臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫系統

:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
第 1 筆 / 總合 1 筆   第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁
/1頁
題名：英語系學生對英語會話意涵的理解研究
作者：柯博登 引用關係
作者(外文)：CURT MICHAEL BEAUDIN
校院名稱：國立高雄師範大學
系所名稱：英語學系
指導教授：林秀春 博士
學位類別：博士
出版日期：2019
主題關鍵詞：會話意涵；聽力理解；戲謔性；反諷性；隱晦相關性；間接拒絕；Conversational Implicatures；Listening Comprehension；Pope-Q Implicatures；Irony；Relevance-Based Implicatures；Indirect Refusals
原始連結：連回原系統網址new window
相關次數：
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(0) 博士論文(0) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:0
  • 共同引用共同引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:1
本研究旨在調查以大學主修英文的學生理解英文不同類型會話意涵的能力。具體而言，是對於大一新生及大四學生進行由四種類型的會話意涵構成的聽力理解測驗的比較。此外，學生的英文程度也被用來決定其是否可以做為成功理解會話意涵的有力預測指標。最後，根據學生的大學入學年數與英文程度，對每一個類型的會話意涵困難度進行評量與比較。
本研究參與對象包括139位就讀於高雄地區國立大學的學生，其中70位為大一新生，69位為大四學生。根據其英文程度，將參與研究的對象區分成低程度與高程度。在研究開始時，參與者接受聽力測驗。在聽力測驗之後，所有參與者接受聽力理解測驗，該測驗由四種不同類型的會話意涵組成。測驗的會話意涵分別是：間接拒絕、隱晦相關性、戲謔性、和反諷性。
根據收集的統計資料，本研究的結果摘要如下：
1.本研究的參與者能夠成功地理解不同類型的會話意涵。
2.大四學生在所有類型的會話意涵測驗成績顯著高於大一新生。
3.對於大一新生而言，從簡到難的困難程度順序分別是：間接拒絕、隱晦相關性、反諷性，以及戲謔性。反諷性和戲謔性的會話意涵平均數在統計資料上並沒有太大的差異。對於大四學生而言，困難度順序是相同的，隱晦相關性和反諷性的會話意涵平均數並沒有顯著的差異。
4.聽力程度是本研究能否成功運用會話意涵的一個強而有力的預測指標。英文程度和能否通過聽力理解測驗之間有極高的相關性。
5.對於低程度學生，從簡到難的困難程度順序分別是：間接拒絕、隱晦相關性、反諷性，以及戲謔性。隱晦相關性和反諷性的會話意涵平均數並沒有顯著的差異；同時，反諷性和戲謔性的會話意涵平均數也沒有顯著的差異。對於高程度學生，從簡到難的困難程度順序與低程度學生相同，此外，間接拒絕和隱晦相關性、隱晦相關性和反諷性、以及戲謔性和反諷性的會話意涵平均數均沒有顯著的差異。
根據本研究的結果，提出以下的教學建議：
1.會話意涵課程應在大學課程中明確教授給英文學習者。
2.教師應當提供學生眾多範例以及充分機會練習。
3.應使用以會話意涵形式來協助會話意涵的理解，以及促進其實際運用能力的增長。
4.應考量以實際情境對話中，教授所有會話意涵的種類，以協助學生理解以及教導學生如何以合適的方式做出回應。
This study investigated the ability of English majors to comprehend implicatures of varying types. More specifically, a comparison was made between freshmen and seniors on their ability to complete a listening comprehension test that consisted of four types of implicatures. Furthermore, the English proficiency level of the students was also used to try and determine if proficiency level would be a strong predictor for success on comprehending implicatures. Finally, the difficulty level of each type of implicature was evaluated and compared based on the number of years enrolled in university and also on proficiency level in English.
The participants of the study were 139 undergraduates from a public university in Kaohsiung, Taiwan. Of the 139 students, 70 were freshmen and 69 were seniors. The participants were also separated into low- and high-proficient students based on English proficiency. The participants were given a listening proficiency test at the beginning of the study. Following the proficiency test, all of the participants were given a listening comprehension test that consisted of four different types of implicatures. The implicatures that were tested were Indirect Refusals, Relevance-Based, Pope-Q, and Irony.
