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

  • No doi shows Citation Infomation
題名 台灣高中階段英文課程言語行為教學之探討
Teaching speech act in high school EFL classrooms in Taiwan: a case of invitation
作者 黃宗彥
Huang, Tsung-yen
貢獻者 詹惠診
Chan, Hui-chen
黃宗彥
Huang, Tsung-yen
關鍵詞 語言功能教學
禮貌性
間接性
語言策略
邀請行為
teaching language functions
politeness
indirectness
linguistic strategy
the speech act of invitation
日期 2008
上傳時間 19-Sep-2009 13:01:58 (UTC+8)
摘要 在台灣，由於中學英語課程的設計大都是考試導向，教學過程中幾乎完全著重於語言形式的教導，而忽略語言使用功能的重要性，所以台灣的英語學習者在中學階段很少有機會接受語言功能教學。本研究主要是要調查間接性以及禮貌性這兩個語用功能對於邀請句式選擇的適當性是否有所影響，進而調查語言功能教學對於本國的中學生學習英語的可行性與成效性。
本研究先分析了20位美國人在間接性與禮貌性的考量之下，對邀請句式的選擇為何，以便建立美國文化在這方面的規範。然後，再以此規範，設計一套四個單元的語言功能教學課程。有135位來自台灣北部兩所高中的高一學生接受了這項課程。這兩所學校的基測成績高低不同；每間學校各有兩班學生分別接受以功能為主的教學和以結構為主的教學。
前測及後測的結果顯示語言功能教學有效地改善了台灣學生的語言功能表現。再者，語言形式選擇的適當性的確受制於間接性及禮貌性的宰制。此外，情態策略也被驗証比直接策略及暗示策略要來得困難及複雜許多。又，基測成績較高的學校的學生比基測成績較低的學校的學生在學習語言功能的過程中表現較好。整體而言，實驗結果顯示，對於以英語為外國語的學生而言，語言功能教學是有效的、可行的，也是必須的。
另外，雖然台灣學生較偏好結構為主的教學法，但是本研究發現功能為主的教學法比結構為主的教學法成效較佳。最後，從學生對於本課程的評量得知，雖然學生們覺得語言功能學習法不是很有趣，但是他們大多認為這樣的教學方法對學習英語是有幫助的，而且是重要的。
EFL learners in Taiwan are hardly taught language functions in high schools since most of the English courses are designed in accordance with the examination-oriented goal, which is far more focused on teaching language form than on teaching language use. The purpose of the present study is to investigate whether indirectness and politeness would influence appropriate linguistic choice for invitation, and to investigate the effectiveness of teaching language functions to high school students in EFL classrooms.
In this study, 20 American subjects’ ratings of eight linguistic forms for invitation by indirectness and politeness were analyzed to obtain the American norm, based on which a four-unit program of teaching language functions was designed. 138 senior high school students from two senior high schools in northern Taiwan took a pre-test before receiving the instruction and a post-test afterwards. Two classes from each school received function-based teaching method and structure-based teaching method respectively.
The results of the pre-test and the post-test, in comparison with the American norm, indicate that teaching language functions is effective in improving Chinese students’ competence of the functional aspect of English. Next, the test results verify that the appropriate choice of linguistic forms is indeed influenced by politeness and indirectness, although these two functional factors are not in a systematic relationship. Moreover, Modality strategy is found to be more difficult and more complex than Direct strategy and Hinting strategy. In addition, although the students from the school of high BCT scores tend to perform better than those from the school of low BCT scores, students of both schools made significant improvement in learning the concepts of indirectness and politeness. The findings given above imply that teaching language functions to high school students in EFL classrooms is feasible, necessary, and effective.
In addition, according to the results of the general evaluations to this teaching program offered by the students and the English teachers involved, although the Taiwanese students showed preference to structure-based method, function-based method is verified to be more effective. In conclusion, the students’ and the teachers’ evaluations of this program indicate that learning language functions may not be interesting, but it is helpful and important to the students.
參考文獻 Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Dörnyei, Z. (1998). Do language learners recognize pragmatic violations? Pragmatic vs. grammatical awareness in instructed L2 learning. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 233–259.
Bardovi-Harlig K., & Hartford B. S. (1993). Learning the rules of academic talk: A longitudinal study of pragmatic change. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 279-304.
Beebe, L, Takahashi, T., and Uliss-Weltz, R. (1990). Pragmatic transfer in refusals. In R. C. Scarcella, E. Andersen, & S. D. Krashen (Eds.), Developing communicative competence in a second language (pp. 55-73). New York, NY: Newbury House.
