現在位置首頁 > 博碩士論文 > 詳目
  • 同意授權
論文中文名稱:高職英文教科書言語行為教材之研究 [以論文名稱查詢館藏系統]
論文英文名稱:An Analysis of Learning Materials for Speech Acts in English Textbooks for Vocational High Schools [以論文名稱查詢館藏系統]
院校名稱:臺北科技大學
學院名稱:人文與社會科學學院
系所名稱:應用英文系碩士班
畢業學年度:103
畢業學期:第二學期
中文姓名:古青翔
英文姓名:Ching-Hsiang Ku
研究生學號:101548516
學位類別:碩士
語文別:英文
口試日期:2015/07/02
指導教授中文名:洪媽益
指導教授英文名:Michael Tanangkingsing
口試委員中文名:賀一平;陳淑惠
口試委員英文名:I-Ping Ho;Shu-Hui Chen
中文關鍵詞:言語行為高職英文教科書
英文關鍵詞:Speech ActsVocational High School English Textbooks
論文中文摘要:言語溝通在英語教學上所扮演的角色日益重要,而言語行為是教學的重點之一。根據教育部所頒定的高職階段課程綱要總綱,高職學生聽說讀寫綜合能力的目標,在於使學生「能瞭解並表達日常生活當中常用的詞句,如問候、致謝、道歉、道別等,且能於相關情境中適時使用。」然而,學校教科書常為人詬病,因為編者使用的內容非真實語料,且所涵蓋的主題不足以讓學生在真實生活情境中使用。之前教科書中言語行為的研究,包含了不同的學習階段:從國小、國中、高中至大學(Boxer & Pickering, 1995; Lin, 2005; Liou, 2006; Pai, 2009; Tien, 2006; Vellenga, 2004),高職這部分未曾探究。
因此,本文旨在分析現行主要的高職英文教科書及教師手冊(東大、遠東、龍騰)的四種言語行為,包含稱讚、要求、道歉、同意/不同意,評估不同版本其所提供的語用內容,以及教科書如何呈現此四種言語行為以協助學生學習。本研究的結果如下:一、在四種言語行為的呈現上,國內三個版本的教科書著重的部份有所差異,東大側重於稱讚及同意/不同意的行為,遠東著重在要求行為,龍騰著重於道歉行為。二、在對話中情境的呈現上,結果顯示三個版本的教科書對於對話情境的描述並不完整。不適當的描述很有可能造成學生誤解對話內容、產生誤用的狀況。最後,本文提出教科書內容編排及教學上的建議。
論文英文摘要:Communication in speech plays an important part in English teaching and speech acts have been one of the main issues in instruction. Based on the curriculum guidelines of vocational high school authorized by the Minister of Education, one of the goals on students’ language ability is to equip students with the ability to understand and express common expressions in daily life (e.g. greeting, compliments, apology) and to use those expressions in related settings appropriately. However, school textbooks are usually criticized for the reasons that they are not authentic materials and that the coverage of topics editors provide are not sufficient for students to use in the real-life settings. Previous studies have examined speech acts instruction in school textbooks from elementary school, junior high school, senior high school, to college (Boxer & Pickering, 1995; Lin, 2005; Liou, 2006; Pai, 2009; Tien, 2006; Vellenga, 2004), but vocational high schools remained untouched.
Therefore, the aim of this study is to analyze and evaluate the presentation of pragmatic content of the three series of textbooks intended for Taiwan’s vocational high schools (Dong Da, Far East and Lung Teng publishers). Specifically, the study examines how speech acts are presented in the textbooks and whether contextual information is provided to facilitate the learning of these speech acts. The results of the study were summarized as follows. First, with respect to the presentation of the four speech acts in the three series of textbooks, the results showed that these three series of textbooks drew attention on different proportions of speech acts. For example, compliments/ compliment responses and agreements/disagreements in Dong Da textbooks outnumbered those in the other two textbooks, while Far East textbooks contained more lessons on requests/ request responses and Lung Teng textbooks on apologies/ apology responses. Second, with regard to the context of the conversation, it was found that in most cases the context of the conversation was not complete in the three series of textbooks. This inappropriate description of the context may also result in the students’ misunderstanding and misuses of the form of speech acts. Finally, some suggestions for the revision of textbooks and pedagogical implications were given.
論文目次:TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHINESE ABSTRACT i
ENGLISH ABSTRACT ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iv
LIST OF TABLES viii
LIST OF FIGURES ix

