口說中「公式化字串」之發展－以英文為第二外語學習者之個案研究

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

回結果列表

研究生：	劉懿慧 Liu, Valerie I-hui
論文名稱：	口說中「公式化字串」之發展－以英文為第二外語學習者之個案研究 The Development of Formulaic Sequences in Oral Production: A Case Study of Advanced EFL Learners
指導教授：	黃虹慈 Huang, Hung-Tzu
口試委員:	劉顯親 Liou, Hsien-Chin 張銪容 Chang, Yu-Jung
學位類別：	碩士 Master
系所名稱：	人文社會學院 - 外國語文學系 Foreign Languages and Literature
論文出版年：	2014
畢業學年度：	102
語文別：	英文
論文頁數：	79
中文關鍵詞：	公式化字串
外文關鍵詞：	Formulaic sequences, L2 speaking
相關次數：	點閱：3 下載：0
分享至:	分享至facebook 分享至twitter

查詢本校圖書館目錄查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統勘誤回報

摘要
經研究指出，「公式化字串」(Formulaic sequences) 有助於增加口說流俐度、提升溝通效率，在第二語言習得研究領域頗受重視。許多橫斷性研究(cross-sectional study)已證實教授公式化字串對語言學習者有助益，但是鮮少研究者從不同面向分析第二外語學習者如何在口說中使用「公式化字串」。
本研究旨在探討三位以英文為第二外語學習者在十五週內，如何在英文口說中使用「公式化字串」，以及其「公式化字串」在使用的頻率、多樣性、和正確度三面向之間有何關聯。受試者為三位台灣的某國立大學英文主修研究生，其英文能力皆為高階程度。受試者在十五週內分別進行三次口說項目，每次相隔六週。口說項目進行方式為¬¬：受試者先與研究者進行大約二十分鐘的對話(conversations)，再作五分鐘即席演說(impromptu speeches)。口說錄音檔(約225分鐘)打成逐字稿後，用來擷取受試者使用的「公式化字串」，以及統計其「公式化字串」在頻率、多樣性、正確度三面向之數據，並進一步作質性分析。研究結果顯示，在十五週內，三位受試者的「公式化字串」在頻率和多樣性有較多的波動，而其正確度大致維持在比較穩定的狀態。大致上而言，三位受試者的「公式化字串」在十五週內並無明顯的發展。研究推測可能因為三位受試者使用「公式化字串」的能力已達到母語人士的水準。因此，在頻率、多樣性、正確度之間並沒有觀察到互動。此研究提供教師在面對英文高階程度的學生，可使用的口說項目之教學建議。並指出未來研究可採用質性研究方法(例如:面對面訪談)，進一步探討進階程度學生的「公式化字串」之使用。

Abstract
The aim of the present study is to explore three advanced EFL learners’ FSs uses in oral production over time by analyzing how three dimensions of FS: frequency, variation, and accuracy change and interact within fifteen weeks. Participants were three advanced English learners who were studying in a MA program in a public university in northern Taiwan. The learners’ FSs uses were tracked through the collection of oral production three times at six-week intervals. Each participant gave three impromptu speeches and engaged in three conversations respectively. The transcripts of the impromptu speeches and the conversations were analyzed by quantitatively calculating the FS frequency, variation, and accuracy values, and qualitatively annotating the functions of FS in context. The results reveal that the learners’ FS frequency and variation values fluctuated in their oral production in a small degree, while the FS accuracy values remained in a more stable state. Overall, the participants showed excellent performance in FS uses in the three dimensions, reaching the level of native-speaker use. No salient interaction was observed among the three dimensions of FSs. These findings have pedagogical implications for designing speaking tasks at advanced levels. It is suggested that future research on advanced EFL learners’ FS development can be examined with qualitative data such as interviews.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract (Chinese)...................................................................................................................... i
Abstract (English)..................................................................................................................... ii
Acknowledgments.................................................................................................................... iii
Table of Contents......................................................................................................................v 
List of Tables.......................................................................................................................... viii
List of Figures.......................................................................................................................... ix

Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................... 1
Chapter 2 LITERATURE REVIEW.......................................................................................... 3
2.1 Definitions of formulaic sequences .....................................................................................3
2.2 Features of formulaic sequences......................................................................................... 4
2.2.1 Functions of formulaic sequences............................................................................ 4
2.2.2 Phonological features............................................................................................... 5
2.2.3 Frequency of occurrence.......................................................................................... 5
2.2.4Fixedness ...................................................................................................................6
2.3 The values of formulaic sequences in L2 speaking .............................................................6
2.3.1 FS facilitates language processing ...........................................................................7
2.3.2 FS promotes oral fluency .........................................................................................7
2.3.3 FS as an oral production strategy for communication ..............................................8
2.4 Instructional effects of FSs on L2 oral production ..............................................................9
2.5 The development and acquisition of formulaic sequences ................................................11
2.6 Theoretical framework of this study: The Dynamic System Theory ................................15
2.7 Research questions ............................................................................................................16
Chapter 3 METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................18
3.1 Participants ........................................................................................................................18
3.2 Data collection................................................................................................................... 18
3.2.1 Collection of oral production .................................................................................18
3.2.2 Data collection procedure .......................................................................................19
3.3 Data Analysis .....................................................................................................................19
3.3.1 Transcribing the elicited oral production ................................................................19
3.3.2 FS identification..................................................................................................... 20
3.3.3 FS frequency........................................................................................................... 22
3.3.4 FS variation............................................................................................................ 22
3.3.5 FS accuracy............................................................................................................. 22
3.3.6 Qualitative analysis.................................................................................................24
Chapter 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION..............................................................................26
4.1 Learner data .......................................................................................................................26
4.2 FS frequency...................................................................................................................... 28
4.2.1 Standardized FS frequency values......................................................................... 28
4.2.2 High-frequency FS types in the three participants’ oral production.......................31
4.3 FS variation...................................................................................................................... .37
4.3.1 Standardized FS variation values ...........................................................................37
4.3.2 Common constructions used in the participants’ oral production.......................... 39
4.3.3 Use of I think in the three participants’ oral production......................................... 41
4.4 FS accuracy........................................................................................................................ 48
4.4.1 Standardized FS accuracy values........................................................................... 48 
4.4.2 Errors in the participants’ oral production.............................................................. 50
4.4.2.1 Errors on language appropriacy............................................................................52
4.4.2.2 Errors on lexical usage.........................................................................................54
4.4.2.3 Errors on grammatical use.................................................................................. 55
4.5 Overall trend in the frequency, variation, and accuracy of the participants’ FS use..........56
4.6 The relationship among the development of FS frequency, variation, and accuracy........ 57
4.7 Non-interaction among the subsystems of FS in the participants’ oral production............61
Chapter 5 CONCLUSION...................................................................................................... 64
5.1 Pedagogical implications.................................................................................................. 64
5.2 Limitations and suggestions for future research............................................................... 65
References............................................................................................................................... 68
Appendix A Task instructions and topics for elicited oral production.................................... 74 
Appendix B Coding protocol ..................................................................................................77
Appendix C Consent form........................................................................................................78 
LIST OF TABLES
Table 4.1 Learner data consisting of the three participant’s oral production.......................... 26
Table 4.2 FS frequency values in the three participants’ oral production............................... 27
Table 4.3 FS development in the current study and Qi & Ding’s study...................................30
Table 4.4 High-frequency FS types used in the three participants’ oral production............... 31
Table 4.5 Comparison and contrast between the high-frequency FSs and the FSs in the AFL ..........................................................................................................................................33
Table 4.6 FS variation values in the three participants' oral production................................. 36
Table 4.7 Common constructions used in the three participants' oral production.................. 38
Table 4.8 Uses of I think in the three participants’ oral production........................................ 41
Table 4.9 FS accuracy values in the three participants’ oral production................................. 47
Table 4.10 Number of errors on FS accuracy......................................................................... 49
Table 4.11 Example errors in the three participants’ oral production..................................... 51


 
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 4.1 FS frequency values in participants’ impromptu speeches.................................... 28
Figure 4.2 FS frequency values in participants’ conversations............................................... 28
Figure 4.3 FS variation values in participants’ impromptu speeches...................................... 36
Figure 4.4 FS variation values in participants’ conversations................................................. 36
Figure 4.5 FS frequency values in L.’s oral production.......................................................... 56
Figure 4.6 FS variation values in L.’s oral production............................................................ 56
Figure 4.7 FS frequency values in J.’s oral production........................................................... 56
Figure 4.8 FS variation values in J.’s oral production............................................................. 56
Figure 4.9 FS frequency values in M.’s oral production......................................................... 56
Figure 4.10 FS variation in M.’s oral production.................................................................... 56
Figure 4.11 FS accuracy in L.’s impromptu speeches............................................................. 57
Figure 4.12 FS accuracy in L.’s conversations........................................................................ 57
Figure 4.13 FS accuracy values in J.’s impromptu speeches.................................................. 57
Figure 4.14 FS accuracy values in J.’s conversations............................................................. 57
Figure 4.15 FS accuracy values in M.’s impromptu speeches ................................................57
Figure 4.16 FS accuracy values in M.’s conversations........................................................... 57 