Blum-Kulka, S. (1987). Indirectness and politeness in requests: Same or different? Journal of Pragmatics, 11, 145-160.
Blum-Kulka, S., & House, J. (1989). Cross-cultural and situatonal variation in respective behavior. In S. Blum-Kulka, J. House, & G., Kasper (Eds.), Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies (pp. 123-154). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G. (1989). Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Blum-Kulka, S., & Olshtain, E. (1984). Requests and Apologies: A Cross Cultural Study of Speech Act Realization Patterns. Applied Linguistics, 5, 196-213.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1978). Universals in language use: Politeness phenomena. In E. N. Goody (Ed.), Questions and politeness: Strategies in social interaction (pp. 56-289). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theory bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1-47.
Carrell, P. L., & Eisterhold, J. (1983). Schema theory and ESL reading pedagogy. TESOL Quarterly, 17, 553-573.
Carrell, P. L., & Konneker, B. H. (1981). Politeness: comparing native and non-native judgments. Language Learning, 31(1), 17-30.
Celce-Murcia, M., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (1999). An ESL/EFL teacher’s course. Boston, MA.: Heinle and Heinle Publishers.
Chan, H. (2008). Interaction between indirectness, politeness, and intimacy. Unpublished manuscript.
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspect of the theory of syntax. Cambridge: M. I. T. Press.
Choi, I., Nisbett, R. E., & Norenzayan, A. (1999). Causal attribution across cultures: Variation and universality. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 47–63.
Cohen, A.D. (1996). Speech acts. In S.L. McKay, & N. Hornberger (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language teaching (pp. 383-420). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cohen, A. D., Olshtain, E., & Rosenstein, D. S. (1986). Advanced EFL apologies: What remains to be learned? International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 62(6), 51-74.
Cook, M., & Liddicoat, A. J. (2002). The development of comprehension in interlanguage pragmatics: The case of request strategies in English. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 19-39.
Cross, D. (1999). A practical handbook of language teaching. NY: Pearson Education.
Ellis, R. (1992). Learning to communicate: A study of two language learners’ requests. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 14(1), 1-23.
Goffman, E. (1974). On face-work: An analysis of ritual elements in social interaction. In B. G. Blount (Ed.), Language, culture, and society: A book of readings (pp.224-249). Massachusetts: Winthrop Publishers.
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics vol. 3: Speech acts (pp. 107-142). New York: Academic Press.
Gu, Y. (1990). Politeness phenomena in modern Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 237-257.
Gumperz, J. (1981). Communicative competence. In N. Coupland & A. Jaworski (Eds.), Sociolinguistics: A reader and coursebook (pp. 39-48). New York: PALGRAVE.
Gumperz, J. (1982). Language and social identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hancher, M. (1979). The classification of cooperative illocutionary acts. Language in Society, 8, 1-14.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s Consequences. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G., & Bond, M. (1984). Hofstede’s culture dimensions. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 15, 417-433.
Hong, W. (2002). How does power affect Chinese politeness? The Chinese Language Teachers Association, 37(2), 59-73.
House, J., & Kasper, G. (1981). Politeness markers in English and German. In F. Coulmas (Ed.), Conversational routine (pp. 157-185). The Hague: Mouton.
House, J. (1996). Developing pragmatic fluency in English as a foreign language: Routines and metapragmatic awareness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 225-252
Hu, H. (1944). The Chinese concepts of ‘face’. American Anthropologist, 46(1), 465-64.
Hymes, D. (1966). On communicative competence. In A. Duranti (Ed.), Linguistic anthropology: A reader (pp. 53-73). Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishers.
Hymes, D. (1967). Models of the interaction of language and social setting. Journal of Social Issues, 23(2), 8-28.
Kallia, A. (2005). Directness as a source of misunderstanding: the case of requests and suggestions. In R. T. Lakoff, & S. Ide (Eds.), Broadening the horizon of linguistic politeness (pp. 217-234). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Kasper, G. (1982). Teaching-induced aspects of interlanguage discourse. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 4, 99-113.
Kasper, G. (1992). Pragmatic transfer. Second Language Research, 8, 203-231.
Kasper, G. (1996). Developmental issues in interlanguage pragmatics. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 149-169.
Kasper, G. (1998). Interlanguage pragmatics. In H. Byrnes (Ed.), Learning foreign and second languages (pp. 183–208). New York: Modern Language Association.
Kim, U. (1994). Individualism and collectivism: Conceptual clarification and elaboration. In U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S. C. Choi, & G. Yoon, (Eds.), Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method and applications (pp. 19-40). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis. London: Longman.
