請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件：
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/86655完整後設資料紀錄
| DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.advisor | 蔡宜妮(I-Ni Tsai) | |
| dc.contributor.author | Pei-Ting Lu | en |
| dc.contributor.author | 呂佩庭 | zh_TW |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2023-03-20T00:09:16Z | - |
| dc.date.copyright | 2022-08-10 | |
| dc.date.issued | 2022 | |
| dc.date.submitted | 2022-08-03 | |
| dc.identifier.citation | 中文文獻 吳馥如（2007）。中級華語交際溝通會話課程之設計與實證。國立臺灣師範大學華語文教學研究所未出版碩士論文。 宋如瑜（2019）。華語教師課堂意義協商策略研究。《中原華語文學報》(18-19)，75-104。 國家教育研究院（2020）。技術報告：《遣辭用「據」－臺灣華語文能力第一套標準》。 黃雅英（2019）。不同程度華語學習者於大學華語翻轉課堂的溝通策略類型與通用性分析──以EBCL為基礎。《華文世界》124，112-139。 魏琬玲（2021）。華語課堂由他人發起的會話修補研究。國立台灣大學華語教學碩士學位學程未出版碩士論文。 英文文獻 Abdulrahman, N. & Ayyash, E. (2019). Linguistic competence, communicative competence, and interactional competence, Journal of Advances in Linguistics, 10, 1600-1616. ACTFL. (1986). Actfl proficiency guidelines. Atkinson, D., Churchill, E., Nishino, T. & Okada, H. (2007). Alignment and interaction in a sociocognitive approach to second language acquisition, The Modern Language Journal, 91(2), 169-188. Bachman, L. F. & Savignon, S. J. (1986). The evaluation of communicative language proficiency: A critique of the actfl oral interview, The Modern Language Journal, 70(4), 380-390. Barraja-Rohan, A.-M. (2011). Using conversation analysis in the second language classroom to teach interactional competence, Language Teaching Research, 15(4), 479-507. Bavelas, J. B., Coates, L. & Johnson, T. (2000). Listeners as co-narrators, Journal of personality and social psychology, 79(6), 941-952. Bowles, M. A. & Adams, R. J. (2015). An interactionist approach to learner-learner interaction in second and foreign language classrooms. In N. Markee (Ed.), The handbook of classroom discourse and interaction (pp. 198-212). Wiley. Brouwer, C. E. & Wagner, J. (2007). Developmental issues in second language conversation, Journal of Applied Linguistics and Professional Practice, 1(1), 29-47. Button, G. & Casey, N. (1984). Generating topic: The use of topic initial elicitors. In J. M. Atkinson& J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 167-190). Button, G. & Casey, N. (1988). Topic initiation: Business‐at‐hand, Research on Language & Social Interaction, 22(1-4), 61-91. Cekaite, A. (2007). A child's development of interactional competence in a swedish l2 classroom, The Modern Language Journal, 91(1), 45-62. Deppermann, A. & Pekarek Doehler, S. (2021). Longitudinal conversation analysis - introduction to the special issue, Research on Language and Social Interaction, 54(2), 127-141. Dings, A. (2007). Developing interactional competence in a second language: A case study of a spanish language learner [doctoral dissertation]. The University of Texas at Austin. Dings, A. (2014). Interactional competence and the development of alignment activity, The Modern Language Journal, 98(3), 742-756. Du Bois, J. W. (2007). The stance triangle. In R. Englebretson (Ed.), Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction (Vol. 164, pp. 139-182). John Benjamins. Erickson, F. (1996). Ethnographic microanalysis. In N. F. Hornberger& M. H. Long (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language teaching (pp. 283-306). Cambridge University Press. Firth, A. & Wagner, J. (1997). On discourse, communication, and (some) fundamental concepts in SLA research, The Modern Language Journal, 81, 285-300. Firth, A. & Wagner, J. (2007). Second/foreign language learning as a social accomplishment: Elaborations on a reconceptualized SLA, The Modern Language Journal, 91(1), 800-819. Fu, L. (2018). Displaying recipiency in doctor-patient conversations, Chinese as a Second Language Research, 7(1), 79-110. Galaczi, E. & Taylor, L. (2018). Interactional competence: Conceptualisations, operationalisations, and outstanding questions, Language Assessment Quarterly, 15(3), 219-236. Galaczi, E. D. (2014). Interactional competence across