英語外語學習者口說中介語裡的If條件句：言談語用觀點

If-conditionals in EFL Learners' Spoken Interlanguage: A Discourse-pragmatic Perspective

邱馨嫻(Shelly Shin-hsien Chiu)

指導教授 ： 林雪娥老師

國立臺灣師範大學/文學院/英語學系/碩士(2005年)

摘要

本研究旨在探討18位台灣英語外語學習者口說中介語(interlanguage)裡If假設條件句的使用，透過質性分析的方式，研究重點可分為三大部分：(1) 針對學生在If假設條件句的結構使用(form-construction)上做錯誤分析(error analysis)；(2) 探索學生如何應用If假設條件句的言談語用功能(discourse-pragmatic functions)；(3) 探究可能影響學生使用If假設條件句的因素。本研究之語料來自於學生針對3個情境式對話題目所做的會話，這些題目包括一、「樂透彩」，二、「寒假/暑假計畫」，和三、「921大地震」，所蒐集的語料顯示出許多值得注意的發現。

第一、對學生而言，使用與事實相反之假設句(counterfactuals)比開放預測性的假設句(open if-conditionals)困難，研究發現多數錯誤類型導因於If假設條件句裡的If子句與主要子句的假設程度(hypotheticality level)或認知觀點(epistemic stance)不一致，由此可見，學生並不清楚If假設條件句在結構與意義上的對應關係(form-and-function mappings)；再者，學生會運用各種策略以避免使用If假設條件句，例如：簡化句法結構、或用其他結構或詞彙來代換等，這些都間接反應出If假設條件句在英語外語學習者中介語的發展過程中的困難性。

第二、研究結果顯示學生會運用三種If假設條件句的言談語用功能，包括：假定(assuming)、對比(contrasting)、和可能性探索(exploring of options)，這些功能大致與英語母語者的使用情況相符；然而，研究語料中並未發現If假設條件句的互動用法(interactional use)如緩和(mitigation)，此類用法於真實溝通情境中卻是很常見的，這個結果可能是受制於指定的對話題目、或受學生先前所接受的語言輸入(input)的影響、亦或是因為學生不擅長用第二外語(L2)進行較人際互動式的對話(interactional talks)。

第三、研究發現兩個可能影響學生If假設條件句使用表現的因素，其一是母語–也就是中文–的移轉(L1 transfer)，學生在If假設條件句結構使用上的缺失可能來自於母語和第二外語在詞句結構上的差異(morphosyntactic differences)；相反地，學生會適當運用If假設條件句的言談語用功能，這可能與母語和第二外語的假設句在這些功能上非常相似有關。另一原因則是語言輸入(input)的影響，藉由分析高中英文教材發現，學生並沒有獲得與事實相反之假設句(counterfactuals)的充分語言輸入，不過，教材的確顯示出If假設條件句在言談語用功能上的多樣性；教材的語言輸入大致反映在學生的語言輸出(output)表現裡，除了If假設條件句的互動用法廣泛應用於教材中卻沒有出現在學生語料裡之外，而此發現則透露出現行英語教育的不足之處。

有鑒於上述研究發現，文末提出一些教學建議與課堂活動以供教師參考。

關鍵字

If條件句 ； 口說中介語 ； 言談分析

並列摘要

This study investigates the use of English if-conditionals in 18 Taiwanese EFL learners’ spoken interlanguage. By means of a qualitative analysis, the research focus on (1) error analysis in the form-construction of if-conditionals, (2) exploration of the discourse-pragmatic functions of if-conditionals, and (3) possible reasons for the learners’ performance. The natural spoken data produced by the participants within 3 situated conversation topics – Lottery, Winter/Summer Vacation and the 921 Earthquake – spell out several intriguing findings and implications.

First of all, counterfactuals are rendered more difficult than open if-conditionals for the learners to produce. The general tendency of error types is argued to be attributed to the inconsistency of hypotheticality level/epistemic stance between the protasis and the apodosis of an if-conditional. Such deficiency suggests that the learners are unaware of the mapping between the forms of if-conditionals and hypotheticality/epistemic stance. Furthermore, the learners’ strategies to avoid if-conditionals, such as simplifying the syntactic structure or substituting with other structures or lexicon, are observed to indirectly reflect the difficulty of if-conditionals in the development of EFL learners’ interlanguage.

As for the discourse-pragmatic functions, the results display three types in the learners’ if-conditionals– assuming, contrasting, and exploring of options. These are roughly compatible to English native speakers’ use of if-conditionals. Yet, the findings indicate no if-conditionals for interactional use such as mitigation, which is supposed to be commonly-used in communication. This can be attributed to the confinement of the assigned conversation topics, the input received by the learners, or the learners’ unfamiliarity with interactional talks in L2.

With regard to possible influences on the learners’ performance, the first one is L1 (i.e. Chinese) transfer. The learners’ deficiency in the form-construction of if-conditionals is correlated to the morphosyntactic differences in L1 and L2. In contrast, their ability to perform appropriate discourse-pragmatic functions conforms to the similarities shared by Chinese and English conditionals. Second, an analysis of the if-conditionals in a senior-high school textbook reveals insufficient input of counterfactuals students have received but the textbook does provide varieties of discourse-pragmatic functions. This is reflected in the learners’ output except that there are many if-conditionals for interactional use in the textbook but none in the spoken data. This implies the defect of the current EFL pedagogy.

In view of these observations, the study suggests some teaching guidelines and activities for EFL teachers to teach the use of if-conditionals effectively.

並列關鍵字

if-conditionals ； spoken interlanguage ； discourse analysis

參考文獻

-----. (1999). The information sequences of adverbial clauses in Mandarin Chinese conversation. Journal of Chinese Linguistics, 27(2), 45-89.

Akatsuka, Noriko. (1985). Conditionals and the epistemic scale. Language, 61(3), 625-639.

Akatsuka, Noriko, & Strauss, Susan. (2000). Counterfactual reasoning and desirability. In E. Couper-Kuhlen & B. Kortmann (Eds.), Cause, condition, concession, contrast: Cognitive and discourse perspectives (pp. 205-234). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Au, T. K.-F. (1983). Chinese and English counterfactuals: The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis revisited. Cognition, 15, 155-187.

-----. (1984). Counterfactuals: In reply to Alfred Bloom. Cognition, 17, 289-302.