Based on the data collected, the findings from this study are as follows:
1.The participants of this study were able to successfully comprehend implicatures of varying types.
2.The seniors scored significantly higher than the freshmen did on all types of implicatures.
3.For the freshmen, the order of difficulty from the simplest to the most difficult was: Indirect Refusals, Relevance-Based, Irony, and Pope-Q. The mean difference between Irony and Pope-Q was not statistically significant. For the seniors, the order of difficulty was the same, with no significant difference between the mean values of Relevance-Based and Irony.
4.Listening proficiency was a strong predictor of success on the implicatures used in this study. There was a strong correlation between proficiency in English and success on the comprehension test.
5.For the low-proficient students, the order of difficulty from the simplest to the most difficult was: Indirect Refusals, Relevance-Based, Irony, Pope-Q. There were no significant differences between the mean values of Relevance-Based and Irony, and between Irony and Pope-Q. For the high-proficient students, the order of difficulty was the same with no significant differences between the mean values of Indirect Refusals and Relevance-Based, Relevance-Based and Irony, and Pope-Q and Irony.
Based on the findings of this study, the following pedagogical implications are proposed:
1.Implicatures should be taught explicitly to learners of English at the university level.
2.Teachers need to provide their students with numerous examples with ample opportunities to practice.
3.Form-focused instruction of implicatures should be used to assist comprehension of implicatures and to foster the growth of their pragmatic competence.
4.All implicature types should be taught in a contextualized manner in order to assist comprehension as well as teaching the students how to respond in an appropriate manner.
Allami, H., & Naeimi, A. (2011). A cross-linguistic study of refusals: An analysis of pragmatic competence development in Iranian EFL learners. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(1), 385-406.
Arifuddin, A. (2014). Ranking of causes of failure to infer implicature in TOEFL-like based on gender. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 4(7), 1334-1343.
Bach, K. (1994). Conversational implicatures. Mind and Language, 9(2), 124-162.
Bayat, N. (2013). A study on the use of speech acts. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 70(25), 213-221.
Bella, S. (2011). Mitigation and politeness in Greek invitation refusals: Effects and length of residence in the target community and intensity of interaction on non-native speakers’ performance. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(6), 1718-1740.
Bella, S. (2014). Developing the ability to refuse: A cross-sectional study of Greek FL refusals. Journal of Pragmatics, 61, 35-62.
Benz, A., & Jasinskaja, K. (2013). Implicature and discourse structure. Lingua, 132, 1-12.
Bernicot, J., Laval, V., & Chaminaud, S. (2007). Nonliteral language forms in children: In what order are they acquired in pragmatics and metapragmatics? Journal of Pragmatics, 39(12). 2115-2132.
Bouton, L.F. (1992). The interpretation of implicature in English by NNS: Does it come automatically—without being explicitly taught? Pragmatics and Language Learning, 3, 53-65.
Bouton, L. F. (1994). Can NNS skill in interpreting implicature in American English be improved through explicit instruction? A pilot study. Pragmatics and Language Learning, 5, 89-109.
Breheny, R., Ferguson, H. J., & Katsos, N. (2013). Taking the epistemic step: Toward a model of on-line access to conversational implicatures. Cognition 126(3), 423-440.
Buchanan, R. (2013). Theoretical alternatives to propositions: Conversational implicature, communicative intentions, and content. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 43(5-6), 720-740.
Carrell, P. L. (1981). Relative difficulty of request forms in L1/L2 comprehension. In M. Hines, & W. Rutherford (Eds.), On TESOL ’81 (pp. 141-152). Washington, DC: TESOL.
Carretero, M., & Zamorano-Mansilla, J. R. (2015). Evidentiality as conversational implicature:Implications for corpus annotation. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 212(2), 146-150.
Cignetti, L. M., & Giuseppe, M. S. D. (2015). Pragmatic awareness of conversational implicatures and the usefulness of explicit instruction. Revista Nebrija de Lingüística Aplicada a la Enseñanza de las Lenguas, 19, Retrieved September 24, 2018 from https://www.nebrija.com.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, Lawrence Erlbaum.
