1. NCCU Academic Hub
  2. 學術產出
  3. College of Foreign Languages and Literature
  4. Theses
  5. Item

學術產出-Theses

Article View/Open

Publication Export

Google ScholarTM

政大圖書館

Citation Infomation

題名 學測指考英文佳作分析:文法句型之使用
An Analysis of Sentence Structures in JCEE Advanced Writers` English Compositions
作者 張曉鵑
Chang, Hsiao-Chuan
貢獻者 尤雪瑛
Yu, Hsueh-Ying
張曉鵑
Chang, Hsiao-Chuan
關鍵詞 英文文法句型
英文寫作教學
學測指考英文佳作
英文篇章結構教學
sentence structures
teaching writing
good composition samples by GSAT and DRT Test Takers
teaching discourse functions
日期 2019
上傳時間 1-Apr-2019 14:34:35 (UTC+8)
摘要 臺灣高中生為大學入學所準備的學測與指考中，英文作文是英文科非選擇題的題型之一。以大考中心公佈之英文作文評分標準為例(滿分20分)，一篇優秀的作文，須包含四個層面:內容(5分)、組織(5分)、文法和句構(5分)、字彙及拼音(5分)。然而，近幾年大考中心考後研究報告指出，多數的學生皆未能達到其預定的12分合格標準，零分者也非常多。以107年為例，學測有14132位考生零分；指考有 5525位。此現象引起教育學者及高中教師對英文教學的深切省思：如何在授課進度緊湊且多以文法教學為導向的教育現場中有效進行作文教學？
在學測指考作文題目的引導下，內容、架構都有被提示，但文法和單字運用就憑作者實力而有所不同。這份研究是以近6年內(101-106學年度)學測指考公佈之166篇英文佳作為研究範本，旨在研究英文作文高分者文章中文法句型之使用。本研究欲得知這些高分群學生文法句型的運用上為何？在五大句型中，那些句型運用居多？那些較少？有關於句型的錯誤為何？希望藉此研究給予具體的英文作文之教法。
研究結果顯示，佳作中針對五大句型的使用頻率如下：複句(complex sentences)最多，簡單句(simple sentences)居二，複合句(compound-complex sentences)第三，合句(compound sentences)第四，特殊句型(marked sentences)最少。不管何種句型，高分者會運用副詞系統及不定詞去延展句意；此外，篇章結構的修辭語法(rhetorical functions)也常見於佳作中。關於文法句型的錯誤，在複句及合句中，有錯誤的連接詞使用，或者遺漏連接詞等現象。簡單句則以動詞主動、被動錯誤使用，主詞動詞無一致性錯誤為主。複合句常因要連接過多訊息而使句型結構過於複雜，造成語意模糊，影響讀者解讀之情況。特殊句型因為結構特別，高中課本特別注重，所以錯誤較少，錯誤如分詞構句前後主詞不一、分裂句中的錯誤人稱代名詞使用等。此外，標點符號錯誤使用亦在各句型中被發現。
研究結果建議，高中英語教師在教作文時可以鼓勵學生適時加入副詞系統及不定詞豐富句意；此外，長久以來寫長句及複雜句才能得高分的迷思應破除，教導用篇章結構的修辭語使句型多元延展才是更有效的教學。佳作中少量的特殊句型建議教師應教導學生適時適當的使用特殊句型，並且不列為教學重點。冀望能對高中英文作文現場有所幫助。
In Taiwan, English has always been the first concern in foreign language learning. High school students’ writing abilities are evaluated in the Joint College Entrance Exam (JCEE), the General Scholastic Ability Test (GSAT) and the Department Required Test (DRT). However, the evidence shows that student writers do not reach the expected standard (12 points out of 20) on the tests. Take the paragraph-writing task on GSAT and DRT in Academic Year 107 for example. A total of 14132 test takers received a zero point score on GSAT and 5525 examiners on DRT. JCEE evaluates students’ compositions in a comprehensive way covering four major components: content (5 points out of 20), organization (5 points out of 20), grammar and syntactic structure (5 points out of 20), and vocabulary and spelling (5 points out of 20). The two linguistic traits—grammar and vocabulary—are the focus of teaching in high school and, without the two components as a scaffold in writing, it is difficult for writers to organize and express their ideas accurately and fluently in a logical way. The study will narrow down the scope to grammar and syntactic structure, particularly in terms of sentence structures, and examine how they work in the higher achievers’ compositions. The purpose is to learn what linguistic characteristics of sentence structures are considered keys to higher quality.
This study investigates the sentence structures in 166 writing samples of the advanced writers displayed by the College Entrance Examination Center. The five sentence types and their subclasses are investigated: simple sentences, compound sentences, complex sentences, compound-complex sentences, and marked sentences. Quantitatively, their frequencies, including raw numbers, percentages, and ranks are calculated. Qualitatively, their characteristics and incorrect sentences with mistakes related to sentence structures are examined. The calculation shows that complex sentences were most-frequently used (1131 cases, accounting for 37.18% of the total), simple ranked second (937, 30.80%), compound-complex third (432, 14.20%), compound fourth (363,11.93%), and marked sentences are the least-frequently used (179, 5.89%). Overall, sentence-expanding strategies of using the adverbial system and infinitive structures occurred frequently. The complex sentences in the samples have a discourse function: The thoughtful arrangements of background and foreground information are common. Grammatical errors like the misuse of subordinators or omission of the marker that happen occasionally. The simple sentences are long and diversified because the advanced writers often use sentence expanding strategies. A few grammatical errors relating to verb forms are found in the simple sentences. Compound-complex sentences were long and structurally complicated. The samples show a wide range of combinations of coordinators and subordinators in use. Grammatical errors, such as the omission of that and run-on sentences, are found in the samples. Compound sentences with clauses linked by and or but are the two most frequent structures, while the others are in the minority. Few ungrammatical sentences are found, including run-on sentences and sentences with a lack of equivalence. Among marked sentences, participials and inversions, particularly negative inversions, are used most frequently. The other marked structures occur infrequently. A few errors are found among the marked sentences, such as dangling-modifiers, the misuse of relative pronouns in it-clefts, and mechanic punctuation problems. At last, some pedagogical implications of teaching writing were proposed, including reminders of encouraging sentence-expanding strategies and rhetorical function of sentence structures and the caution of using compound-complex and marked sentences.