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Objectives and Research Questions 2
1.2 Significance of the Study 3
1.3 Definition of Terms 4
1.4 Organization of the Study 6
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 7
2.1 Issues in Pragmatics 7
2.1.1 From Linguistic Competence to Communicative and Pragmatic Competence 8
2.1.2 Politeness of Pragmatics 9
2.1.3 Pragmatic Transfer 10
2.1.4 Pragmatic Failure 11
2.2 Speech Act Theory 12
2.3 Interlanguage Pragmatics 14
2.3.1 Studies on the Speech Act of Compliments 16
2.3.2 Studies on the Speech Act of Requests 17
2.3.3 Studies on the Speech Act of Apologies 20
2.3.4 Studies on the Speech Act of Agreements and Disagreements 20
2.3.5 Studies on the Speech Act of Complaints 22
2.4 Cross-cultural Pragmatics 23
2.4.1 Studies on the Speech Act of Compliments 23
2.4.2 Studies on the Speech Act of Requests and Apologies 24
2.4.3 Studies on the Speech Act of Agreements and Disagreements 26
2.5 English Pragmatics Instruction in EFL 26
2.5.1 The Effect of Instruction in Pragmatics 26
2.5.2 Textbook Evaluation of Speech Acts 29
2.5.3 The Present Study 30

CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY 31
3.1 Research Design 31
3.2 Data Collection Procedure 32
3.3 Coding System 33
3.3.1 Coding Scheme of Compliments and Compliment Responses 33
3.3.2 Coding Scheme of Requests and Request Responses 35
3.3.3 Coding Scheme of Apologies and Apology Responses 37
3.3.4 Coding Scheme of Agreements and Disagreements 39
3.4 Data Analysis 41

CHAPTER 4 RESULTS 43
4.1 Compliments 43
4.2 Requests 48
4.3 Apologies 53
4.4 Agreements and Disagreements 57

CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION 62
5.1 Comparison between the Textbooks 62
5.2 The Units for Speech Act Instruction 68
5.3 The Suggestions for the Revision of Textbooks 72

CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION 74
6.1 Summary of the Main Findings 74
6.2 Pedagogical Implications 75
6.3 Suggestions for Future Research 76

REFERENCES 77
APPENDICES 84
APPENDIX A: Three Series of Vocational High School English Textbooks 84
APPENDIX B: The Section of Conversation in Dong Da Textbooks 85
APPENDIX C: The Section of Conversation in Far East Textbooks 86
APPENDIX D: The Section of Conversation in Lung Teng Textbooks 87
APPENDIX E: The Title and Function of Conversation in Dong Da Textbooks 88
APPENDIX F: The Title and Function of Conversation in Far East Textbooks 89
APPENDIX G: The Title and Function of Conversation in Lung Teng Textbooks 90
APPENDIX H: Compliments and Compliment Responses in Three Series of Textbooks 91
APPENDIX I: Requests and Request Responses in Three Series of Textbooks 94
APPENDIX J: Apologies and Apology Responses in Three Series of Textbooks 103
APPENDIX K: Agreements and Disagreements in Three Series of Textbooks 105

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Searle Categories of Speech Acts 13
Table 2 Holmes’ Three-way Classification of Compliment Responses 16
Table 3 Blum-Kulka’s Categories of Requests 25
Table 4 Studies Examining the Effect of Pragmatic Instruction 28
Table 5 Coding Scheme of Compliments and Compliment Responses 35
Table 6 Coding Scheme of Requests and Request Responses 37
Table 7 Coding Scheme of Apologies and Apology Responses 39
Table 8 Coding Scheme of Agreements and Disagreements 41
Table 9 Distribution of Compliments in Three Series of Textbooks 44
Table 10 Distribution of Compliment Responses in Three Series of Textbooks 46
Table 11 Distribution of Requests in Three Series of Textbooks 49
Table 12 Distribution of Request Responses in Three Series of Textbooks 52
Table 13 Distribution of Apologies in Three Series of Textbooks 54
Table 14 Distribution of Apology Responses in Three Series of Textbooks 56
Table 15 Distribution of Agreements and Disagreements in Three Series of Textbooks 57
Table 16 Distribution of Agreement in Three Series of Textbooks 58
Table 17 Distribution of Disagreement in Three Series of Textbooks 60
Table 18 Distribution of Four Speech Acts in Three Series of Textbooks 64
Table 19 Distribution of the Contexts of Speech Acts in the Three Series of Textbooks 67