Lakoff, R. (1975). Language and woman’s place. New York: Harper & Row Publishers.
Leech, G. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.
Maeshiba, N., Yoshinaga, N., Kasper, G., & Ross, S. (1996). Transfer and proficiency in interlanguage apologizing. In S. M. Gass, & J. Neu (Eds.), Speech acts across cultures: Challenge to communication in a second language (pp. 155-187). Berlin: de Gruyter.
Manes, J. (1983). Compliments: A mirror of cultural values. In N., Wolfson, & E., Judd (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language acquisition (pp. 96-102). Rowley, Massachusetts: Newbury House Publishers.
Mao, L. (1992). Invitational discourse and Chinese identity. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication, 3(1), 79-96.
Mao, L. (1994). Beyond politeness theory: ‘Face’ revisited and renewed. Journal of Pragmatics, 21, 451-486.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224–253.
Meshiba, N., Yoshinaga, N., Kasper, G., & Ross, S. (1996). Transfer and proficiency in interlanguage apologizing. In S. M. Gass, & J. Neu (Eds.), Speech acts across cultures: Challenge to communication in a second language (pp. 155-187). Berlin: de Gruyter.
Morris, M. W., & Peng, K. (1994). Culture and cause: American and Chinese attributions for social physical events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 949–971.
Nwoye, G. O. (1992). Linguistic politeness and socio-cultural variations of the notion of face. Journal of Pragmatics, 18, 309-328.
O’Driscoll, J. (1996). About face: A defense and elaboration of universal dualism.
Journal of Pragmatics, 25(1), 1-32.
Olshtain, E., & Cohen, A. (1991). Teaching speech act behavior to nonnative speakers. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (pp. 154-65). New York: Newbury House.
Omaggio, A. C. (2001). Teaching languages in context: Proficiency-oriented instruction. Boston: Heinle and Heinle.
Oyserman, D., Coon, H. M., & Kemmelmeir, M. (2002). Rethinking individualism and collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 3-72.
Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Rinnert, C., & Kobayashi, H. (1999). Requestive hints in Japanese and English. Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 1173-1201.
Rubin, J. (1983). How to tell when someone is saying “no” revised. In N., Wolfson, & E., Judd (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language acquisition (pp. 10-17). Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House Publishers.
Scarcella, R. C. (1990). Communication difficulties in second language production, development, and instruction. In R. Scarcella, E. S. Anderson, & S. D. Krashen (Eds.), Developing communicative competence in a second language (pp. 337-353). Boston: Heile and Heinle Publishers.
Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. W. (1995). Intercultural communication: A discourse approach. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishers.
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech Acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. London: Cambridge University Press.
Searle, J. R. (1975). Indirect speech acts. In S. Davis (Ed.), Pragmatics: A reader (pp. 265-277). New York: Oxford University Press.
Searle, J. R. (1979). Expression and meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Spencer-Oatey, H. (1997). Unequal relationship in high and low power distance societies. A comparative study of tutor-student role relations in Britain and China. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 28(3), 284-302.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in development. In S. Gass, & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235-256). Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.
Takahashi, S. (1996). Pragmatic transferability. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 189-223.
Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4, 91-109.
Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Oxford: Westview Press.
Tsuzuki, M., Takahashi, K., Patschke, C., & Zhang, Q. (2001). Selection of linguistic forms for request and offers. In A. Bayraktaroglu, & M. Sifianou (Eds.), Linguistic politeness across boundaries: The case of Greek and Turkish (pp. 283-298). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Tu, W. (1985) Selfhood and otherness in Confucian thought. In A.J., Marsella, G., Devos, & F.L.K., Hsu, (Eds.), Culture and self: Asian and western perspectives (pp. 231-251). New York Tavistock.
Wannaruk, A. (2009). Pragmatic transfer in Tai EFL refusals. RELC Journal, 39(3), 318-337.
Wardhaugh, R. (1986). An introduction to sociolinguistics. New York: Blackwell.
Wang, F. (1967). Li Ji zhangju. Taipei, Taiwan: Guangwen Book Bureau.
Wierzbicka, A. (1987). English Speech Act Verbs: A Semantic Dictionary. Sydney: Academic Press.
Wolfson, N. (1989). Perspectives: Sociolinguistics and TESOL. New York: Newbury House Publishers.
Wolfson, N., D’Amico-eisner, L., & Huber, L. (1983). How to arrange for social commitments in American English: The invitation. In N., Wolfson, & E., Judd (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language acquisition (pp. 116-128). Rowley, Massachusetts: Newbury House Publishers.