參考文獻 Andrews, R., Torgerson, C., Beverton, S., Freeman, A., Locke, T., Low, G., Robinson, A., & Zhu, D. (2006). The effect of grammar teaching on writing development. British Educational Research Journal, 32 (1), 39-55.
Arapoff, N. (1969). Discover and transform: A method of teaching writing to foreign
students. TESOL Quarterly, 3(4), 297-304.
Arnaudet, M.L., & Barrett, M. E. (1990). Paragraph Development: A Guide for Students of English. (2nd ed.) New York: Prentice Hall Regents.
Barvodi-Harlig, K. (1987). Markedness and Salience in Second-Language Acquisition. Language Learning, 37 (3), 385–407.
Bereiter, C. & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum.
Blackmore, D. (1988). So as a Constraint on Relevance. In R. Kempson (Ed.), Mental Representations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brinton, D. M., Snow, M.A., and Wesche, M. B. (1989). Content-based Second Language Instruction. New York: Newbury Housed Publishers.
Bruffee, K. (1986). Social construction, language, and the authority of knowledge: A bibliographical essay. College English 48(8), 773-790.
Byrd, P. (1998). Grammar in the Composition Syllabus. In P. Byrd & M. Reid (Eds). Grammar in the Composition Classroom. Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
Celce-Murcia, M. (1991). Grammar Pedagogy in Second and Foreign Language Teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 25 (3), 459-480.
Celce-Murcia, M. & Larsen-Freeman D. (1999). The Grammar Book: An ESL/EFL Teacher’s Course. New York: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
Carr, D. (1967). A second look at teaching reading and composition. TESOL Quarterly, 1, 30-34.
Chang, H. C. (2007). Teachers’ Perceptions on Writing in EFL Context: A Case Study
in a High School in Taiwan. Unpublished thesis, National Chengchi University.
Chang, W. C. (2006). 台灣的英語教育：現況與省思 〔English Language Education
in Taiwan: A Comprehensive Survey〕. Educational Resources and Research, 69, 9-144。
Chang, W. C & Li, I. (2007). 從功能語法觀點檢視台灣高中英文句型教學
〔Teaching Patterns for Patterns’ Sake?〕The 9th International Conference and
Workshop on TEFL & Applied Linguistics, 626-643。
Chen, S. C. (1999). Difficulties in English writing and the corresponding instructional strategies. Journal of Wu-Feng University, 7, 356-369.
Combs, W. E. (1977). Sentence-combining practice: do gains in judgments of writing “quality” persist? Journal of Educational Research, 70(6), 318-321.
Cope. B. & Kalantzis, M. (2012). The Power of Literacy: A Genre Approach to Teaching Writing. New York: Routeledge.
Cope. B. & Kalantzis, M. (2000). Multiliteracies: Literacy Learning and the Design of Social Futures. London and New York: Psychology Press.
Corson, D. J. (1995). Using English Words. Dordrecht. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Coxhead, A. (2000). A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly, 34 (2), 213-238.
Crystal, D. (1985). A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Davies, R. L. (2000). Organizers in expository text. Australian Review of Applied
Linguistics 23(1), 109-122.
Dehghanpisheh, E. (1979). Bridging the gap between controlled and free composition: Controlled rhetoric at the upper intermediate level. TESOL Quarterly, 13, 509-519.
Elbow, P. (1991). Some thoughts on Expressive Discourse: A Review Essay. Journal of Advanced Composition, 11(1), 83-93.
Ellis, R. (1990). Instructed Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell.
Ellis, R. (1994). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Emig, J. (1971). The composing processes of twelfth graders. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Engber, C.A. (1995). The relationship of lexical proficiency to the quality of ESL compositions. Journal of Second Language Writing. 4(2), 139-155.
Faigley, L.L. (1986). Competing theories of process: A critique and a proposal. College Composition and Communication, 48, 527-542.
Fries, D. (1945). Teaching and learning English as a second language. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Fishman, J., A. Lunsford, B., McGregor (2005). Performing writing, performing literacy. College Composition and Communication, 57(2), 224-252.
Fotos, (1993). Consciousness raising and noticing through focus on form: grammar task performance versus formal correctness. Applied Linguistics 14(4): 385-407.
Fotos, S. S., and H. Nassaji (2013). Teaching Grammar in Second Language Classroom: Integrating form-focused Instruction in Communicative Context. London: Routledge
Fox, B. A., and S. A. Thompson (1990). “A Discourse Explanation of the Grammar of Relative Clauses.” Language 66(2): 297-316.
Friedlander, A. (1990). Composing in English: Effects of a first language on writing in English as a second language. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second Language Writing: Research Insights for the Classroom (pp. 109-125). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Givon. T. (1993). English Grammar: A Function-based Introduction. Vol. II. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Givon. T. (2001). Syntax: an introduction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Complany.
Goldberg, A. (1985). Groves, philharmonic at Chandler Pavilion. Los Angeles Times. (March 16, 1995). IV.1.