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: The Procedure of Data Collection 33
Figure 2: Indirect Requests and Direct Requests in Far East Textbooks 65
Figure 3: The Units of Speech Act Instruction in Far East Textbooks 69
Figure 4: The Units of Speech Act Instruction in Lung Teng Textbooks 71
Figure 5: Guided Conversation in Far East and Lung Teng Textbooks 73
論文參考文獻:Austin, J. L. (1962). How to Do Things with Words. Harvard and Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bardovi-Harlig, K., Hartford, B.A.S., Mahan-Taylor, R., Morgan, M. J., & Reynolds, D.W. (1991). Developing pragmatic awareness: Closing the conversation. ELT Journal, 45, 4-15.
Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Vellenga, H. E. (2012). The effect of instruction on conventional expressions in L2 pragmatics. System, 40, 77-89.
Beebe, L. & Takahashi, T. (1989). Sociolinguistic variation in face-threatening speech acts. In M. Eisenstein (Ed.), The dynamic interlanguage: Empirical studies in second language variation (pp. 199-218). New York, NY: Plenum Press.
Beebe, L., Takahashi, T., Uliss-Weltz, R. (1990). Pragmatic transfers in ESL refusals. In Scarcella, R., Anderson, S., Krashen, S. (Eds.), Developing Communicative Competence in a Second Language (pp. 55-73). Newbury House, New York.
Blum-Kulka, Shoshana, Juliane House & Gabriele Kasper. (1989). Cross-cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies (CCSARP Project). Ablex Publishing Corporation, Norwood, NJ.
Boxer, D., & Pickering, L. (1995). Problems in the presentation of speech acts in ELT
materials: The case of complaints. ELT Journal, 49(1), 44-58.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Canale, M. (1983). From communicative competence to language pedagogy. In Richards, J., Schmidt, J. (Eds.), Language and Communication. Longman, London.
Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied linguistics, 1, 1-47.
Chen, M. H. (2009). An Interlanguage Study of the Speech Act of Complaints Made by Chinese EFL Speakers in Taiwan. Master Thesis. Department of Foreign Languages, National Sun Yat-Sen University.
Chen, R. (1993). Responding to compliments: A contrastive study of politeness strategies between American English and Chinese speakers. Journal of Pragmatics, 20, 49-75.
Cheng, D. M. (2011). New insights on compliment responses: A comparison between native English speakers and Chinese L2 speakers. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 2204-2214.
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspect of the theory of syntax. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Cohen, A. D., & Olshtain, E. (1981). Developing a measure of sociocultural competence: the case of apology. Language Learning, 31, 113-134.
Dogancay-Aktuna, S., & Kamisli, S. (1996). Discourse of power and politeness: Through the act of disagreement. Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Associationfor Applied Linguistics (18th, Chicago, IL, March 23-26, 1996).
Grice, H. P. (1967). Logic and conversation. In P. Grice (Ed.), Studies in the ways of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and Conversation. In Cole and Morgan (Eds.), Speech Acts 3, 41-58.
Holmes, J. (1986). Compliments and compliment responses in New Zealand English. Anthropological Linguistics, 28, 485-508.
Holmes, J. (1990). Apologies in New Zealand English. Language in Society, 19, 155-199.
Holmes, J. (1993). New Zealand women are good to talk to: an analysis of politeness strategies in interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 20, 91-116.
House, J. (1996). Developing pragmatic fluency in English as a foreign language: Routines and metapragmatic awareness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 225-252.
House, J, & Kasper, G. (1981). Politeness markers in English and German. In F. Coulmas (Ed.), Conversational Routine. The Hague: Mouton.
Hymes, D. H. (1962). The ethnography of speaking. In En J. Fishman (Ed.), Reading in the sociology of language. The Hague: Mouton.
Hymes, D. H. (1966). Two types of linguistic relativity. In Bright, W. Sociolinguistics (pp. 114–158). The Hague: Mouton.
Kasper, G. (1992). Pragmatic transfer. Second Language Research, 8, 203-231.
Kasper, G. (1995). Developmental issues in interlanguage pragmatics. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 149-169.
Kasper, G. (2001). Pragmatics in language teaching. Cambridge University Press.
Kasper, G., & Blum-Kulka, S. (1993). Interlanguage Pragmatics, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kasper, G., & Rose, K. R. (1999). Pragmatics and SLA. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 19, 81-104.
Kasper, G., & Schmidt, R. W. (1996). Developmental issues in interlanguage pragmatics. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 149-169.
Koike, D. A., & Pearson, L. (2005). The effect of instruction and feedback in the development of pragmatic competence. System, 33, 481-501.
Kubota, M. (1995). Teachability of conversational implicature to Japanese EFL learners. IRLT Bulletin, 9, 35-67. Tokyo: The Institute for Research in Language Teaching.


