錄與訪談資料都顯示出兩組人員於了解可數/不可數名詞區辨時,均密集地使用實體論的解釋。

本研究可視為一先導實驗,探討認知教學法於可數/不可數名詞概念之教學上的應用。此研究的意義在於表明認知教學法於外國語言教學之可行性。其他的建議將會在未來的研究中繼續探討。
英文摘要 Teaching English count-mass concept has been a challenge in foreign language classrooms. It seems that both traditional grammatical and ontological explanations fail to help learners construct systematic and consistent knowledge about the correct use of these two senses. As Lakoff (1986) suggests, language is a result of human cognition, the count-mass distinction should be best envisaged as a conceptual activity through which nouns are categorized. This statement has led to an alternative pedagogy proposed in this study to better interpret the count-mass distinction.

This study is to investigate the effect of cognitive instruction by using schematic categorization models on EFL college learners’ acquisition of count-mass common nouns. A reliability-and-validity-tested item bank of 41 questions was established as a source of tests to gauge subjects’ progress. 21 out of the 41 questions were designed with the proto meaning while the rest 20 with the extended. A pilot study carried out to test the viability of the new method reported significant progress over two weeks. The main study consisted of 60 freshmen of low intermediate English proficiency throughout a treatment of four weeks plus an interval of 4 more weeks for the delayed post-test. Subjects randomly signed up for one group taught with a new methodology termed Cognitive Instruction Method (CIM) and the other Grammar Translation Method (GTM). During the treatment, the CIM group received 7 sets of image schemas with each set referring to one category of nouns along with conceptual explanation while the GTM group received 7 images with each denoting one category of nouns along with grammatical explanation and translation.

The results showed that both the CIM and GTM groups report significant progress. However, the CIM group outperformed the GTM group in the post-test and the delayed post-test significantly. This suggests that the cognitive instruction can prominently enhance subjects’ performance in learning count-mass nouns and help retain knowledge longer than the grammar translation method. In terms of the learning of proto and extended meanings, the CIM group again improved considerably more than the GTM group, but regressed significantly in extended learning by comparing with the scores of their immediate post-test. Both protocol and interview data reveal a frequent use of ontological explanations among subjects of both groups to understand the distinction between count and mass nouns.

This study serves as a pilot experiment into the pedagogical application of cognitive instruction to the learning of count and mass nouns. Implications drawn from this study indicate a potent viability of applying the cognitive instruction method to foreign language classrooms. Some suggestions are further discussed for future research.
論文目次 Abstract...i
Acknowledgement...iv
Table of Contents...v
List of Tables...vii
List of Figures...viii

Chapter One Introduction...1
1.1 Background of the Study...1
1.2 Statement of the Problem...2
1.3 Purpose of the Study...3
1.4 Research Questions...5
1.5 Organization of the Thesis...5

Chapter Two Literature Review...6
2.1 Theoretical Positions Toward Count/Mass Distinction...6
2.1.1 The Grammatical Versus the Ontological View...7
2.1.2 The conceptual-semantic vs. the Contextual View...11
2.2 Prototype Theory and Categorization...15
2.2.1 Prototype Theory...15
2.2.2 Experiential View of Categorization...16
2.2.3 Count-Mass Nominal Categorization in English...17
2.3 Countability in both English and Mandarin...24
2.3.1 English...24
2.3.2 Chinese...25
2.3.3 The Count-Mass Puzzle Among Chinese Learners of English...27
2.4 Studies About Count-Mass Distinction in L2 Learning...27
2.5 Summary...30

Chapter Three Methodology...31
3.1 Participants...31
3.2 Procedure...33
3.2.1 Self-made Item Bank...33
3.2.2 Pilot Study...33
3.2.3 Main Study...34
3.3 Treatment...35
3.3.1 The Control Lesson: Grammar Translation Method...36
3.3.2 The Experimental Lesson: Cognitive Instruction Method...37
3.4 Data Collection and Analysis...39
3.4.1 Pre-test, Interim Test, Post-test, and Delayed Post-test...39
3.4.2 Think Aloud Protocol...41
3.4.3 Interview...42
3.4.3.1 Subjects’ Interview...42
3.4.3.2 Teachers’ Interview...42

Chapter Four Results and Discussion...44
4.1 Results and Discussion of Research Question 1...47
4.2 Results and Discussion of Research Question 2...49
4.3 Results and Discussion of Research Question 3...51
4.4 Results and Discussion of Research Question 4...53
4.4.1 Results of the Proto Meaning...53
4.4.2 Results of the Extended Meaning...56
4.5 Results and Discussion of Research Question 5...59
4.5.1 Strategies Used by the CIM and GTM Subjects...59
4.5.2 Interview Data of the CIM and GTM Subjects...61
4.6 Summary...62