Grabe, W. & Kaplan, R. B. (1996). Theory & Practice of Writing. Edinburgh Gate:
Pearson Education Limited.
Greenbaum, S., & Quirk, R. (1990). A Student’s Grammar of the English Language. Harlow: Longman.
Grobe, C. (1981). Syntactic Maturity, Mechanics, and Vocabulary as Predictors of Quality Ratings. Research in the Teaching of English, 15 (4), 75-85.
Halliday, M.A.K. & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M.A.K. & Matthiessen, C.M.I.M. (2004). An Introduction to functional grammar (3rd ed). London: Edward Arnold.
Hamp-Lyons, L. (1986). No new lamps for old yet, please. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 790-796.
Hamp-Lyons, L. (1990). Second language writing: assessment issues. In B. Kroll (Ed.) Second Language Writing: Research Insights for the Classroom (pp. 69-87). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Harley, B. and King, M.L. (1989). Verb lexis in the written compositions of young L2
learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11(4), 415-439.
Hedgcock, D. & Dana, R. (2013). Teaching ESL Composition. New York: Routledge.
Hennessy, D. & Evans, R. (2005). Performing writing among students in community
colleges. Community College Journal of Research & Practice 29 (4), 261-275.
Hinkel, E. (2003). Adverbial markers and tome in L1 and L2 students’ writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 35(7), 1049-1068.
Hoey, M. (1991). Patterns of lexis in text. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Horowitz, D. (1986a). Essay examination prompts and the teaching of academic
writing. English for Specific Purposes Journal, 5 (2), 107-120.
Horowitz, D. (1986b). Process not product: Less than meet the eye. TESOL Quarterly, 20 (1), 141-144.
Hughes. A. (1989). Testing for Language Teachers. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Hunt, K. W. & O’Donnell, R. (1970). An elementary school curriculum: a sequential
program in English. New York an Holt: Rinehart & Winston.
Jacobs, H. L., S. A. Zingraf, D. R. Wormuth, V. F. Hartfield and J. B. Hughey. (1981).
Testing ESL composition: a practical approach. Rowley, Mass: Newbury House.
James, C. (1998). Errors in language learning and use: Exploring error analysis.
London: Longman.
Jonns. A.M (1986). Coherence and Academic Writing: Some Definitions and
Suggestions for Teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 20 (2), 247-265.
Johns, S., D. Myhill, and A. Watson (2013). Playful explicitness with grammar: A
pedagogy for writing. Literacy 47 (2). 103-111.
Johns, S., D. Myhill, and T. Bailey (2013). Grammar for writing? An investigation of
the effects contextualized grammar teaching on students’ writing. Reading and
Writing 26 (8). 1214-1263.
Katchen, J. (2002). English Teaching in Taiwan. ESL Magazine, 5 (5), 26-28.
Kaplan, R. B. (1966). Cultural thought patterns in intercultural education. Language
Learning, 16. 1-20.
Kaplan, R. B. (1987). Cultural thought patterns revisited. In U. Connor & R.B.
Kaplan (Eds.), Writing across languages: Analysis of L2 text, (pp. 9-22).
Workingham, England and Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Krashen, S., &Terrell, T.D. (1983). The natural approach. Oxford: Pergamon.
Kuno, S. (1974). “The Position of Relative Clause and Conjunctions.” Linguistic
Inquiry V (1):117-136.
Lapaire, J-R., and W. Rotgé (1996). “Towards a Psycho-Grammatical Description of
the English Language.” The Journal of TESOL France 3(1): 35-51.
Leki, I. (1992). Understanding ESL Writers: A guide for teachers. New York: St.
Martin’s Press.
Liu, M. & Branie, G. (2005). Cohesive features in argumentative writing produced
by Chinese undergraduates. System 33(4), 623-636.
Long, M., H. & Jack C. R. (Eds.). (2001). Learning Vocabulary in Another Language.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Llach, M.P.A (2007). Lexical errors as writing quality predictors. Studia Linguistica,
61(1):1-19.
Mann, W. C., & Thompson, S. A. (1988). Rhetorical structure theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization. Text-Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse 8 (3), 243-281.
Marton, W. (1981). Pedagogical implications of contrastive studies. In Fisiak, J. (Ed.) Contrastive linguistics and the language teacher (pp.157-170). Oxford: Pergamon.
Master, P. (1996). Systems in English Grammar: An Introduction for Language Teachers. Englewood Clifts: Prentice Hall Regents.
Mattiessen, D. & Thompson, S. A. (1988). The structure of discourse and “subordination.” In J. Haiman & S. A. Thompson (Eds.) Clause Combining in Grammar and Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publisher.
McCathy, M. (1990). Vocabulary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
McCathy, M. (1991). Discourse analysis and applied linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Meara, P. (1990). A note on passive vocabulary. Second Language Research, 6, 150-154.
Muncie, J. (2002). Finding a place for grammar in EFL composition classes. ELF Journal 56 (2), 180-186.
Murray, D. (1980). Writing as process: How writing finds its own meaning. In T. Donovan & B. McClelland (Eds.), Eight Approaches to teaching composition, (pp. 3-20). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Myhill, D. (2008). Towards a linguistic model in sentences development in writing.
Language and Education, 22(5), 271-288.
Nation, I. S. P. (2008). Teaching Vocabulary: Strategies and techniques. Boston:
Heinke Press.
Nordquist, R. (2016). Grammar Basics: Sentence Parts and Sentences Structure.
http://grammar.about.com/od/rs/sentence-structure.htm.
O’Hare, F. (1973). Sentence combining improving student writing without formal
grammar instruction. Research Report No 15. Urbana, IL: National Council of
Teachers of English.