Kuo, S. H. (1992). Formulaic opposition markers in Chinese conflict talk. Georgetown University Round Table on Language and Linguistics (pp. 388-402).
Kwon, J. (2004). Expressing refusals in Korean and in American English. Multilingual, 23, 339-364.
Lee, J. S. (1999). Analysis of pragmatic speech styles among Korean learners of English: A focus on complaint-apology speech act sequence. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford University.
Leech, G. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.
Liao, C. (1997). Comparing directives: American English, Mandarin and Taiwanese English. Taipei: The Crane Publishers.
Liao, C. C., & Bresnahan, M. I. (1996). A contrastive pragmatics study on American English and Mandarin refusal strategies. Language Science, 18, 703-727.
Liao, C. H. (2013). A Study of Suggestion Strategies Used by EFL Graduate Students in Taiwan. Master Thesis. Department of English, National Taipei University of Technology.
Lin, C. Y. (2005). Teaching Speech Acts in High School: An Analysis of English Textbooks. Master Thesis. Department of Foreign Languages and Literature, National Tsing Hua University.
Liou, F. J. (2006). Presentation of indirect speech acts in college English textbook: A case study on College Experiencing English. Unpublished master’s thesis, Department of English Linguistics, Northeash Normal University, Jilin Province, China.
Lyuh., I . (1992). The art of refusal: comparison of Korean and American cultures. Unpublished manuscript. Indiana.

Manes, J., & Wolfson, N. (1981). The compliment formula. In F. Coulmas. (Eds.),
Conversational routine. The Hague: Mouton.
Ministry of Education, Republic of China. (2001). Gaozhi Jieduan Kecheng Gangyao Zonggang [高職階段課程綱要總綱].
Nelson, G. L., Carson, J. Al-Batal, M. & El-Bakary, W. (2002). Cross-cultural pragmatics: strategy use in Egyptian Arabic and American English refusals. Applied Linguistics, 23, 163-189.
Olshtain, E., & Cohen, A. D. (1983). Apology: A speech act set. In N. Wolfson & E. Judd (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language acquisition (pp. 18-35). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Olshtain, E., & Cohen, A. D. (1990). The learning of complex speech act behavior. TESL Canada Journal, 7, 45-65.
Olshtain, E., & Weinbach, L. (1993). Interlanguage features of the speech act of complaining. In Blum-Kulka & Kasper (Eds.), Interlanguage Pragmatics (pp. 108-122). New York: Oxford University Press.
Owen, M. (1983). Apologies and Remedial Interchanges: A Study of Language Use in Social Interaction. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter.
Pai, I. F. (2009). Speech Acts in Elementary School English Instruction: Textbook Analysis and Teacher Perceptions. Master Thesis. Graduate Institute of Children’s English, National Changhua University of Education.
Pomerantz, A. (1978). Compliment responses: Notes on the co-operation of multiple
constraints. In J. Schenkein (Ed.), Studies in the organization of conversational
interaction. New York: Academic.



Pomerantz, A. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred / dispreferred turn shapes. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Ed.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis, (pp. 57-101). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Razi, N. (2013). A contrastive study of compliment responses among Australian English and Iranian Persian speakers. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 70, 61-66.
Schmidt, R. W., & Richards, J. C. (1981). Speech acts and second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 1, 129-157.
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Searle, J. R. (1975). An Taxonomy of Illocutionary Acts: Language, Mind and Knowledge. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 10, 209-231.
Shea, H. K. (2003). Japanese Complaining in English: A Study of Interlanguage Pragmatics. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Teachers College, Columbia University.
Shih, H. Y. (2006). An Interlanguage Study of the Speech Act of Apology Made by EFL Learners in Taiwan.Master Thesis. Department of Foreign Languages, National Sun Yat-Sen University.
Takahashi, T., & Beebe, L. M. (1987). The development of pragmatic competence by Japanese learners of English. JALT Journal, 8, 131-155.
Takahashi, T., & Beebe, L. M. (1993). Cross-linguistic influence in the speech act of correction. In G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage Pragmatics (pp.138-157). London: Oxford University Press.
Takimoto, M. (2006). The effects of explicit feedback and form-meaning processing on the development of pragmatic proficiency in consciousness-raising tasks. System, 34, 601-614.
Tang, C. H., & Zhang, G. Q. (2009). A contrastive study of compliment responses among Australian English and Mandarin Chinese speakers. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 325-345.
Tateyama, Y., Kasper, G., Mui, L., Tay, H., & Thananart, O. (1997). Explicit and implicit teaching of pragmatics routines. In L. Bouton (Ed.), Pragmatics and language learning, Vol. 8. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 91-109.
Tien, K. J. (2006). How ELT materials present speech acts? The case of compliments.
Paper selected from the fifteenth international symposium on English teaching (pp. 544-555). Taipei: Crane.
Trosborg, A. (1995). Interlanguage Pragmatics: Requests, Complaints, and Apologies. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Vellenga, H. (2004). Learning pragmatics from ESL & EFL textbooks: How likely?
TESL-EJ, 8, 1–17.
Yu, M. C. (1999). Universalistic and culture-specific perspectives on variation in the
acquisition of pragmatic competence in a second language. Pragmatics, 9,
281-312.
論文全文使用權限:同意授權於2015-08-03起公開