Wolfson, N., & Judd, E. (Eds.). (1983). Sociolinguistics and language acquisition. Rowley, Massachusetts: Newbury House Publisher.
Yamaguchi, S. (1994). Collectivism among the Japanese: A perspective from the self. In U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S. C. Choi, & G. Yoon, (Eds.), Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method, and applications (pp. 175–188). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Yu, M. (2003). On the universality of face: evidence from Chinese compliment response behavior. Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 1679-1710.
Yu, M. (2005). Sociolinguistic competence in the complimenting act of native Chinese and American English speakers: A mirror of culture value. Language and Speech, 48(1), 91-119.
Yu, M. (2008). Teaching and learning sociolinguistic skills in university EFL classes in Taiwan. TESOL Quarterly, 42(1), 31-53.
描述 碩士
國立政治大學
英國語文學研究所
95551020
97
資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0095551020
資料類型 thesis
dc.contributor.advisor 詹惠診zh_TW
dc.contributor.advisor Chan, Hui-chenen_US
dc.contributor.author (Authors) 黃宗彥zh_TW
dc.contributor.author (Authors) Huang, Tsung-yenen_US
dc.creator (作者) 黃宗彥zh_TW
dc.creator (作者) Huang, Tsung-yenen_US
dc.date (日期) 2008en_US
dc.date.accessioned 19-Sep-2009 13:01:58 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.available 19-Sep-2009 13:01:58 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 19-Sep-2009 13:01:58 (UTC+8)-
dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0095551020en_US
dc.identifier.uri (URI) https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/37281-
dc.description (描述) 碩士zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 英國語文學研究所zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 95551020zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 97zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) 在台灣，由於中學英語課程的設計大都是考試導向，教學過程中幾乎完全著重於語言形式的教導，而忽略語言使用功能的重要性，所以台灣的英語學習者在中學階段很少有機會接受語言功能教學。本研究主要是要調查間接性以及禮貌性這兩個語用功能對於邀請句式選擇的適當性是否有所影響，進而調查語言功能教學對於本國的中學生學習英語的可行性與成效性。
本研究先分析了20位美國人在間接性與禮貌性的考量之下，對邀請句式的選擇為何，以便建立美國文化在這方面的規範。然後，再以此規範，設計一套四個單元的語言功能教學課程。有135位來自台灣北部兩所高中的高一學生接受了這項課程。這兩所學校的基測成績高低不同；每間學校各有兩班學生分別接受以功能為主的教學和以結構為主的教學。
前測及後測的結果顯示語言功能教學有效地改善了台灣學生的語言功能表現。再者，語言形式選擇的適當性的確受制於間接性及禮貌性的宰制。此外，情態策略也被驗証比直接策略及暗示策略要來得困難及複雜許多。又，基測成績較高的學校的學生比基測成績較低的學校的學生在學習語言功能的過程中表現較好。整體而言，實驗結果顯示，對於以英語為外國語的學生而言，語言功能教學是有效的、可行的，也是必須的。
另外，雖然台灣學生較偏好結構為主的教學法，但是本研究發現功能為主的教學法比結構為主的教學法成效較佳。最後，從學生對於本課程的評量得知，雖然學生們覺得語言功能學習法不是很有趣，但是他們大多認為這樣的教學方法對學習英語是有幫助的，而且是重要的。		zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) EFL learners in Taiwan are hardly taught language functions in high schools since most of the English courses are designed in accordance with the examination-oriented goal, which is far more focused on teaching language form than on teaching language use. The purpose of the present study is to investigate whether indirectness and politeness would influence appropriate linguistic choice for invitation, and to investigate the effectiveness of teaching language functions to high school students in EFL classrooms.
In this study, 20 American subjects’ ratings of eight linguistic forms for invitation by indirectness and politeness were analyzed to obtain the American norm, based on which a four-unit program of teaching language functions was designed. 138 senior high school students from two senior high schools in northern Taiwan took a pre-test before receiving the instruction and a post-test afterwards. Two classes from each school received function-based teaching method and structure-based teaching method respectively.
The results of the pre-test and the post-test, in comparison with the American norm, indicate that teaching language functions is effective in improving Chinese students’ competence of the functional aspect of English. Next, the test results verify that the appropriate choice of linguistic forms is indeed influenced by politeness and indirectness, although these two functional factors are not in a systematic relationship. Moreover, Modality strategy is found to be more difficult and more complex than Direct strategy and Hinting strategy. In addition, although the students from the school of high BCT scores tend to perform better than those from the school of low BCT scores, students of both schools made significant improvement in learning the concepts of indirectness and politeness. The findings given above imply that teaching language functions to high school students in EFL classrooms is feasible, necessary, and effective.