Pincas, A. (1962). Structural linguistics and systematic composition teaching to
students of English as a second language. Language Learning, 12, 185-194.
Polio, C., C. Fleck, and N. Leder. (1998). “If only I had more time:” ESL learners’
changes in linguistic accuracy on essay revisions. Journal of Second Language
Writing 7 (1): 43-68.
Posner, M. (1980). Semantics and Pragmatics of Sentence Connectives in Natural
Language. In J. Searle, F. Kiefer, and M. Bierwisch (Eds.), Speech Act Theory
and Pragmatics. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Quintero, M. J. P. (2002). Adverbial Subordination in English, A Functional
Approach. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Reid, M. (1993). Teaching ESL Writing. New Jersey: Prentice Hall Regents.
Reid, M. (1998). “Eye” Learners and “Ear” Learners: Identifying the Language Needs of International Student and U.S. Resident Writers. In P. Byrd & M. Reid (Eds). Grammar in the Composition Classroom. Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
Saddler, B. & Graham, S. (2005). The effects of peer-assisted sentence-combining instruction on the writing performance of more and less skilled young writers. Journal of educational psychology 97 (1), 43.
Satrinai, I. & Emilia, E. (2012). Contextual Teaching and Learning Approach to
Teaching Writing. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 2 (1), 10-22.
Schachter, P. (1973). Focus and relativization. Language 49:1.
Schmitt, N. (2000). Vocabulary in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sinclair, J., Fox G., Bulloon, S., Krishnamurthy, R. Manning, E. & Todd, J. (1990). English Grammar. Cambridge: Harper Collins Publisher.
Stauble, A. (1978). “A Frequency Study of Restrictive Relative Clause Types and Relative Pronoun Usage in English.” Unpublished English 215 Paper, UCLA, Fall, 1978.
Shaughnessy, M. (1977). Errors and expectations: A guide for the teacher of basic
writing. Oxford and New York: Teachers College Press.
Silva, T. (1990). Second language composition instruction: Developments, issues and directions in ESL. In B. Kroll (Ed.) Second Language Writing: Research Insights for the Classroom (pp. 11-23). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Thompson, S. A. (1983). Grammar and Discourse: The English Detached Participial Clause. In F. Klein (ed.), Discourse Perspectives on Syntax. New York: Academic Press, 46-65.
Tribble, C. (1996). Writing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tyler, A. (1994). The role of syntactic structure in discourse structure: Signaling logic and prominence relations. Applied Linguistics, 15, 243-262.
White, R.V. (1987). Writing Advanced. Oxford: Oxford University.
Widdowson, H. G. (1978). Language teaching as communication. Oxford and New
York: Oxford University.
Yu, G. (2010) Lexical Diversity in Writing and Speaking Task Performances. Applied
Linguistics, 31(2): 236-259.
Yu, H. Y. (2001). The placement of English adverbial clauses in narrative texts of
native speakers and Chinese college students. English Teaching & Learning, 26
(2), 89-106.
Zamel, V. (1976). Teaching composition in the ESL classroom : What we can learn from research in the teaching of English. TESOL Quarterly, 10, 67-76.
Zamel, V. (1980). Re-evaluating sentence-combining practice. TESOL Quarterly, 14(1), 81-90.
Yang, Y. L. (2008). 高中英文寫作教學之我見-從大學入學考試英作測驗談起。
〔Teaching English Writing in High School: from the Writing Tasks on JCEE.〕
Newsletter of English Education Resource Center, 39. Retrieved from
http://english.tyhs.edu.tw/epaper/epaper39/epaper39.htm
描述 博士
國立政治大學
英國語文學系
935515061
資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0935515061
資料類型 thesis
dc.contributor.advisor 尤雪瑛zh_TW
dc.contributor.advisor Yu, Hsueh-Yingen_US
dc.contributor.author (Authors) 張曉鵑zh_TW
dc.contributor.author (Authors) Chang, Hsiao-Chuanen_US
dc.creator (作者) 張曉鵑zh_TW
dc.creator (作者) Chang, Hsiao-Chuanen_US
dc.date (日期) 2019en_US
dc.date.accessioned 1-Apr-2019 14:34:35 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.available 1-Apr-2019 14:34:35 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 1-Apr-2019 14:34:35 (UTC+8)-
dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0935515061en_US
dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/122740-
dc.description (描述) 博士zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 英國語文學系zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 935515061zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) 臺灣高中生為大學入學所準備的學測與指考中，英文作文是英文科非選擇題的題型之一。以大考中心公佈之英文作文評分標準為例(滿分20分)，一篇優秀的作文，須包含四個層面:內容(5分)、組織(5分)、文法和句構(5分)、字彙及拼音(5分)。然而，近幾年大考中心考後研究報告指出，多數的學生皆未能達到其預定的12分合格標準，零分者也非常多。以107年為例，學測有14132位考生零分；指考有 5525位。此現象引起教育學者及高中教師對英文教學的深切省思：如何在授課進度緊湊且多以文法教學為導向的教育現場中有效進行作文教學？
在學測指考作文題目的引導下，內容、架構都有被提示，但文法和單字運用就憑作者實力而有所不同。這份研究是以近6年內(101-106學年度)學測指考公佈之166篇英文佳作為研究範本，旨在研究英文作文高分者文章中文法句型之使用。本研究欲得知這些高分群學生文法句型的運用上為何？在五大句型中，那些句型運用居多？那些較少？有關於句型的錯誤為何？希望藉此研究給予具體的英文作文之教法。
研究結果顯示，佳作中針對五大句型的使用頻率如下：複句(complex sentences)最多，簡單句(simple sentences)居二，複合句(compound-complex sentences)第三，合句(compound sentences)第四，特殊句型(marked sentences)最少。不管何種句型，高分者會運用副詞系統及不定詞去延展句意；此外，篇章結構的修辭語法(rhetorical functions)也常見於佳作中。關於文法句型的錯誤，在複句及合句中，有錯誤的連接詞使用，或者遺漏連接詞等現象。簡單句則以動詞主動、被動錯誤使用，主詞動詞無一致性錯誤為主。複合句常因要連接過多訊息而使句型結構過於複雜，造成語意模糊，影響讀者解讀之情況。特殊句型因為結構特別，高中課本特別注重，所以錯誤較少，錯誤如分詞構句前後主詞不一、分裂句中的錯誤人稱代名詞使用等。此外，標點符號錯誤使用亦在各句型中被發現。