                                

References
Aimer, K. (1996). Conversational routines in English. London, New York: Longman.
Bell, H. (2009). The messy little details: a longitudinal case study of the emerging lexicon. In T. Fitzpatrick and A. Barfield (Eds.), Lexical processing in second language learners (pp.111-127). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Biber, D., & Barbieri, F. (2007). Lexical bundles in univeristy spoken and written registers. English for Specific Purposes, 26(3), 263-286.
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Pearson Education.
Boers, F., Eyckmans, J., Kappel, J., Stengers, H., & Demecheleer, M. (2006). Formulaic sequences and perceived oral proficiency: putting a Lexical Approach to the test. Language Teaching Research, 10(3), 245-261.
Bybee, J. (2002). Phonological evidence for exemplar storage of multiword sequences. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 215-221.
Coulmas, F. (1979). On the sociolinguistic relevance of routine formulae. Journal of Pragmatics, 3, 239-266.
Crossley, S., Salsbury, T., & McNamara, D. (2010). The development of polysemy and frequency use in English second language speakers. Language Learning, 60(3), 573-605.
Crossley, S.,& Salsbury, T. (2011). The development of lexical bundle accuracy and production in English second language speakers. IRAL, 49, 1-26.
De Bot, K. (2008). Introduction: second language development as a dynamic process. The Modern Language Journal, 92(2), 166-178.
De Bot, K., Lowie, W., & Verspoor, M. (2007). A dynamic systems approach to second language acquisition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10(1), 7-21.
De Cock, S. (1998). A recurrent word combination approach to the study of formulae in the speech of native and non-native speakers of English. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 3, 59-88.
Ellis, N. C. (2008). The dynamics of second language emergence: cycles of language
use, language change, and language acquisition.The Modern Langauge Journal, 92(2), 232-249.
Ellis, N.C. (2012). Formulaic language and second lnaguage acquisition: Zipf and the phrasal teddy bear. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32, 17-44.
Ellis, R. (1985). Sources of variability in interlanguage. Applied Linguistics, 6, 118-131.
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second langauge acquistion. Oxford UniversityPress.
Foster, P. (2001). Rules and routines: a consideration of their role in the task-based language production of native and non-native speakers. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching Pedagogic Tasks: Second Language Learning, Teaching, and Testing (pp.75-93). Harlow: Longman.
Freed, B. F. (1995). What makes us think that students who study abroad become fluent? In B.F. Freed (Ed.), Second language acquisition in a study abroad context (pp.123-148). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Hickey, T. (1993). Identifying formulas in first language acquisition. Journal of Child language, 20, 27-41.
Howarth, P. (1998). Phraseology and second language proficiency. Applied Linguistics, 19(1), 24-44.
Jiang, N. A. N., & Nekrasova, T. M. (2007). The Processing of formulaic sequences by Second Language Speakers. The Modern Language Journal, 91(3), 433-445.
Jones, M. & Haywood, S. (2004). Facilitating the acquisition of formulaic sequences: an exploratory study in an EAP context. In N. Schmitt (Eds.), Formulaic sequences: acquisition, processing and use (pp.269-293). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (1997). Chaos/complexity science and second langauge acquisition.Applied Linguistics, 18(2), 141-165.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2006). The Emergence of Complexity, Fluency, and Accuracy in the Oral and Written Production of Five Chinese Learners of English. Applied Linguistics, 27(4), 590-619.
Li, J., & Schmitt, N. (2009). The acquisition of lexical phrases in academic writing: A longitudinal case study. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18, 85-102.
Liu, D. (2003). The most frequently used spoken American English idioms: a corpus analysis and its implications. TESOL Quarterly, 37(4), 671-700.
Logan, G. D. (1988). Towards an instance theory of automatisation. Psychological Review, 95, 482-527.
Myles, F., Hooper, J., & Mitchell, R. (1998). Rote or rule? Exploring the role of formulaic language in classroom foreign language learning. Language Learning, 48(3), 323-364.
Nattinger, J. R. & De Carrico, J. S. (1992). Lexical Phrases and Language Teaching. Oxford: OUP.
