浅论从句英语学生口笔头同题叙事话语中联系以句使用情况比较题目

论文导读：
摘要：本探讨旨在描写英语专业学习者口笔头同题叙事话语中联系以句的利用情况,首先聚焦学习者口、笔语叙事作文中联系以句利用的差别,以及不同水平的学习者联系以句利用的差别；其次探讨联系以句的利用与学习者的口笔语成绩之间的相关性。本探讨利用的口语语料选自于中国学习者语料库SWECCL,以中抽取60个叙事性口头作文作为样本,按照测试者的口语成绩分为高、低分组。笔语语料选自于英语专业二年级学生的60篇同题叙事作文,按写作成绩分为高、低分组。本论文论述框架依据Keenan和Comrie以先行词在联系以句中充当的语能角度,对联系以句进行了六种类型：SU(主语型)、DO(直接宾语型)、IO(间接宾语型)、GEN(属格型)、OPREP(介词宾语型)、OCOMP(比较宾语型)。通过数据统计浅析,有以下一些主要发现：首先,所选用120篇口笔语语料中只出现SU, DO, GEN, OPREP和OCOMP五种联系以句类型,未见IO以句类型的产出。Keenan和Comrie提出的可及性层级假设结论认为IO以句类型相对容易习得,而中国学习者对此种类型的较少利用与假设不太一致。另外,在提取的口笔语语料中,联系以句的整体比例均不高于10%,与欧洲的英语学习者相比频率较低；这一现象可能由于中英文语言本身的差别,结果也与Schachter(1974)的探讨结论一致：母语中不有着联系以句的学习者以句利用频率较低。其次,独立样本t检验显示,口笔语叙事中联系以句在利用频次上有显著差别,笔语中出现更多SU,DO和OPREP三种类型以句。正因为学习者在笔头测试中学生有更多自由支配的时间及注意力资源,这一走势比较自然。而GEN和OCOMP两种类型利用较少,依据可及性层级假设,这两种类型习得较难利用较少,由此差别不显著。此外,独立样本t检验还表明口笔头作文中联系以句的比例没有显著差别,这表明联系以句的利用,不能用作区分学习者语域差别即口语或是笔语的指标。第三,不同语言水平学习者利用联系以句的比较表明,高水平学习者在口笔语作文中SU和DO两种类型的利用上频率均显著高于低水平学习者；而在口语中OPREP类型利用也有着显著差别。这一区别部分验证了VanPatten(1990)的结论：对二语学习者来说,当他们语言能力有限,无法合理分配注意力资源时,首先会把关注点放在语言内容上,而不是语言形式上。最后,相关性及多元回归浅析结果表明,联系以句的利用与学习者的口笔语成绩呈正相关。具体地说,SU、DO和OPREP类型可以预测学习者的口语成绩,DO类型的利用可以当做预测口语成绩的有效指标；在笔语中,SU和DO类型可以预测学习者的笔语成绩,有效指标为SU类型的利用。本探讨结果有两点启迪：以论述层面上看,探讨结果部分验证及拓展了Keenan和Comrie提出的可及性层级假设；并且对学习者口语中联系以句的利用探讨提供了一些认识。以教学层面上看,联系以句的利用可以用作评定学生的口语和写作任务的指标,尤其是叙事性话题任务；除此之外,应当注意的是母语迁移可能会影响二语学习者对不同类型联系以句的习得,由此,在讲解联系以句语法知识或是评价学习者联系以句利用情况的时候,教师应引导学生关注中英语言差别。关键词：英语专业学生以句利用论文口笔头叙事话语论文比较浅析论文
本论文由www.7ctime.com,需要论文可以联系人员哦。Acknowledgements4-5
Abstract5-7
中文摘要7-9
Table of Contents9-11
List of Abbreviations11-12
List of Tables and Figures12-13
Chapter One Introduction13-16

1.1 Overview13

1.2 Need for the study13-14

1.3 Significance of the study14-15

1.4 Structure of the thesis15-16

Chapter Two Literature Review16-32

2.1 Basic concepts16-22

2.1.1 The notion o论文导读：.2.2FocusonForm,FocusonFormsandFocusonMeaning25-262.2.3Larsen-Freeman'odel26-272.3Relatedempiricalstudies27-312.3.1Studiesonrelativeclauseacquisitionabroad28-292.3.2Studiesonrelativeclauseacquisitionathome29-312.4Summary31-32ChapterThreeMethodology32-403.1Researchq
f relative clauses16-20
2.

1.2 The notion of narrative20-22

2.2 Related theories22-27
2.2.1 Attention and memory in the process of SLA22-25
2.2.2 Focus on Form, Focus on Forms and Focus on Meaning25-26

2.3 Larsen-Freeman's model26-27

2.3 Related empirical studies27-31

2.3.1 Studies on relative clause acquisition abroad28-29
2.3.2 Studies on relative clause acquisition at home29-31

2.4 Summary31-32

Chapter Three Methodology32-40

3.1 Research questions32-33

3.2 Material33-35

3.

2.1 Oral Engpsh part33-34

3.

2.2 Written Engpsh part34-35

3.3 Data analysis35-39

3.1 Data preparation35-36

3.2 Data analyzing procedures36-39

3.4 Summary39-40

Chapter Four Results and Discussion40-50
4.1 Differences in the use of RCs between the learners' oral and written narratives40-44
4.1.1 Differences in frequency in the use of RCs between speaking and writing40-43
4.1.2 Differences in types in the use of RCs between speaking and writing43-44
4.2 Differences in the use of RCs between the learners of different levels in their oraland written narratives44-47
4.2.1 Differences in frequency and types between higher and lower achievers in their oral narratives44-46
4.2.2 Differences in frequency and types between higher and lower achievers in their written narratives46-47
4.3 Correlation between the learners' use ofRCs and their oral and written narrativeperformances47-49
4.3.1 Correlation between frequency and oral performances47-48
4.3.2 Correlation between frequency and written performances48-49

4.4 Summary49-50

Chapter Five Conclusion50-54

5.1 Major findings50-51

5.2 Pedagogical imppcations51-52

5.3 Limitations of this study52

5.4 Suggestions recommended for future research52-54
References54-57
Appendix Ⅰ57-58
Appendix Ⅱ58-63
Appendix Ⅲ63-68
攻读学位期间发表的学术论文目录68-69