研究結果建議，高中英語教師在教作文時可以鼓勵學生適時加入副詞系統及不定詞豐富句意；此外，長久以來寫長句及複雜句才能得高分的迷思應破除，教導用篇章結構的修辭語使句型多元延展才是更有效的教學。佳作中少量的特殊句型建議教師應教導學生適時適當的使用特殊句型，並且不列為教學重點。冀望能對高中英文作文現場有所幫助。		zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) In Taiwan, English has always been the first concern in foreign language learning. High school students’ writing abilities are evaluated in the Joint College Entrance Exam (JCEE), the General Scholastic Ability Test (GSAT) and the Department Required Test (DRT). However, the evidence shows that student writers do not reach the expected standard (12 points out of 20) on the tests. Take the paragraph-writing task on GSAT and DRT in Academic Year 107 for example. A total of 14132 test takers received a zero point score on GSAT and 5525 examiners on DRT. JCEE evaluates students’ compositions in a comprehensive way covering four major components: content (5 points out of 20), organization (5 points out of 20), grammar and syntactic structure (5 points out of 20), and vocabulary and spelling (5 points out of 20). The two linguistic traits—grammar and vocabulary—are the focus of teaching in high school and, without the two components as a scaffold in writing, it is difficult for writers to organize and express their ideas accurately and fluently in a logical way. The study will narrow down the scope to grammar and syntactic structure, particularly in terms of sentence structures, and examine how they work in the higher achievers’ compositions. The purpose is to learn what linguistic characteristics of sentence structures are considered keys to higher quality.
This study investigates the sentence structures in 166 writing samples of the advanced writers displayed by the College Entrance Examination Center. The five sentence types and their subclasses are investigated: simple sentences, compound sentences, complex sentences, compound-complex sentences, and marked sentences. Quantitatively, their frequencies, including raw numbers, percentages, and ranks are calculated. Qualitatively, their characteristics and incorrect sentences with mistakes related to sentence structures are examined. The calculation shows that complex sentences were most-frequently used (1131 cases, accounting for 37.18% of the total), simple ranked second (937, 30.80%), compound-complex third (432, 14.20%), compound fourth (363,11.93%), and marked sentences are the least-frequently used (179, 5.89%). Overall, sentence-expanding strategies of using the adverbial system and infinitive structures occurred frequently. The complex sentences in the samples have a discourse function: The thoughtful arrangements of background and foreground information are common. Grammatical errors like the misuse of subordinators or omission of the marker that happen occasionally. The simple sentences are long and diversified because the advanced writers often use sentence expanding strategies. A few grammatical errors relating to verb forms are found in the simple sentences. Compound-complex sentences were long and structurally complicated. The samples show a wide range of combinations of coordinators and subordinators in use. Grammatical errors, such as the omission of that and run-on sentences, are found in the samples. Compound sentences with clauses linked by and or but are the two most frequent structures, while the others are in the minority. Few ungrammatical sentences are found, including run-on sentences and sentences with a lack of equivalence. Among marked sentences, participials and inversions, particularly negative inversions, are used most frequently. The other marked structures occur infrequently. A few errors are found among the marked sentences, such as dangling-modifiers, the misuse of relative pronouns in it-clefts, and mechanic punctuation problems. At last, some pedagogical implications of teaching writing were proposed, including reminders of encouraging sentence-expanding strategies and rhetorical function of sentence structures and the caution of using compound-complex and marked sentences.		en_US
dc.description.tableofcontents Acknowledgements iii
Chinese Abstract ix
English Abstract x
Chapter
1. Introduction 1
Background 1
Statement of the Problem 3
Statement of the Purpose 5
Research Questions 6
Significance of the Study 7
Organization of the Dissertation 8
2. Literature Review 10
The Nature of Writing 11
The Qualities of Good Writing 12
Unity and Coherence in Writing 13
Vocabulary and Grammar in Writing 15
Vocabulary in Writing 15
Grammar in Writing 17
L2 Writing Assessment 24
The Shift from Indirect Writing Tests to Direct Writing Tests 24 Specifications in Direct Writing Tests 25
The Direct Writing Test in Taiwan: JCEE 27
L2 Writing Instruction 28
Approaches to L2 Writing Instruction 28
The Importance of Grammar in EFL Writing Instruction 30
Current Writing Instruction in Taiwan 32
3. Methodology 35
Data Collection 35
The Data 35
Writing Tasks 36
The Writing Tasks on GSATs 37
The Writing Tasks on DRTs 38
Analysts 39
Process of Data Analysis 40
Frameworks 40
Analysis Process 45
Quantitative Analysis 45
Qualitative Analysis 47
4. Results Analysis and Discussion 49
The Five Types of Sentence 49
The Subclasses in the Five Types of Sentence 51
The Subclasses of Complex Sentences 51
The Adverbial-clause Subclass 54
The Noun-clause Subclass 57
The Relative-clause Subclass 61
Others 65
The Incorrect Sentences in Complex Sentences 66
Summary of Complex Sentences 67
The Subclasses of Simple Sentences 68
The S+V+O Subclass 69