Cooren, F., & Sanders, R. E. (2002). Implicatures: A schematic approach. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(8), 1045-1067.
Coulson, S., & Oakley, T. (2005). Blending and coded meaning: Literal and figurative meaning in cognitive semantics. Journal of Pragmatics, 37(10), 1510-1536.
Culpeper, J. (1996). Towards an anatomy of impoliteness. Journal of Pragmatics, 25(3), 349-367.
Davies, B. (2007). Grice’s cooperative principle: Getting the meaning across. Journal of Pragmatics, 39, 2308-2331.
Derakhshan, A., Mohsenzadeh, H., & Mohammadzadeh, S. (2014). The nuts and bolts of teaching implicatures in EFL/ESL contexts: An overview on the role of video-enhanced input. International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature, 3(5), 13-21.
Dinges, A. (2015). Innocent implicatures. Journal of Pragmatics, 87, 54-63.
Doyle, C. C. (2006). Is the Pope still catholic?: Historical observations on sarcastic interrogatives. Western Folklore, 67(1), 5-33.
Geis, M. L. (1995). Speech Acts and Conversational Interaction. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Greenall, A. K. (2009). Towards a new theory of flouting. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(22), 2295-2311.
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole, & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics, Volume 3: Speech Acts (pp 41-58). New York: Academic Press.
Heck, R. G. Jr. (2006). Reason and Language. In C. McDonald, & G. McDonald (Eds.), Mcdowell and His Critics (pp 1-33). Malden MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Holtgraves, T. (1998). Interpreting indirect replies. Cognitive Psychology, 37(1), 1-27.
Holtgraves, T. (1999). Comprehending indirect replies: When and how are their conveyed meanings activated? Journal of Memory and Language, 41(4), 519-540.
Hsu, Y.Y., & Lee, S.Y. (2007). Extensive reading and EFL junior college students in Taiwan. Studies of English Language and Literature, 20, 137-145.
Jang, G., Yoon, S., Lee, S. E., Park, H., Kim, J., & Ko, J.H., et al. (2013). Everyday conversation requires cognitive inference: Neural bases of comprehending implicated meanings in conversations. NeuroImage, 81(1), 61-72.
Kai, I. H. (2006). On mutual accreditation between TOEFL and GEPT. Hwa Kang Journal of English Language & Literature, (12), 27-46.
Kasher, A. (1991). Pragmatics and the popularity of mind. Retrieved August 26, 2018 from ResearchGate,https://www.academia.edu/30258528/Pragmatics_and_the_modularity
_of_mind.
Keysar, B., & Glucksberg, S. (1992). Metaphor and communication. Poetics Today, 13(4), 633-658.
Kim, J. (2014). How Korean EFL learners understand sarcasm in L2 English. Journal of Pragmatics, 60, 193-206.
Kleinke, S. (2010). Speaker activity and Grice’s maxims of conversation at the interface of pragmatics and cognitive linguistics. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(12), 3345-3366.
Kotthoff, H. (2003). Responding to irony in different contexts: On cognition in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 35(9), 1387-1411.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press: Chicago.
Leah, C. (2010). A theoretical approach to linguistic implicatures. Scientific Journal of Humanistic Studies, 2(3), 74-81.
Lee, H. (2013). The influence of social situations on fluency difficulty in Korean EFL learners’ oral refusals. Journal of Pragmatics, 50(1), 168-186.
Liao, C.C., & Bresnahan, M.I. (1996). A contrastive pragmatic study on American English and Mandarin refusal strategies. Language Sciences, 18(3-4), 703-727.
Liao, Y. F. (2016). Investigating the score dependability and decision dependability of the GEPT listening test: A multivariate generalizability theory approach. English Teaching & Learning, 40(1), 79-111.
Manowang, S. (June, 2011). The study of ability to interpret conversational implicatures in English of Thai EFL learners. Paper presented at the Asian Conference on Language Learning, Osaka, Japan.
Minakova, L. Y., & Svetlana K. G. (2015). The situational context effect in non-language-majoring EFL students’ meaning comprehension. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 200(22), 62-68.