In addition, according to the results of the general evaluations to this teaching program offered by the students and the English teachers involved, although the Taiwanese students showed preference to structure-based method, function-based method is verified to be more effective. In conclusion, the students’ and the teachers’ evaluations of this program indicate that learning language functions may not be interesting, but it is helpful and important to the students.		en_US
dc.description.tableofcontents Chinese Abstract xii
English Abstract xiv
Chapter
1. Introduction1
Backgrounds 1
Purpose of the Study 2
2. Literature Review 3
Communicative Competence 3
Pragmatic Perspective of Language Use 5
Speech Act Theory 6
Indirect Speech Acts 7
Cooperative Principle 9
Politeness Principles 10
Politeness as Rapport 10
Politeness as Face 11
Politeness as Comity 12
The Speech Act of Invitation 14
Cultural Perspective of Language Use 16
Cultural Differences 16
Invitational Activity in Western and Chinese Cultures 17
Linguistic Aspect of Invitation 19
The Strategies of Invitation 19
Linguistic Choice by Indirectness and Politeness 21
Teaching Speech Acts to EFL Learners 23
Pragmatic Transfer 23
Pragmatic Failure 23
Procedures 26
Research Questions 27
Hypotheses 28
3. Methodology 29
Subjects 29
The Subjects for the American Norm 29
The Subjects of the Pilot Test 30
The Subjects of This Study 30
The Tools 31
The Questionnaires for the Tests 31
The questionnaires for the American norm 31
The questionnaires for the pilot test 31
The questionnaires for the pre-test and the post-test 31
T he Questionnaires for General Evaluations of the Whole Program 32
The questionnaires for students’ evaluations 32
The questionnaires for teachers’ evaluations 32
Teaching Materials and Instruments 32
Linguistic Variables 33
Functional Variables 34
The Test for the American Norm 34
The Pilot Test 37
The Procedures 38
Procedure One—Function-based method 38
Procedure Two—Structure-based method 39
Methods of Data Analysis 41
4. Data analyses and Discussion on the Results of the Pre-test and the Post-test 42
Data Analysis of Linguistic Choice by Indirectness 42
Holistic Test Results of Indirectness 42
The Test Results of Indirectness by Function-based Method and Structure-based Method 48
Function-based method 48
Structure-based method 50
Cross-method comparison 52
The Test Results of Indirectness by School One and School Two 55
School One. 56
School Two 58
Cross-school comparison 61
A Summary of the Test Results on Teaching Indirectness 65
Data Analysis of Linguistic Choice by Politeness 66
Holistic Test Results of Politeness 66
The Test Results of Function-based Method and Structure-based Method 73
Function-based method 73
Structure-based method 76
Cross-method comparison 78
The Test Results of School One and School Two 81
School One. 81
School Two. 84
Cross-school comparison 86
A Summary of the Test Results on Teaching Politeness 90
5. General Evaluations of the Program 92
Students’ Evaluations of the Program 92
Students’ Evaluations of the Whole Program 92
Students’ Evaluations by Function-based Method and Structure-based Method 94
Students’ Evaluations of the Program by Schools and Teaching Methods 100
Teachers’ Evaluations of the Program 101
6. Conclusion 105
A Summary of the Major Findings in This Study 105
Pedagogical Implications 107
Limitations of This Study and Suggestions 109
References 111
Appendices 117
Appendix A: Questionnaire for the Test of the American Norm 118
Appendix B: Questionnaire for the Pilot Test: Pre-test and Post-test 119
Appendix C-1: Function-based Lesson Plan (for Class A and Class C): Lesson-1 123
Appendix C-2:
Handout A: Handout Used in Function-based Class Instruction for Introducing Sentence Patterns for Invitation 124
Handout B: Handout Used in Function-based Class Instruction for Indirectness Strengths of Invitation 125
Handout C: Handout Used in Function-based Class Instruction for Politeness Strength of Invitation 126
Handout D: Handout Used in Function-based Class Instruction for the Interaction of Indirectness and Politeness of Invitation 127
Appendix D-1: Function-based Lesson Plan (for Class A and Class C): Lesson-2 128
Appendix D-2:
Worksheet A: Worksheet Used in Function-based Class Instruction for Practice (Lesson-2) 130
Worksheet B: Worksheet for Function-based Assignment (Lesson-2) 132
Appendix E-1: Function-based Lesson Plan (for Class A and Class C): Lesson-3 134
Appendix E-2:
Worksheet C: Worksheet Used in Function-based Class Instruction for Practice (Lesson-3) 135
Worksheet D: Worksheet for Function-based Assignment (Lesson-3) 137
Appendix F-1: Function-based Lesson Plan (for Class A and Class C): Lesson-4 139
Appendix F-2:
Worksheet E: Worksheet Used in Function-based Class Instruction for Practice (Lesson-4) 140
Appendix G-1: Structure-based Lesson Plan (for Class B and Class D): Lesson-1 143
Appendix G-2:
Handout E: Handout Used in Structure-based Class Instruction for Introducing Sentence Patterns for Invitation 144
Handout F: Handout Used in Structure-based Class Instruction for Indirectness Strengths of Invitation 145
Handout G: Handout Used in Structure-based Class Instruction for Politeness Strengths of Invitation 146
Handout H: Handout Used in Structure-based Class Instruction for the Interaction of Indirectness and Politeness of Invitation 147
Appendix H-1: Structure-based Lesson Plan (for Class B and Class D): Lesson-2 148
Appendix H-2:
Worksheet F: Worksheet Used in Structure-based Class Instruction for Practice (Lesson-2) 149
Worksheet G: Worksheet for Structure-based Assignment (Lesson-2) 150
Appendix I-1: Structure-based Lesson Plan (for Class B and Class D): Lesson-3 151
Appendix I-2:
Worksheet H: Worksheet Used in Structure-based Class Instruction for Practice (Lesson-3) 153
Worksheet I: Worksheet for Structure-based Assignment (Lesson-3) 155
Appendix J-1: Structure-based Lesson Plan (for Class B and Class D): Lesson-4 157
Appendix J-2 158
Worksheet J: Worksheet Used in Structure-based Class Instruction for Practice (Lesson-4) 159
Appendix K: Questionnaire for Evaluations of Function-based Teaching Method (Students) 161
Appendix L: Questionnaire for Evaluation of Structure-based Teaching Method (Students) 164
Appendix M: Questionnaire for Evaluations of the Program (Teachers) 167		zh_TW
dc.format.extent 135045 bytes-
dc.format.extent 66731 bytes-
dc.format.extent 146808 bytes-
dc.format.extent 136124 bytes-
dc.format.extent 73817 bytes-
dc.format.extent 291249 bytes-
dc.format.extent 186595 bytes-
dc.format.extent 1100912 bytes-
dc.format.extent 462958 bytes-
dc.format.extent 96742 bytes-
dc.format.extent 105290 bytes-
dc.format.extent 1172764 bytes-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.language.iso en_US-
dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0095551020en_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 語言功能教學zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 禮貌性zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 間接性zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 語言策略zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 邀請行為zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) teaching language functionsen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) politenessen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) indirectnessen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) linguistic strategyen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) the speech act of invitationen_US
dc.title (題名) 台灣高中階段英文課程言語行為教學之探討zh_TW
dc.title (題名) Teaching speech act in high school EFL classrooms in Taiwan: a case of invitationen_US
dc.type (資料類型) thesisen
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Dörnyei, Z. (1998). Do language learners recognize pragmatic violations? Pragmatic vs. grammatical awareness in instructed L2 learning. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 233–259.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Bardovi-Harlig K., & Hartford B. S. (1993). Learning the rules of academic talk: A longitudinal study of pragmatic change. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 279-304.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Beebe, L, Takahashi, T., and Uliss-Weltz, R. (1990). Pragmatic transfer in refusals. In R. C. Scarcella, E. Andersen, & S. D. Krashen (Eds.), Developing communicative competence in a second language (pp. 55-73). New York, NY: Newbury House.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Blum-Kulka, S. (1987). Indirectness and politeness in requests: Same or different? Journal of Pragmatics, 11, 145-160.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Blum-Kulka, S., & House, J. (1989). Cross-cultural and situatonal variation in respective behavior. In S. Blum-Kulka, J. House, & G., Kasper (Eds.), Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies (pp. 123-154). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G. (1989). Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Blum-Kulka, S., & Olshtain, E. (1984). Requests and Apologies: A Cross Cultural Study of Speech Act Realization Patterns. Applied Linguistics, 5, 196-213.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1978). Universals in language use: Politeness phenomena. In E. N. Goody (Ed.), Questions and politeness: Strategies in social interaction (pp. 56-289). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theory bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1-47.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Carrell, P. L., & Eisterhold, J. (1983). Schema theory and ESL reading pedagogy. TESOL Quarterly, 17, 553-573.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Carrell, P. L., & Konneker, B. H. (1981). Politeness: comparing native and non-native judgments. Language Learning, 31(1), 17-30.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Celce-Murcia, M., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (1999). An ESL/EFL teacher’s course. Boston, MA.: Heinle and Heinle Publishers.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Chan, H. (2008). Interaction between indirectness, politeness, and intimacy. Unpublished manuscript.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspect of the theory of syntax. Cambridge: M. I. T. Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Choi, I., Nisbett, R. E., & Norenzayan, A. (1999). Causal attribution across cultures: Variation and universality. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 47–63.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Cohen, A.D. (1996). Speech acts. In S.L. McKay, & N. Hornberger (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language teaching (pp. 383-420). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Cohen, A. D., Olshtain, E., & Rosenstein, D. S. (1986). Advanced EFL apologies: What remains to be learned? International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 62(6), 51-74.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Cook, M., & Liddicoat, A. J. (2002). The development of comprehension in interlanguage pragmatics: The case of request strategies in English. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 19-39.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Cross, D. (1999). A practical handbook of language teaching. NY: Pearson Education.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Ellis, R. (1992). Learning to communicate: A study of two language learners’ requests. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 14(1), 1-23.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Goffman, E. (1974). On face-work: An analysis of ritual elements in social interaction. In B. G. Blount (Ed.), Language, culture, and society: A book of readings (pp.224-249). Massachusetts: Winthrop Publishers.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics vol. 3: Speech acts (pp. 107-142). New York: Academic Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Gu, Y. (1990). Politeness phenomena in modern Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 237-257.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Gumperz, J. (1981). Communicative competence. In N. Coupland & A. Jaworski (Eds.), Sociolinguistics: A reader and coursebook (pp. 39-48). New York: PALGRAVE.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Gumperz, J. (1982). Language and social identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Hancher, M. (1979). The classification of cooperative illocutionary acts. Language in Society, 8, 1-14.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s Consequences. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Hofstede, G., & Bond, M. (1984). Hofstede’s culture dimensions. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 15, 417-433.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Hong, W. (2002). How does power affect Chinese politeness? The Chinese Language Teachers Association, 37(2), 59-73.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) House, J., & Kasper, G. (1981). Politeness markers in English and German. In F. Coulmas (Ed.), Conversational routine (pp. 157-185). The Hague: Mouton.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) House, J. (1996). Developing pragmatic fluency in English as a foreign language: Routines and metapragmatic awareness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 225-252zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Hu, H. (1944). The Chinese concepts of ‘face’. American Anthropologist, 46(1), 465-64.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Hymes, D. (1966). On communicative competence. In A. Duranti (Ed.), Linguistic anthropology: A reader (pp. 53-73). Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishers.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Hymes, D. (1967). Models of the interaction of language and social setting. Journal of Social Issues, 23(2), 8-28.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Kallia, A. (2005). Directness as a source of misunderstanding: the case of requests and suggestions. In R. T. Lakoff, & S. Ide (Eds.), Broadening the horizon of linguistic politeness (pp. 217-234). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Kasper, G. (1982). Teaching-induced aspects of interlanguage discourse. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 4, 99-113.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Kasper, G. (1992). Pragmatic transfer. Second Language Research, 8, 203-231.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Kasper, G. (1996). Developmental issues in interlanguage pragmatics. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 149-169.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Kasper, G. (1998). Interlanguage pragmatics. In H. Byrnes (Ed.), Learning foreign and second languages (pp. 183–208). New York: Modern Language Association.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Kim, U. (1994). Individualism and collectivism: Conceptual clarification and elaboration. In U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S. C. Choi, & G. Yoon, (Eds.), Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method and applications (pp. 19-40). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis. London: Longman.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Lakoff, R. (1975). Language and woman’s place. New York: Harper & Row Publishers.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Leech, G. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Maeshiba, N., Yoshinaga, N., Kasper, G., & Ross, S. (1996). Transfer and proficiency in interlanguage apologizing. In S. M. Gass, & J. Neu (Eds.), Speech acts across cultures: Challenge to communication in a second language (pp. 155-187). Berlin: de Gruyter.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Manes, J. (1983). Compliments: A mirror of cultural values. In N., Wolfson, & E., Judd (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language acquisition (pp. 96-102). Rowley, Massachusetts: Newbury House Publishers.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Mao, L. (1992). Invitational discourse and Chinese identity. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication, 3(1), 79-96.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Mao, L. (1994). Beyond politeness theory: ‘Face’ revisited and renewed. Journal of Pragmatics, 21, 451-486.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224–253.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Meshiba, N., Yoshinaga, N., Kasper, G., & Ross, S. (1996). Transfer and proficiency in interlanguage apologizing. In S. M. Gass, & J. Neu (Eds.), Speech acts across cultures: Challenge to communication in a second language (pp. 155-187). Berlin: de Gruyter.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Morris, M. W., & Peng, K. (1994). Culture and cause: American and Chinese attributions for social physical events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 949–971.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Nwoye, G. O. (1992). Linguistic politeness and socio-cultural variations of the notion of face. Journal of Pragmatics, 18, 309-328.