The S+V+SP Subclass 71
The S+V+O+OP Subclass 72
The S+V Subclass 73
The S+V+IO+DO Subclass 75
The Incorrect Sentences in Simple Sentences 76
Summary of Simple Sentences 77
The Compound-complex Sentences 77
Compound-complex Sentences with Three or more than
Three Conjunctions 78
Compound-complex Sentences with One Coordinator
and One Subordinator 80
Compound-complex Sentences with Marked Sentences
82
The Incorrect Sentences in Compound-complex
Sentences 83
Summary of Compound-complex Sentences 85
The Subclasses of Compound Sentences 85
And-structure Compound Sentences 87
But-structure Compound Sentences 88
So-, or-, yet-, and for-structure Compound Sentences.89
Others 90
The Incorrect Sentences in Compound Sentences 91
Summary of Compound Sentences 92
The Subclasses of Marked Sentences 93
The Participial-structure Subclass 94
The Inversion-structure Subclass 97
There be…Subclass 100
Other Marked Sentences: Exclamations, the more…, the
more…, and Clefts 101
The Incorrect Sentences in Marked Sentences 102
Summary of Marked Sentences 103
Pedagogical Implications 104
Summary of the Chapter 108
5. Conclusion 110
Answers to Research Questions 110
Pedagogical Implications 114
Limitations of the Study 116
Directions for Future Research 117
Appendix A The Rubric and Details of Each Scoring Aspect in GSAT & DRT
before Academic Year 107 120
Appendix B The Rubric and Details of Each Scoring Aspect in GSAT & DRT
since Academic Year 107 121
Appendix C Six Writing Tasks on GSATs from 2012 to 2017 122
Appendix D Six Writing Tasks on DRTs from 2012 to 2017 125
References 127
Vita 136		zh_TW
dc.format.extent 2362241 bytes-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0935515061en_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 英文文法句型zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 英文寫作教學zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 學測指考英文佳作zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 英文篇章結構教學zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) sentence structuresen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) teaching writingen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) good composition samples by GSAT and DRT Test Takersen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) teaching discourse functionsen_US
dc.title (題名) 學測指考英文佳作分析:文法句型之使用zh_TW
dc.title (題名) An Analysis of Sentence Structures in JCEE Advanced Writers` English Compositionsen_US
dc.type (資料類型) thesisen_US
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Andrews, R., Torgerson, C., Beverton, S., Freeman, A., Locke, T., Low, G., Robinson, A., & Zhu, D. (2006). The effect of grammar teaching on writing development. British Educational Research Journal, 32 (1), 39-55.
Arapoff, N. (1969). Discover and transform: A method of teaching writing to foreign
students. TESOL Quarterly, 3(4), 297-304.
Arnaudet, M.L., & Barrett, M. E. (1990). Paragraph Development: A Guide for Students of English. (2nd ed.) New York: Prentice Hall Regents.
Barvodi-Harlig, K. (1987). Markedness and Salience in Second-Language Acquisition. Language Learning, 37 (3), 385–407.
Bereiter, C. & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum.
Blackmore, D. (1988). So as a Constraint on Relevance. In R. Kempson (Ed.), Mental Representations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brinton, D. M., Snow, M.A., and Wesche, M. B. (1989). Content-based Second Language Instruction. New York: Newbury Housed Publishers.
Bruffee, K. (1986). Social construction, language, and the authority of knowledge: A bibliographical essay. College English 48(8), 773-790.
Byrd, P. (1998). Grammar in the Composition Syllabus. In P. Byrd & M. Reid (Eds). Grammar in the Composition Classroom. Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
Celce-Murcia, M. (1991). Grammar Pedagogy in Second and Foreign Language Teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 25 (3), 459-480.
Celce-Murcia, M. & Larsen-Freeman D. (1999). The Grammar Book: An ESL/EFL Teacher’s Course. New York: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
Carr, D. (1967). A second look at teaching reading and composition. TESOL Quarterly, 1, 30-34.
Chang, H. C. (2007). Teachers’ Perceptions on Writing in EFL Context: A Case Study
in a High School in Taiwan. Unpublished thesis, National Chengchi University.
Chang, W. C. (2006). 台灣的英語教育：現況與省思 〔English Language Education
in Taiwan: A Comprehensive Survey〕. Educational Resources and Research, 69, 9-144。
Chang, W. C & Li, I. (2007). 從功能語法觀點檢視台灣高中英文句型教學
〔Teaching Patterns for Patterns’ Sake?〕The 9th International Conference and
Workshop on TEFL & Applied Linguistics, 626-643。
Chen, S. C. (1999). Difficulties in English writing and the corresponding instructional strategies. Journal of Wu-Feng University, 7, 356-369.
Combs, W. E. (1977). Sentence-combining practice: do gains in judgments of writing “quality” persist? Journal of Educational Research, 70(6), 318-321.
Cope. B. & Kalantzis, M. (2012). The Power of Literacy: A Genre Approach to Teaching Writing. New York: Routeledge.
Cope. B. & Kalantzis, M. (2000). Multiliteracies: Literacy Learning and the Design of Social Futures. London and New York: Psychology Press.
Corson, D. J. (1995). Using English Words. Dordrecht. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Coxhead, A. (2000). A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly, 34 (2), 213-238.