Murray, J. C. (2011) Do bears fly? Revisiting conversational implicature in
instructional pragmatics. The Electronic Journal for English as a Second Language, 15(2). Retrieved February 3, 2017, from http://www.tesl-ej.org/wordpress/issues/volume15/ej58/ej58a4/.
Nation, I.S.P., & Newton, J. (2009). Teaching ESL/EFL listening and speaking. New York:Routledge.
Peterson, E. N. (2014). Denying knowledge. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 44(1), 36-55.
Pratama, H. (2017). Indonesian students’ responses to Pope-Q implicatures. Paper presented at the 8th International Seminar of Austronesian and NonAustronesian Languages and Literature, Denpasar, Indonesia.
Searle, J. R. (1975). Indirect Speech Acts. In Geis (1995), Speech Acts and Conversational Interaction. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Shibata, M., Abe, J. I., Itoh, H., Shimada, K., & Umeda, S. (2011). Neural processing associated with comprehension of an indirect reply during a scenario reading task. Neuropyschologia, 49(13), 3542-3550.
Skordos, D., & Papafragou, A. (2016). Children’s derivation of scalar implicatures: Alternatives and relevance. Cognition, 153, 6-18.
Slabakova, R. (2010). Scalar implicatures in second language acquisition. Lingua, 120(10), 2444-2462.
Taguchi, N. (2002). An application of relevance theory to the analysis of L2 interpretation processes: The comprehension of indirect replies, IRAL, 40(2), 151-176.
Taguchi, N. (2005). Comprehending implied meaning in English as a foreign language, The Modern Language Journal, 89(4), 543-562.
Taguchi, N. (2008). Pragmatic comprehension in Japanese as a foreign language. Modern Language Journal, 92(4), 558-576.
Taguchi, N. (2011). The effect of L2 proficiency and study-abroad experience on pragmatic comprehension. Language Learning, 61(3), 904-939.
Taylor, C. (2015). Beyond sarcasm: The metalanguage and structures of mock politeness. Journal of Pragmatics, 87, 127-141.
Thornbury, S. (2005). How to teach speaking. Edinburgh Gate, England: Pearson Education Ltd.
Tuan, J. H., & Hsu, H. J. (2011). Does fish swim? Teaching conversational implicature in the EFL classroom. Shu-Te Online Studies of Humanities and Social Sciences, 7(2), 77-100.
Verbuk, A., & Shultz, T. (2010). Acquisition of relevance implicatures: A case against a rationality-based account of conversational implicatures. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(8), 2297-2313.
Walker, T., Drew, P., & Local, J. (2011). Responding indirectly. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(9), 2434-2451.
Wharton, T. (2002). Paul Grice, saying and meaning. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 14, 207-248.
Wikipedia contributors. (2018, September 13). Irony. In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 15:35, September 28, 2018, from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Irony&oldid=859337466.
Wu, J., & Lee, M. (2017). The relationships between test performance and students’ perceptions of learning motivation, test value, and test anxiety in the context of the English benchmark requirement for graduation in Taiwan’s universities. Language Testing in Asia, 7(9), 1-21.
Ying, H.G. (1996). Multiple constraints on processing ambiguous sentences: Evidence from adult L2 learners, Language Learning, 46(4), 681-711.
Ying, H.G. (2004). Relevance mapping: A study of second language learners’ processing of syntactically ambiguous sentences in English. Second Language Research, 20(3), 232-255.
Yoshida, M. (1999). Comprehending conversational implicature in a foreign language: Is it a language problem or implicature problem? Bulletin of Heian Jogakuin (St. Agnes’) College, 30, 9-18.
Yu, M.C. (2011). Learning how to read situations and know what is the right thing to say or do in an L2: A study of socio-cultural competence and language transfer. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(4), 1127-1147.

 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
QR Code
QRCODE

臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫

目前上線人數：896（臺灣：894，外國：2） ／ 本年度總使用人次：1641614 ／ 訪客人次（自102年09月）：67441633
國家圖書館著作權聲明 Copyright © 2013 All rights reserved.
本館地址: 100201臺北市中山南路20號． 本館地圖及交通資訊．
總機：(02)23619132．最佳瀏覽解析度為1024x768以上