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) O’Driscoll, J. (1996). About face: A defense and elaboration of universal dualism.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Journal of Pragmatics, 25(1), 1-32.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Olshtain, E., & Cohen, A. (1991). Teaching speech act behavior to nonnative speakers. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (pp. 154-65). New York: Newbury House.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Omaggio, A. C. (2001). Teaching languages in context: Proficiency-oriented instruction. Boston: Heinle and Heinle.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Oyserman, D., Coon, H. M., & Kemmelmeir, M. (2002). Rethinking individualism and collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 3-72.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Presszh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Rinnert, C., & Kobayashi, H. (1999). Requestive hints in Japanese and English. Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 1173-1201.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Rubin, J. (1983). How to tell when someone is saying “no” revised. In N., Wolfson, & E., Judd (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language acquisition (pp. 10-17). Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House Publishers.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Scarcella, R. C. (1990). Communication difficulties in second language production, development, and instruction. In R. Scarcella, E. S. Anderson, & S. D. Krashen (Eds.), Developing communicative competence in a second language (pp. 337-353). Boston: Heile and Heinle Publishers.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. W. (1995). Intercultural communication: A discourse approach. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishers.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech Acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. London: Cambridge University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Searle, J. R. (1975). Indirect speech acts. In S. Davis (Ed.), Pragmatics: A reader (pp. 265-277). New York: Oxford University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Searle, J. R. (1979). Expression and meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Spencer-Oatey, H. (1997). Unequal relationship in high and low power distance societies. A comparative study of tutor-student role relations in Britain and China. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 28(3), 284-302.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in development. In S. Gass, & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235-256). Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Takahashi, S. (1996). Pragmatic transferability. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 189-223.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4, 91-109.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Oxford: Westview Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Tsuzuki, M., Takahashi, K., Patschke, C., & Zhang, Q. (2001). Selection of linguistic forms for request and offers. In A. Bayraktaroglu, & M. Sifianou (Eds.), Linguistic politeness across boundaries: The case of Greek and Turkish (pp. 283-298). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Tu, W. (1985) Selfhood and otherness in Confucian thought. In A.J., Marsella, G., Devos, & F.L.K., Hsu, (Eds.), Culture and self: Asian and western perspectives (pp. 231-251). New York Tavistock.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Wannaruk, A. (2009). Pragmatic transfer in Tai EFL refusals. RELC Journal, 39(3), 318-337.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Wardhaugh, R. (1986). An introduction to sociolinguistics. New York: Blackwell.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Wang, F. (1967). Li Ji zhangju. Taipei, Taiwan: Guangwen Book Bureau.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Wierzbicka, A. (1987). English Speech Act Verbs: A Semantic Dictionary. Sydney: Academic Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Wolfson, N. (1989). Perspectives: Sociolinguistics and TESOL. New York: Newbury House Publishers.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Wolfson, N., D’Amico-eisner, L., & Huber, L. (1983). How to arrange for social commitments in American English: The invitation. In N., Wolfson, & E., Judd (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language acquisition (pp. 116-128). Rowley, Massachusetts: Newbury House Publishers.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Wolfson, N., & Judd, E. (Eds.). (1983). Sociolinguistics and language acquisition. Rowley, Massachusetts: Newbury House Publisher.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Yamaguchi, S. (1994). Collectivism among the Japanese: A perspective from the self. In U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S. C. Choi, & G. Yoon, (Eds.), Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method, and applications (pp. 175–188). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Yu, M. (2003). On the universality of face: evidence from Chinese compliment response behavior. Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 1679-1710.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Yu, M. (2005). Sociolinguistic competence in the complimenting act of native Chinese and American English speakers: A mirror of culture value. Language and Speech, 48(1), 91-119.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Yu, M. (2008). Teaching and learning sociolinguistic skills in university EFL classes in Taiwan. TESOL Quarterly, 42(1), 31-53.zh_TW