O’Keeffe, A., McCarthy, M., & Carter. R. (2007). From Corpus to Classroom: Language Use and Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
Pawley, A., & Syder, F.H. (1983). Tow puzzles for linguistic theory: Nativelike selection and nativelike fluency. In J. C. Richards & R. W. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and communication (pp. 191-225). London: Longman.
Peters, A. M. (1983). Units of language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Qi, Y., & Ding, Y. (2011). Use of formulaic sequences in monologues of Chinese EFL learners. System, 39(2), 164-174.
Raupach, M. (1984) Formulae in second language speech production. In H.W. Dechert, D. Mohle,& M. Raupach (Eds.), Second language production (pp.114-137). Tubingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.
Read, J., & Nation, P. (2004). Measurement of formulaic sequences. In N. Schmitt (Eds.), Formulaic sequences: acquisition, processing and use (pp.23-35). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Schauer, G., & Adolphs, S. (2006). Expressions of gratitude in corpus and DCT data: Vocabulary, formulaic sequences, and pedagogy. System, 34(1), 119-134.
Schmitt, N. (2000). Vocabulary in language teaching. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Schmitt, N. (2004). Formulaic sequences: acquisition, processing and use. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Schmitt, N., & Carter, R. (2004). Formulaic sequences in action: an introduction. In N., Schmitt (Eds.), Formulaic sequences: acquisition, processing and use (pp.1-22). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Schmidt, R. (1992). Psychological mechanisms underlying second language fluency. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 14, 357-385.
Schmidt, R. W. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129-158.
Shin, D., & Nation, P. (2007). Beyond single words: the most frequent collocations in spoken English. ELT Journal, 62(4), 339-348.
Simpson, R., & Mendis, D. (2003). A corpus based study of idioms in academic speech. TESOL Quarterly, 37(3), 419-441.
Simpson-Vlach, R., & Ellis, N. C. (2010). An academic formulas list: new methods in phraseology research. Applied Linguistics, 31(4), 487-512.
Sinclair, J. (1991). Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. Oxford : OUP.
Taguchi, N. (2007). Chunk learning and the development of spoken discourse in a Japanese as a foreign language classroom. Language Teaching Research, 11(3), 433-457.
Taguchi, N. (2008). Building language blocks in L2 Japanese: Chunk learning and the development of complexity and fluency in spoken production. Foreign Language Annals, 41(1), 132-156.
Thelen, E.,& Smith, L. B. (1994). A dynamic systems approach to the development of cognition and acation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Weinert, R. (1995). The role of formulaic language in second language acquistion－a reiview. Applied Linguistics, 16(2), 180-205.
Willis, D. (1990). The Lexical Syllabus. London: Harper Collins.
Wood, D. (2006). Uses and functions of formulaic sequences in second language speech: an explorations of the foundations of fluency. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 63(1), 13-33.
Wood, D. (2007). Mastering the English formula: Fluency development of Japanese learners in a study abroad context. JALT Journal, 29(2), 209-230.
Wray, A. (2000). Formulaic sequences in second language teaching: Principle and practice. Applied Linguistics, 21(4), 463-489.
Wray, A. (2002). Formulaic Language and the Lexicon. Cambridge: CUP.
Wray, A. (2012). What do we (think we) know about formualic language? An evaluation of the current state of play. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32, 231-254.
Wray, A., & Perkins, M. R. (2000). The functions of formulaic language: an integrated model. Language & Communication, 20(1), 1-28.
Van Lancker, D., Canter, G. J., & Terbeek, D. (1981). Disambiguation of diatropic sentences: Acoustic and phonetic cues. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 24, 330-335.
Verspoor, M., Lowie, W., & Van Dijk, M. (2008). Variabilityin second language development from a dynamic systems perspective. The Mordern Language Journal, 92(2), 214-231.
Verspoor, M., De Bot, K., & Lowie, W. (2011). A dyanmic approach to second langauge development : methods and techniques. Amsterdam : John Menjamins.

全文公開日期本全文未授權公開 (校內網路)
全文公開日期本全文未授權公開 (校外網路)

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

相關論文