Chapter Five Conclusion...64
5.1 Significance of the Study...64
5.2 Limitations of the Study...65
5.3 Suggestions for Future Reseach...66

References................................................67

Appendices................................................72

List of Tables
Table 3.1 The Mean Score of the 97-Academic Exam of English...31
Table 3.2 The Profile of Subjects’ Background...32
Table 3.3 Paired Sample T-test of the Mean Score of the Pilot Study...34
Table 3.4 Chronological Arrangements of Activity Sessions...35
Table 3.5 The Difficulty Analysis of Each Testing Item...40
Table 3.6 Question Distribution on the Three Tests for Both Groups...40
Table 4.1 Reliability test of the Self-made Item Bank...45
Table 4.2 Validity Test of the Self-made Item Bank...46
Table 4.3 Anova Test of the Pre-test Mean Scores of CIM and GTM...46
Table 4.4 Anova Test of the Mean scores of CIM and GTM Groups Before and After each Treatment...47
Table 4.5 Anova Test of the Mea Scores of CIM and GTM Groups During the Treatment...48
Table 4.6 Anova Test of the Mean Scores of CIM and GTH Groups After the Treatment in Four Weeks...50
Table 4.7 Anova Test of the Mean Scores of CIM and GTM Groups During the Treatment...51
Table 4.8 Anova Test of the Mean Scores of CIM and GTM Groups After the Treatment in Four Weeks...52
Table 4.9 Anova Test of the Mean Scores of CIM Group in Learning Proto Meaning...54
Table 4.10 Anova Test of the Mean Scores of GTM Group in Learning Proto Meaning...55
Table 4.11 Anova Test of the Mean Scores of CIM and GTM Groups in Learning Proto Meanings...56
Table 4.12 Anova Test of the Mean Scores of CIM Group in Learning Extended Meaning...56
Table 4.13 Anova Test of the Mean Scores of GTM Group in Learning Extended Meaning...57
Table 4.14 Anova Test of the Mean Scores of CIM and GTM Groups in Learning Extended Meanings...58
Table 4.15 Percentage of Protocol Entries for Count-Mass Learninge Strategies...60

List of Figures
Figure 2.1 Count-Mass Categorization of English Nominal Concept...14
Figure 2.2 The Schematic Categorization Model of Count/Prototypical Nouns...18
Figure 2.3 The Schematic Categorization Model of Singular Collective Nouns...19
Figure 2.4 The Schematic Categorization Model of Nouns that Lacks a Singular Form...20
Figure 2.5 The Schematic Categorization Model of Nouns with a Similar Singular and Plural Form...21
Figure 2.6 The Schematic Categorization Model of Collective Nouns...22
Figure 2.7 The Schematic Categorization Model of Mass Nouns as Count...23
Figure 2.8 The Schematic Categorization Model of Count Nouns as Mass...24
參考文獻 Allan, K. (1980). Nouns and countability. Language, 56, 285-311.

Adams, K., August, M., Bower, A., Castronovo, V., Hartwell, R., Martens, E., & So, S. (2001). Bottom o’ the barrel. Time. Retrieved March 12, 2001, from http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,999459,00.html

Bach, E. (1989). Informal Lectures on Formal Semantics. NY: State University of New York Press.

Barner, D. & Snedeker, J. (2005). Quantity judgments and individuation: evidence that mass nouns count. Cognition, 97. 41-66.

Bloomfield, L. (1933). Language. New York: Henry Holt.

Bunt, H. C. (1985). Mass Terms and Model-Theoretical Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cheng, Lisa Lai-shen & Sybesma, Rint. (1999). Linguistic inquiry 30, 4, 509-542.

Chien, Y. C., Lust, B. & Chiang, C. P. (2003). Chinese children’s comprehension of count-classifier and mass classifier. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 12. 91-120.

Chierchia, G. (1994) Syntactic bootstrapping and the acquisition of noun meanings: The mass-count issue. In B. Lust, M. Suner, and J. Whiteman (Eds.). Syntactic Theory and First Language Acquisition: Cross-linguistic Perspectives, Vol. 1. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Chierchia, G. (1998). Reference to kinds across languages. Natural Language Semantics, 6, 339-405.

College Entrance Examination Center. 學科成績標準一覽表. Retrieved June 12, 2009, from http://www.ceec.edu.tw/AppointExam/AppointExamStat/97ApExamStat/97ApExamStatIndex.htm

Croft, W. (1991). Syntactic Categories and Grammatical Relations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Gillon, B. S. (1992). Towards a common semantics for English count and mass nouns. Linguistics and Philosophy, 15, 597-639.