Crystal, D. (1985). A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Davies, R. L. (2000). Organizers in expository text. Australian Review of Applied
Linguistics 23(1), 109-122.
Dehghanpisheh, E. (1979). Bridging the gap between controlled and free composition: Controlled rhetoric at the upper intermediate level. TESOL Quarterly, 13, 509-519.
Elbow, P. (1991). Some thoughts on Expressive Discourse: A Review Essay. Journal of Advanced Composition, 11(1), 83-93.
Ellis, R. (1990). Instructed Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell.
Ellis, R. (1994). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Emig, J. (1971). The composing processes of twelfth graders. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Engber, C.A. (1995). The relationship of lexical proficiency to the quality of ESL compositions. Journal of Second Language Writing. 4(2), 139-155.
Faigley, L.L. (1986). Competing theories of process: A critique and a proposal. College Composition and Communication, 48, 527-542.
Fries, D. (1945). Teaching and learning English as a second language. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Fishman, J., A. Lunsford, B., McGregor (2005). Performing writing, performing literacy. College Composition and Communication, 57(2), 224-252.
Fotos, (1993). Consciousness raising and noticing through focus on form: grammar task performance versus formal correctness. Applied Linguistics 14(4): 385-407.
Fotos, S. S., and H. Nassaji (2013). Teaching Grammar in Second Language Classroom: Integrating form-focused Instruction in Communicative Context. London: Routledge
Fox, B. A., and S. A. Thompson (1990). “A Discourse Explanation of the Grammar of Relative Clauses.” Language 66(2): 297-316.
Friedlander, A. (1990). Composing in English: Effects of a first language on writing in English as a second language. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second Language Writing: Research Insights for the Classroom (pp. 109-125). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Givon. T. (1993). English Grammar: A Function-based Introduction. Vol. II. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Givon. T. (2001). Syntax: an introduction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Complany.
Goldberg, A. (1985). Groves, philharmonic at Chandler Pavilion. Los Angeles Times. (March 16, 1995). IV.1.
Grabe, W. & Kaplan, R. B. (1996). Theory & Practice of Writing. Edinburgh Gate:
Pearson Education Limited.
Greenbaum, S., & Quirk, R. (1990). A Student’s Grammar of the English Language. Harlow: Longman.
Grobe, C. (1981). Syntactic Maturity, Mechanics, and Vocabulary as Predictors of Quality Ratings. Research in the Teaching of English, 15 (4), 75-85.
Halliday, M.A.K. & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M.A.K. & Matthiessen, C.M.I.M. (2004). An Introduction to functional grammar (3rd ed). London: Edward Arnold.
Hamp-Lyons, L. (1986). No new lamps for old yet, please. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 790-796.
Hamp-Lyons, L. (1990). Second language writing: assessment issues. In B. Kroll (Ed.) Second Language Writing: Research Insights for the Classroom (pp. 69-87). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Harley, B. and King, M.L. (1989). Verb lexis in the written compositions of young L2
learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11(4), 415-439.
Hedgcock, D. & Dana, R. (2013). Teaching ESL Composition. New York: Routledge.
Hennessy, D. & Evans, R. (2005). Performing writing among students in community
colleges. Community College Journal of Research & Practice 29 (4), 261-275.
Hinkel, E. (2003). Adverbial markers and tome in L1 and L2 students’ writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 35(7), 1049-1068.
Hoey, M. (1991). Patterns of lexis in text. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Horowitz, D. (1986a). Essay examination prompts and the teaching of academic
writing. English for Specific Purposes Journal, 5 (2), 107-120.
Horowitz, D. (1986b). Process not product: Less than meet the eye. TESOL Quarterly, 20 (1), 141-144.
Hughes. A. (1989). Testing for Language Teachers. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Hunt, K. W. & O’Donnell, R. (1970). An elementary school curriculum: a sequential
program in English. New York an Holt: Rinehart & Winston.
Jacobs, H. L., S. A. Zingraf, D. R. Wormuth, V. F. Hartfield and J. B. Hughey. (1981).
Testing ESL composition: a practical approach. Rowley, Mass: Newbury House.
James, C. (1998). Errors in language learning and use: Exploring error analysis.
London: Longman.
Jonns. A.M (1986). Coherence and Academic Writing: Some Definitions and
Suggestions for Teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 20 (2), 247-265.
Johns, S., D. Myhill, and A. Watson (2013). Playful explicitness with grammar: A
pedagogy for writing. Literacy 47 (2). 103-111.
Johns, S., D. Myhill, and T. Bailey (2013). Grammar for writing? An investigation of
the effects contextualized grammar teaching on students’ writing. Reading and
Writing 26 (8). 1214-1263.
Katchen, J. (2002). English Teaching in Taiwan. ESL Magazine, 5 (5), 26-28.
Kaplan, R. B. (1966). Cultural thought patterns in intercultural education. Language
Learning, 16. 1-20.
Kaplan, R. B. (1987). Cultural thought patterns revisited. In U. Connor & R.B.
Kaplan (Eds.), Writing across languages: Analysis of L2 text, (pp. 9-22).
Workingham, England and Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Krashen, S., &Terrell, T.D. (1983). The natural approach. Oxford: Pergamon.
Kuno, S. (1974). “The Position of Relative Clause and Conjunctions.” Linguistic
Inquiry V (1):117-136.
Lapaire, J-R., and W. Rotgé (1996). “Towards a Psycho-Grammatical Description of
the English Language.” The Journal of TESOL France 3(1): 35-51.
Leki, I. (1992). Understanding ESL Writers: A guide for teachers. New York: St.
Martin’s Press.
Liu, M. & Branie, G. (2005). Cohesive features in argumentative writing produced
by Chinese undergraduates. System 33(4), 623-636.