proficiency levels: How do learners manage interaction in paired speaking tests? , Applied Linguistics, 35(5), 553-574. García, M. G. (2015). Topic management and interactional competence in spanish l2 conversation. In W. Cheng, F. Bianchi& S. Gesuato (Eds.), Teaching, learning and investigating pragmatics: Principles, methods and practices (pp. 253). Newcastle upon Tyne:Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Gardner, R. (2012). Conversation analysis in the classroom. In J. Sidnell& T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 593-611). Blackwell. Gardner, R. (2019). Classroom interaction research: The state of the art, Research on Language and Social Interaction, 52(3), 212-226. Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:Prentice-Hall. Goffman, E. (1976). Replies and responses, Language in society, 5(3), 257-313. Goffman, E. (1983). The interaction order: American sociological association, 1982 presidential address, American Sociological Review, 48(1), 1-17. Goodwin, C. (1986). Between and within: Alternative sequential treatments of continuers and assessments, Human studies, 9(2), 205-217. Goodwin, C. & Goodwin, M. H. (1987). Concurrent operations on talk: Notes on the interactive organization of assessments, IPrA papers in pragmatics, 1(1), 1-54. Goodwin, C. & Goodwin, M. H. (1992). Assessments and the construction of context. In A. Duranti& C. Goodwin (Eds.), Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon (pp. 147-190). Britain:Cambridge University Press. Hall, J. K. (1993). The role of oral practices in the accomplishment of our everyday lives: The sociocultural dimension of interaction with implications for the learning of another language, Applied Linguistics, 14(2), 145-166. Hall, J. K. (1995a). (re)creating our worlds with words: A sociohistorical perspective of face-to-face interaction, Applied Linguistics, 16(2), 206-232. Hall, J. K. (1995b). ' Aw, man, where you goin'?'': Classroom interaction and the development of l2 interactional competence, Issues in Applied linguistics, 6(2). Hall, J. K. (2004). Language learning as an interactional achievement, The Modern Language Journal, 88(4), 607-612. Hall, J. K. (2018). From l2 interactional competence to l2 interactional repertoires: Reconceptualising the objects of l2 learning, Classroom Discourse, 9(1), 25-39. He, A. W. (2004). CA-for-SLA: Arguments from the chinese language classroom, The Modern Language Journal, 88(4), 568-582. Hellermann, J. (2008). Social actions for classroom language learning, Multilingual Matters. Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkle and ethnomethodology, Cambridge, England:Polity. Heritage, J. (1985). Analyzing news interviews: Aspects of the production of talk for an'overhearing'audience. In T. A. van Dijk (Ed.), Handbook of discourse analysis: Discourse and dialogue (Vol. 3). Academic Press. Heritage, J. (2012). Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge, Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(1), 1-29. Heritage, J. & Watson, D. R. (1979). Formulations as conversational objects. In G. Psathas (Ed.), Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology (pp. 123-162). Heritage, J. & Watson, D. R. (1980). Aspects of the properties of formulations in natural conversations: Some instances analysed, Semiotica, 30(3-4), 245-262. Huth, T. (2021). Conceptualizing interactional learning targets for the second language curriculum. In S. Kunitz, N. Markee& O. Sert (Eds.), Classroom-based conversation analytic research: Theoretical and applied perspectives on pedagogy (Vol. 46, pp. 359-381). Springer, Cham. Hymes, D. (1967). Models of the interaction of language and social setting, Journal of Social Issues, 23(2), 8-28. Hymes, D. (1974). Foundations of sociolinguistics: An ethnographic approach, Philadelphia:University of Pennsylvania Press. Ishida, M. (2009). Development of interactional competence: Changes in the use of ne in l2 japanese during study abroad. In H. t. Nguyen& G. Kasper (Eds.), Talk-in-interaction: Multilingual perspectives (pp. 351-385). National Foreign Language Resource Center. Ishida, M. (2011). Engaging in another person’s telling as a recipient in l2 japanese: Development of interactional competence during one-year study abroad. In G. Pallotti& J. Wagner (Eds.), L2 learning as social practice: Conversation-analytic perspectives (pp. 45-85). National Foreign Language Resource Center. Jacoby, S. & Ochs, E. (1995). Co-construction: An introduction, Research on Language and Social Interaction, 28(3), 171-183. Jefferson, G. (1984). On stepwise transition from talk about a trouble to inappropriately next-positioned matters. In J. M. Atkinson& J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 191-222). Jefferson, G. (1993). Caveat speaker: Preliminary notes on recipient topic-shift implicature, Research on Language and Social Interaction, 26(1), 1-30. Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In G. H. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation (pp. 13-31). John Benjamins:Amsterdam. Jones, E. E. & Gerard, H. B. (1967). Foundations of social psychology. John whiley & sons. Kasper, G. (2006). Speech acts in interaction: Towards discursive pragmatics. In K. Bardovi-Harlig, J. C. Felix-Brasdefer& A. S. Omar (Eds.), Pragmatics and language learning (Vol. 11, pp. 281-314). National Foreign Language Resource Center. Kramsch, C. J. (1983). Interaction in the classroom: Learning to negotiate roles and meanings, Die Unterrichtspraxis / Teaching German, 16(2), 175-190. Kramsch, C. J. (1986). From language proficiency to interactional competence, The Modern Language Journal, 70(4), 366-372. Kramsch, C. J. (1987). Socialization and literacy in a foreign language: Learning through interaction, Theory Into Practice, 26(4), 243-250. Kurhila, S. (2006). Second language interaction, John Benjamins Publishing. Lam, D. M. K. (2018). What counts as “responding”? Contingency on previous speaker contribution as a feature of interactional competence, Language Testing, 35(3), 377-401. Lam, D. M. K. (2021). Don’t turn a deaf ear: A case for assessing interactive listening, Applied Linguistics, 42(4), 740–764. Lantolf, J. P. & Johnson, K. E. (2007). Extending firth and wagner's (1997) ontological perspective to l2 classroom praxis and teacher education, The Modern Language Journal, 91(1), 877-892. Larsen-Freeman, D. (2007). Reflecting on the cognitive–social debate in second language acquisition, The Modern Language Journal, 91(1), 773-787. Lee, S. H. (2012). Response design in conversation. In J. Sidnell& T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 415-432). John Wiley and Sons. Liddicoat, A. (1997). Interaction, social structure, and second language use: A response to firth and wagner, The Modern Language Journal, 81(3), 313-317. Linell, P. (2001). Approaching dialogue: Talk, interaction and contexts in dialogical perspectives, John Benjamins Publishing. Mackey, A., Oliver, R. & Leeman, J. (2003). Interactional input and the incorporation of feedback: An exploration of ns–nns and nns–nns adult and child dyads, Language Learning, 53(1), 35-66. Markee, N. (2000). Conversation analysis, Routledge. Markee, N. (2008). Toward a learning behavior tracking methodology for CA-for-SLA, Applied Linguistics, 29(3), 404-427. Markee, N. (2015). The handbook of classroom discourse and interaction, John Wiley & Sons. Markee, N. & Kasper, G. (2004). Classroom talks: An introduction, The Modern Language Journal, 88(4), 491-500. Masuda, K. (2011). Acquiring interactional competence in a study abroad context: Japanese language learners’ use of the interactional particle ne, The Modern Language Journal, 95(4), 519-540. Maynard, D. W. (1980). Placement of topic changes in conversation, Semiotica, 30(3-4), 263-290. Maynard, D. W. (2012). Everyone and no one to turn to: Intellectual roots and contexts for conversation analysis. In J. Sidnell& T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 9-31). John Wiley and Sons. Mondada, L. & Pekarek Doehler, S. (2004). Second