Gordon, P. (1985). Evaluating the semantic categories hypothesis: The case of the count/mass dinstinction. Cognition, 20. 209-242.

Hanson, Chad. (1983). Language and logic in ancient China. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.

Hua, D. F. & Lee, T. H. T. (2005). Chinese ESL learners’ understanding of the English count-mass distinction. Proceedings of the 7th Generative Approaches to Second Language Conference. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.

Imai, M. & Gentner, D. (1997). A cross-linguistic study of early word meaning: Universal ontology and linguistic influence. Cognition, 62. 169-200.

Jackendoff, R. (1992). Parts and Boundaries. In B. Levin and S. Pinker (Eds.), Lexical and Conceptual Semantics (Cognition Special Issues), 9-45. Cambridge: Blackwell.

Joosten F. (2003). Accounts of the count-mass distinction: A critical survey. Proceedings of the 19th Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics, Vol. 31 (1), 216-229.

Johnson, M. (1987). The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Reason and Imagination. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Krifka, M. (1991). Massennomina. In A. von Stechow & D. Wunderlich (Eds.), Sementik, ein internationales Handbuch (pp. 399-417). Berlin: de Gruyter.

Lackoff, G. (1986). Classifiers as a reflection of mind. In C. Craig (Ed.), Noun Classes and Categorization, 13-51. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

Langacker, R. W. (1990). Concept, Image, and Symbol: The Cognitive Basis of Grammar. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Langacker, R. W. (2008). Cognitive grammar as a basis for language instruction. In P. Robison & N. C. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition. New York: Routledge.

Lee, D. (2001). Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction (137-146). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Levy, Y. (1997). Autonomous linguistic systems n the language of young children. Journal of Child Language, 24. 651-657.

Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics, 2, 460-466. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Montague, R. (1979). The proper treatment of mass term in English. In F. J. Pelletier (Ed.), Mass Terms: Some Philosophical Problems, 173-178. Holland: D. Reidel.

Nicolas, David. (2008). Mass nouns and plural logic. Linguist and Philos, 31, 211-244.

Palmer, M. (2008). Meryl up close. Good Housekeeping, 247(2). Retrieved August, 2008, from http://www.goodhousekeeping.com/family/celebrity/meryl-streep-interview?click=main_sr

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Variety in quality inquiry. Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods (3rd ed.). California: Sage Publications.

Pelletier, F. J. (1979). Non-singular reference: Some preliminaries. In F. J. Pelletier (Ed.), Mass Terms: Some Philosophical Problems, 1-14. Holland: D. Reidel.

Prasada, S. (1995). Knowledge of the count/mass noun distinction: The relation of syntactic, semantic and conceptual structure. Proceedings of the Twelfth Eastern States Conference on Linguistics. 256-266.

Quine, W. V. O. (1960). Word and Object. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Quirk, R., Greenbaum S., Leech G., & Svartvik J. (1985). A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. Longman: London.

Rosch, E. (1973). Natural Categories. Cognitive Psychology, 4. 328-350.

Rosch, E. (1975). Cognitive representations of semantic categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104. 192-233.

Sadek, C. S. (2000). Creating a Class Mural of Categories of Nouns—Prototypical Nouns; Concrete, Count, Mass or Non-Count Nouns and Abstract Nouns. Retrieved February 21, 2009 from http://eslquestions.com/pdf/iu22/L1.Sadek.Nouns_09_19_07.pdf

Samuelson, L. K. & Smith, L. B. (1999). Early noun vocabularies: do ontology, category structure and syntax correspond? Cognition, 73. 1-33.

Saussure, F. de ([1915] 1974), Course in General Linguistics. trans. By W. Baskin, Fontana/Collins, London.

Soja, N. N., Carey, S., & Spelke, E. (1991). Ontological categories guide children’s inductions of word meaning. Cognitive Development, 7. 29-45.

Taylor, J. R. (1989). Linguistic Categorization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Taylor, J. R. (1999). Cognitive semantics and structuralist semantics. In A. Blank and P. Koch (Eds.), Historical Semantics and Cognition, 17-48. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Taylor, J. R. (2002). Cognitive Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ware, R. X. (1979). Some bits and pieces. In F. J. Pelletier (Ed.), Mass Terms: Some Philosophical Problems, 15-29. Holland: D. Reidel.

Wierzbicka, A. (1985). Oats and wheat: the fallacy of arbitrariness. In J. Haiman (Ed.), Iconicity in Syntax, 311-342. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins.
論文使用權限
  • 同意紙本無償授權給館內讀者為學術之目的重製使用,於2009-08-24公開。
  • 同意授權瀏覽/列印電子全文服務,於2009-10-14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 2281 或 來信