Long, M., H. & Jack C. R. (Eds.). (2001). Learning Vocabulary in Another Language.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Llach, M.P.A (2007). Lexical errors as writing quality predictors. Studia Linguistica,
61(1):1-19.
Mann, W. C., & Thompson, S. A. (1988). Rhetorical structure theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization. Text-Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse 8 (3), 243-281.
Marton, W. (1981). Pedagogical implications of contrastive studies. In Fisiak, J. (Ed.) Contrastive linguistics and the language teacher (pp.157-170). Oxford: Pergamon.
Master, P. (1996). Systems in English Grammar: An Introduction for Language Teachers. Englewood Clifts: Prentice Hall Regents.
Mattiessen, D. & Thompson, S. A. (1988). The structure of discourse and “subordination.” In J. Haiman & S. A. Thompson (Eds.) Clause Combining in Grammar and Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publisher.
McCathy, M. (1990). Vocabulary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
McCathy, M. (1991). Discourse analysis and applied linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Meara, P. (1990). A note on passive vocabulary. Second Language Research, 6, 150-154.
Muncie, J. (2002). Finding a place for grammar in EFL composition classes. ELF Journal 56 (2), 180-186.
Murray, D. (1980). Writing as process: How writing finds its own meaning. In T. Donovan & B. McClelland (Eds.), Eight Approaches to teaching composition, (pp. 3-20). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Myhill, D. (2008). Towards a linguistic model in sentences development in writing.
Language and Education, 22(5), 271-288.
Nation, I. S. P. (2008). Teaching Vocabulary: Strategies and techniques. Boston:
Heinke Press.
Nordquist, R. (2016). Grammar Basics: Sentence Parts and Sentences Structure.
http://grammar.about.com/od/rs/sentence-structure.htm.
O’Hare, F. (1973). Sentence combining improving student writing without formal
grammar instruction. Research Report No 15. Urbana, IL: National Council of
Teachers of English.
Pincas, A. (1962). Structural linguistics and systematic composition teaching to
students of English as a second language. Language Learning, 12, 185-194.
Polio, C., C. Fleck, and N. Leder. (1998). “If only I had more time:” ESL learners’
changes in linguistic accuracy on essay revisions. Journal of Second Language
Writing 7 (1): 43-68.
Posner, M. (1980). Semantics and Pragmatics of Sentence Connectives in Natural
Language. In J. Searle, F. Kiefer, and M. Bierwisch (Eds.), Speech Act Theory
and Pragmatics. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Quintero, M. J. P. (2002). Adverbial Subordination in English, A Functional
Approach. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Reid, M. (1993). Teaching ESL Writing. New Jersey: Prentice Hall Regents.
Reid, M. (1998). “Eye” Learners and “Ear” Learners: Identifying the Language Needs of International Student and U.S. Resident Writers. In P. Byrd & M. Reid (Eds). Grammar in the Composition Classroom. Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
Saddler, B. & Graham, S. (2005). The effects of peer-assisted sentence-combining instruction on the writing performance of more and less skilled young writers. Journal of educational psychology 97 (1), 43.
Satrinai, I. & Emilia, E. (2012). Contextual Teaching and Learning Approach to
Teaching Writing. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 2 (1), 10-22.
Schachter, P. (1973). Focus and relativization. Language 49:1.
Schmitt, N. (2000). Vocabulary in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sinclair, J., Fox G., Bulloon, S., Krishnamurthy, R. Manning, E. & Todd, J. (1990). English Grammar. Cambridge: Harper Collins Publisher.
Stauble, A. (1978). “A Frequency Study of Restrictive Relative Clause Types and Relative Pronoun Usage in English.” Unpublished English 215 Paper, UCLA, Fall, 1978.
Shaughnessy, M. (1977). Errors and expectations: A guide for the teacher of basic
writing. Oxford and New York: Teachers College Press.
Silva, T. (1990). Second language composition instruction: Developments, issues and directions in ESL. In B. Kroll (Ed.) Second Language Writing: Research Insights for the Classroom (pp. 11-23). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Thompson, S. A. (1983). Grammar and Discourse: The English Detached Participial Clause. In F. Klein (ed.), Discourse Perspectives on Syntax. New York: Academic Press, 46-65.
Tribble, C. (1996). Writing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tyler, A. (1994). The role of syntactic structure in discourse structure: Signaling logic and prominence relations. Applied Linguistics, 15, 243-262.
White, R.V. (1987). Writing Advanced. Oxford: Oxford University.
Widdowson, H. G. (1978). Language teaching as communication. Oxford and New
York: Oxford University.
Yu, G. (2010) Lexical Diversity in Writing and Speaking Task Performances. Applied
Linguistics, 31(2): 236-259.
Yu, H. Y. (2001). The placement of English adverbial clauses in narrative texts of
native speakers and Chinese college students. English Teaching & Learning, 26
(2), 89-106.
Zamel, V. (1976). Teaching composition in the ESL classroom : What we can learn from research in the teaching of English. TESOL Quarterly, 10, 67-76.
Zamel, V. (1980). Re-evaluating sentence-combining practice. TESOL Quarterly, 14(1), 81-90.
Yang, Y. L. (2008). 高中英文寫作教學之我見-從大學入學考試英作測驗談起。
〔Teaching English Writing in High School: from the Writing Tasks on JCEE.〕
Newsletter of English Education Resource Center, 39. Retrieved from
http://english.tyhs.edu.tw/epaper/epaper39/epaper39.htm		zh_TW
dc.identifier.doi (DOI) 10.6814/DIS.NCCU.ENG.001.2019.A09en_US