language acquisition as situated practice: Task accomplishment in the french second language classroom, The Modern Language Journal, 88(4), 501-518. Mori, J. (2004). Negotiating sequential boundaries and learning opportunities: A case from a japanese language classroom, The Modern Language Journal, 88(4), 536-550. Mori, J. (2007). Border crossings? Exploring the intersection of second language acquisition, conversation analysis, and foreign language pedagogy, The Modern Language Journal, 91(1), 849-862. Nguyen, H. T. (2011). Achieving recipient design longitudinally: Evidence from a pharmacy intern in patient consultations. In J. K. Hall& S. Pekarek Doehler (Eds.), L2 interactional competence and development (pp. 173-205). Multilingual Matters. Nicholls, J. & Wells, G. (1985). Language and learning : An interactional perspective, London, United Kindom:Taylor & Francis Group. Nofsinger, R. E. (1991). Everyday conversation, Sage Publications, Inc. Ohta, A. S. (2001). A longitudinal study of the development of expression of alignment in japanese as a foreign language. In K. R. Rose& G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 103-120). United Kingdom:Cambridge University Press. Oxford, R. L. (1997). Cooperative learning, collaborative learning, and interaction: Three communicative strands in the language classroom, The Modern Language Journal, 81(4), 443-456. Pekarek Doehler, S. (2013). Social-interactional approaches to SLA: A state of the art and some future perspectives, Language, Interaction and Acquisition, 4(2), 134-160. Pekarek Doehler, S. (2018). Elaborations on l2 interactional competence: The development of l2 grammar-for-interaction, Classroom Discourse, 9(1), 3-24. Pekarek Doehler, S. (2019). On the nature and the development of l2 interactional competence: State of the art and implications for praxis. In M. R. Salaberry& S. Kunitz (Eds.), Teaching and testing l2 interactional competence: Bridging theory and practice (1 ed., pp. 25-59). Routledge. Pekarek Doehler, S. & Pochon-Berger, E. (2011). Developing ‘methods’ for interaction: A cross-sectional study of disagreement sequences in french l2. In J. K. Hall& S. Pekarek Doehler (Eds.), L2 interactional competence and development (pp. 206-243). Multilingual Matters. Pekarek Doehler, S. & Pochon-Berger, E. (2015). The development of l2 interactional competence: Evidence from turn-taking organization, sequence organization, repair organization and preference organization. In T. Cadierno& S. W. Eskildsen (Eds.), Usage-based perspectives on second language learning (pp. 233-268). De Gruyter Mouton. Pekarek Doehler, S. & Pochon-Berger, E. (2018). L2 interactional competence as increased ability for context-sensitive conduct: A longitudinal study of story-openings, Applied Linguistics, 39(4), 555-578. Pekarek Doehler, S. & Pochon-Berger, E. (2019). On the reflexive relation between developing l2 interactional competence and evolving social relationships: A longitudinal study of word-searches in the ‘wild’. In J. Hellermann, S. W. Eskildsen, S. Pekarek Doehler& A. Piirainen-Marsh (Eds.), Conversation analytic research on learning-in-action: The complex ecology of second language interaction ‘in the wild’ (pp. 51-75). Cham:Springer International Publishing. Pomerantz, A. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In M. Atkinson& J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 57-101). Cambridge:Cambridge University Press. Ranney, S. (1992). Learning a new script: An exploration of sociolinguistic competence, Applied Linguistics, 13(1), 25-50. Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on conversation: Volume ii, Malden, Massachusetts:Blackwell Publishing. Scannell, P. (1991). Broadcast talk, Sage. Schegloff, E. A. (1987). Between micro and macro: Contexts and other connections. In J. C. Alexander, B. Giesen, R. Münch& N. J. Smelser (Eds.), The micro-macro link (pp. 207). London:University of California Press. Schegloff, E. A. (1990). On the organization of sequences as a source of ‘coherence’ in talk-in-interaction. In B. Dorval& R. O. Freedle (Eds.), Conversational organization and its development (pp. 51-77). New Jersey:Ablex. Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis, Cambridge university press. Schiffrin, D. (1990). The principle of intersubjectivity in communication and conversation, Semiotica, 80(1-2), 121-151. Schulz, R. A. (1986). From achievement to proficiency through classroom instruction: Some caveats, The Modern Language Journal, 70(4), 373-379. Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language, London:Cambridge U.P. Seedhouse, P. (2004). The interactional architecture of the language classroom: A conversation analysis perspective, Language Learning, 54(suppl1), 1-300. Sidnell, J. (2010). Conversation analysis: An introduction, John Wiley & Sons. Stivers, T. & Sidnell, J. (2012). Introduction. In J. Sidnell& T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (Vol. 121). John Wiley & Sons. Stokes, R. & Hewitt, J. P. (1976). Aligning actions, American Sociological Review, 41(5), 838-849. Su, D. & Tao, H. (2018). Teaching the mandarin utterance-final particle le through authentic materials, Chinese as a Second Language Research, 7(1), 15-45. Tao, H. (2005). The gap between natural speech and spoken chinese teaching material: Discourse perspectives on chinese pedagogy, Journal of the Chinese Language Teachers Association, 40(2), 1-24. Tao, H. (2011). Working with spoken chinese, The Pennsylvania State University:CALPER Publications. Tao, H., Salaberry, M. R., Yeh, M. & Burch, A. R. (2018). Using authentic spoken language across all levels of language teaching: Developing discourse and interactional competence, Chinese as a Second Language Research, 7(1), 1-13. Traugott, E. C. (2003). From subjectification to intersubjectification. In R. Hickey (Ed.), Motives for language change (pp. 124-139). Cambridge University Press. van Compernolle, R. A. (2013). Interactional competence and the dynamic assessment of l2 pragmatic abilities. In Assessing second language pragmatics (pp. 327-353). Springer. Viechnicki, G. B. (1997). An empirical analysis of participant intentions: Discourse in a graduate seminar, Language & Communication, 17(2), 103-131. Vygotsky, L. S. (1981). The genesis of higher mental functions. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.), The concept of activity in soviet psychology (pp. 144-188). Armonk, NY:M.E. Sharpe. Vygotsky, L. S. (2012). Thought and language, The MIT Press. Wagner, J. (2015). Designing for language learning in the wild: Creating social infrastructures for second language learning. In T. Cadierno& S. W. Eskildsen (Eds.), Usage-based perspectives on second language learning (pp. 75-102). De Gruyter Mouton. Wagner, J. & Gardner, R. (2004). Introduction. In R. Gardner& J. Wagner (Eds.), Second language conversations. Continuum. Walsh, S. (2012). Conceptualising classroom interactional competence, Novitas-royal, 6(1), 1-14. Wang, Y. & Rendle-Short, I. (2013). Making the ‘invisible’ visible a conversation analytic approach to intercultural. In F. Dervin& A. Liddicoat (Eds.), Linguistics for intercultural education (Vol. 33, pp. 113-135). John Benjamins. Waring, H. Z. (2002). Displaying substantive recipiency in seminar discussion, Research on Language and Social Interaction, 35(4), 453-479. Wells, C. G. (1981). Learning through interaction: The study of language development, Cambridge University Press. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning as a social system, Systems thinker, 9(5), 2-3. Wieder, D. L. (1999). Ethnomethodology, conversation analysis, microanalysis, and the ethnography of speaking (EM-CA-MA-ES):Resonances and basic issues, Research on Language and Social Interaction, 32(1-2), 163-171. Wong, J. & Waring, H. Z. (2010). Conversation analysis and second language pedagogy: A guide for ESL/EFL teachers, Routledge. Xu, J. (2014). Displaying status of recipiency through reactive tokens in mandarin task-oriented interaction, Journal of Pragmatics, 74, 33-51. Yeh, M. (2018a). Active listenership: Developing beginners’ interactional competence, Chinese as a Second Language Research, 7(1), 47-77. Yeh, M. (2018b). Teaching beginners topic development: Using naturally occurring conversation, 臺灣華語教學研究(17), 89-120. Young, R. (2008). Language and interaction: An advanced resource book, London: Routledge. Young, R. (2011). Interactional competence in language learning, teaching, and testing. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (Vol. 2, pp. 426-443). New York:Routledge. Young, R. (2013). Learning to talk the talk and walk the walk: Interactional competence in academic spoken english, Ibérica(25), 15-38. Young, R. & Milanovic, M. (1992). Discourse variation in oral proficiency interviews, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 14(4), 403-424. Young, R. F. & Miller, E. R. (2004). Learning as changing participation: Discourse roles in ESL writing conferences, The Modern Language Journal, 88(4), 519-535. | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/86655 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | 21世紀的華語教學主流中，口語的溝通交際能力備受重視與廣泛研究。二語的溝通能力不止能促進國際交流的協作互助，更能進一步達到多元文化之間的互動與理解。為了瞭解華語學習者如何在溝通中，展現語言的互動能力，本研究探討學習者在互動對話裡延續話題時，如何展現一致性互動資源（alignment resources）的應用並進行互動。本研究使用會話分析方法，分析華語學習者在同儕自然華語對話中，使用一致性資源延續話題的方式與能力。研究分析中，討論了達成一致性的三類行動，分別為評論、簡潔再現與協同貢獻，並利用微觀分析再對三類行動進行細分，解構資源使用的過程，分析後得到共11項行動的使用方式。 經過對華語學習者自然口語語料的分析，在一致性的三類行動裡，我們的語料發現11項使用方式能在對話中幫助達到一致性，分別為：評論中的認同特定內容、表達認同立場以及表達不認同立場；簡潔再現包含統整想法、釐清想法、整合意見的使用；最後，協同貢獻則包括列舉、提供細節、列舉並提供細節、提供相似經驗、共構記憶。一致性資源的使用可以提升對話中的互動主觀性，有效指引使用者延續話題，藉此促進溝通交際中的互動；由此可知，學習者使用一致性互動資源可作為互動能力的展現。 本研究希望透過對互動資源實際使用方式的觀察，深入了解互動能力的樣貌，並藉由對互動與互動資源使用方式的理解，期許能為華語教學，學習者互動能力的培養，做出實務研究上的貢獻。 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract | Oral communication skills receive much attention and led to extensive research in modern Chinese language teaching. Communication in a second language can not only facilitate cooperation and collaboration, but can also foster mutual interaction and understanding in cross-cultural situations. In order to understand how Chinese language learners demonstrate L2 interactional competence in communication, this research, based on the perspective of social-interactional approach to learning, explores how learners use interactional alignment resources and socio-cultural elements to extend topics in talk-in-interaction. This study uses the method of Conversation Analysis on peer-to-peer natural conversation in Chinese among Chinese language learners, to analyze the actions that are employed to achieve alignment in extending topics; meanwhile, to observe how organization of alignment resources enhances interactivity in the conversation by integrating socio-cultural elements. In the research, three categories of interactional alignment actions were observed: assessment, formulation and collaborative contribution; there are 11 action subcategories to instantiate the organization and employment of alignment resources. Assessment category includes agreeing certain content, agreeing to certain stance, and disagreeing to certain stance; formulation category includes unifying ideas, clarifying ideas, and integrating opinions; collaborative contribution category includes listing, providing details, listing plus providing details, offering similar experiences, and co-constructing memory. This study reveals that the use of the information provided by socio-cultural elements such as internal context, identity and social background in the dialogue, effectively helps comprehension of meaning when employing alignment resources . The use of alignment resources enhances the intersubjectivity of interaction in dialogue, effectively guides learners to extend the topic, thereby promoting interaction in communication; therefore, learners' use of alignment resources can be seen as a display of interactional competence. This study hopes to gain an in-depth understanding of the organization and employment of interactional resources through the observation of the practices in real conversation. Through the comprehensive understanding of interaction, interactional resources, and the socio-cultural elements involved, this practical research is expected to contribute to further understanding to Chinese learners’ interactional competence. | en |
| dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2023-03-20T00:09:16Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 U0001-0308202222311800.pdf: 1909655 bytes, checksum: c80674485ead22247365eaaee0b536ac (MD5) Previous issue date: 2022 | en |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | 目錄 口試委員會審定書 i 謝辭 ii 中文摘要 iii Abstract iv 圖目錄 viii 表目錄 ix 語料目錄 x 第一章、 緒論 1 1.1 前言 1 1.2 研究動機 2 1.3 研究範疇與研究問題 5 1.4 研究目的與研究架構 7 第二章、 文獻回顧 9 2.1 互動能力的發展背景 9 2.1.1 互動能力在二語教學環境的開端 9 2.1.2 二語習得領域的互動能力與社會文化觀 11 2.1.3 小結 12 2.2 互動能力 13 2.2.1 互動概念簡介 14 2.2.2 互動主觀性 20 2.2.3 互動資源 21 2.2.4 小結 24 2.3 一致性互動資源 26 2.3.1 評論 29 2.3.2 簡潔再現 31 2.3.3 協同貢獻 32 2.3.4 小結 33 2.4 話題管理 34 2.4.1 發起話題 34 2.4.2 結束話題 36 2.4.3 轉換話題 36 2.4.4 延續話題 37 2.4.5 小結 38 2.5 二語習得中的互動能力 38 2.5.1 互動能力的學習與發展 38 2.5.2 互動主觀性與二語能力發展 40 2.5.3 同儕研究 41 2.5.4 華語學習者互動對話研究 42 2.5.5 小結 44 第三章、 研究方法 45 3.1 方法架構 45 3.1.1 互動能力與會話分析方法的結合 46 3.1.2 互動研究採用會話分析方法 47 3.2 微觀分析 47 3.3 語料 48 3.3.1 採集對象 48 3.3.2 語料採集與轉寫 49 3.3.3 語料擷取步驟 50 3.3.4 轉寫架構 54 3.4 第三章小結 54 第四章、 華語學習者一致性資源使用：互動對話中的回應分析 57 4.1 評論 58 4.1.1 認同特定內容 59 4.1.2 表達認同立場 61 4.1.3 表達不認同立場 65 4.2 簡潔再現 71 4.2.1 統整想法 72 4.2.2 釐清想法 74 4.2.3 整合意見作為推論的素材 76 4.3 協同貢獻 80 4.3.1 列舉 81 4.3.2 提供更多細節 84 4.3.3 列舉並提供細節 86 4.3.4 提供相似經驗 90 4.3.5 共構記憶 93 4.4 討論 96 4.5 小結 104 第五章、 結論 105 5.1 結論與貢獻 105 5.2 研究限制與未來展望 110 第六章、 參考文獻 113 附錄 一：語料轉寫標記說明 124 圖目錄 圖 2.2-1 19 圖 2.2-2 23 表目錄 表格 4.4-1：一致性互動資源的使用方式 97 語料目錄 語料 1.2-1 3 語料 2.3-1 29 語料 2.3-2 30 語料 2.3-3 31 語料 2.3-4 33 語料 2.4-1 35 語料 3.3-1 51 語料 4.1-1 59 語料 4.1-2 62 語料 4.1-3 66 語料 4.2-1 72 語料 4.2-2 74 語料 4.2-3 77 語料 4.3-1 81 語料 4.3-2 84 語料 4.3-3 87 語料 4.3-4 90 語料 4.3-5 93 | |
| dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
| dc.subject | 互動對話 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 互動能力 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 互動資源 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 一致性行動 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 會話分析 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 互動能力 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 互動資源 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 互動對話 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 一致性行動 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 會話分析 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | interactional resources | en |
| dc.subject | interactional resources | en |
| dc.subject | talk-in-interaction | en |
| dc.subject | alignment | en |
| dc.subject | Conversation Analysis | en |
| dc.subject | talk-in-interaction | en |
| dc.subject | Interactional Competence | en |
| dc.subject | Conversation Analysis | en |
| dc.subject | alignment | en |
| dc.subject | Interactional Competence | en |
| dc.title | 華語學習者的對話互動能力——以聽話者回應看一致性互動資源的運用 | zh_TW |
| dc.title | Interactional Competence in Learners of Chinese: Alignment Resources to Construct Recipient Response | en |
| dc.type | Thesis | |
| dc.date.schoolyear | 110-2 | |
| dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 呂佳蓉(Chia-Rung Lu),劉德馨(Teh-Sin Liu) | |
| dc.subject.keyword | 互動能力,互動資源,互動對話,一致性行動,會話分析, | zh_TW |
| dc.subject.keyword | Interactional Competence,interactional resources,talk-in-interaction,alignment,Conversation Analysis, | en |
| dc.relation.page | 124 | |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU202202033 | |
| dc.rights.note | 同意授權(全球公開) | |
| dc.date.accepted | 2022-08-04 | |
| dc.contributor.author-college | 文學院 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.author-dept | 華語教學碩士學位學程 | zh_TW |
| dc.date.embargo-lift | 2022-08-10 | - |
| 顯示於系所單位： | 華語教學碩士學位學程 | |
文件中的檔案：
| 檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| U0001-0308202222311800.pdf | 1.86 MB | Adobe PDF | 檢視/開啟 |
系統中的文件，除了特別指名其著作權條款之外，均受到著作權保護，並且保留所有的權利。