【作者】 李宏强；

【导师】 张思锐；

【作者基本信息】 陕西师范大学 ， 外国语言学及应用语言学， 2009， 硕士

【摘要】 母语是影响二语习得和外语学习的一个重要因素。对于母语思维在外语写作过程中的作用问题,大多研究是就二语写作输出的结果进行探讨,而不是写作的整个过程的研究。并且,研究的方向集中在母语思维在二语写作过程中所起的干涉作用及其消极影响。关于外语水平高低与母语思维的量之间关系,以及母语思维在外语写作过程中的分布特征的研究极其少见。本项研究以此为视角,在语言和思维这个双重关系的理论框架内,考察中国大学生非英语专业一年级学生和英语专业三年级学生在英语写作过程中的母语思维使用情况,旨在回答一下几个问题:1.外语水平高者(英语专业三年级学生)与外语水平低者(非英语专业一年级学生)在英语写作过程中各投入多少母语思维?量的差别有多大?2.在外语写作过程中,两者在什么时候,什么情境下使用母语思维?母语思维的分布有何差异?为什么?本次研究先通过问卷了解外语水平高者和低者关于英语写作和母语思维的概况,然后在两组中各随机抽取一名学生进行英语有色思维写作。所有的受试都来自陕西师范大学和陕西理工学院的大学生。研究工具有问卷,有色思维和测后访谈。数据分析资料主要有问卷结果、有声思维记录、学生的作文和访谈记录。数据分析程序有三部分。第一部分是对问卷的结果进行定量分析,了解英语高水平者和低水平者关于母语思维的使用情况和作用。第二部分是对有声思维记录作定量和定性分析。数出每篇记录中的中、英文词数,算出中文比例作为母语思维量的指数。然后将写作过程中的母语思维活动分为五大类并计算出每一类活动中的母语思维的比例(这里的数据统计单位为意义单元),以了解学生在什么情况下依赖母语思维。第三部分是关于母语思维分布差异进行定性和定量分析,并建立了一个母语思维过程的图式模型。对英语水平高者和低者之间存在母语思维分配的差异进行了分析和探讨。通过全面分析得到本项研究的结论,归纳如下:1.在英语论述题材的写作过程中,不论外语水平的高低,几乎有一半的思维活动依赖母语思维。2.外语水平的高低对母语思维的总量没有很大的影响。并不是如假设的那样,英语低水平低者比英语水平高者依赖母语思维的量要大得多。在外语写作过程中,高水平者母语思维的投入量是百分之四十八;低水平者母语思维的投入量是百分之五十二。3.外语水平的高低引起母语思维分布的差异。英语水平高者把百分之八十五的母语思维投入在写作的思想内容生成方面,其中包括观点的选择和提炼,内容的推理和表达方式的推敲。英语水平低者把百分之六十五的母语思维用在语言形式的检索上,包括汉语相对应英语词汇的寻找,对语法、搭配和拼写的关注,以及内容的推理。本论文由五部分组成。第一章介绍了该研究的相关背景、意义、研究问题以及论文结构。第二章对相关文献进行了分类综述。第三章阐述了实验的设计。包括研究方法、对象、工具以及研究的步骤。第四章对数据进行了分析,得出研究结果。第五章全文总结,提出本研究的不足之处和今后的发展。更多还原

【Abstract】 Native language is one of the crucial factors to affect the foreign language learning and the second language acquisition. Many studies have been conducted to investigate the functions of L1 thinking in the course of second/foreign language writing, but most of the researches focused to the final writing product rather than the writing process. And their studies aimed to explore the negative functions of L1 thinking and its interference. With regard to the study on the relationship between foreign language proficiency and extent of L1 thinking and the study on the characteristics of distribution of L1 thinking in the process of foreign language writing, a few literatures can be found out. Therefore, the present study took the perspective of this point of view, under the theoretical framework of language and thought, to examine the L1 thinking use between the English majored senior students (SE) and the non-English major freshman students (SN) during the English composing, and the purpose of the research is to answer the questions below.1. How much amount of the L1 thinking is imposed into the FL writing in the process of composing and what are the differences existed between the learners with the high English proficiency /SE and the ones with low English proficiency/ SN?2. When and what contexts would the subjects with different FL proficiency revert to L1 thinking to the English composing? And what are the distinction of L1 thinking distribution existed between SE and SN? Why?The present study firstly used questionnaire to obtain the participants’ general retrospection information on English writing and L1 thinking in the course of everyday English learning, then two participants who were randomly chosen from two groups conducted think aloud English writing. All the subjects were the college students from Shaanxi Normal University (SNU) and Shaanxi University of Technology (SUT). The research instruments mainly included questionnaire, think-aloud protocols and retrospective interview. And the materials of data analysis were consisted of the result of questionnaire, protocol transcription, subjects’ compositions and the note-taking of interview. Data analysis procedures had three sections .Firstly, Quantitative analysis was carried out to the questionnaire result so as to gain the information on L1 thinking in English writing between SE and SN. Secondly, the think-aloud protocols were analyzed both quantitatively and qualitatively. And Chinese and English words in each protocol are counted and the proportion of L1 use is computed to measure the amount of L1 in the FL writing. Then, all of the L1 thinking activities were classified into five categories and the proportion of each category were figured out in terms of idea unit in order to find out what context the students relied on L1 thinking. The last section was about qualitative and quantitative analysis on distribution of L1 thinking, and a model of L1 thinking schema was constructed for the purpose of the clear and logical discussion on the differences of L1 thinking involvement between SN and SE.All of the data analyses yielded three major findings as follows:1. In the course of argumentation writing, no matter whether the learners’ FL proficiency is high or low, almost a half of thinking activity relied on L1 thinking.2. FL proficiency did not result in the change on the extent of L1 thinking. It is proved that amount of L1 thinking of SE is not far less than that of SN in the course of the English writhing. The proportion of the L1 thinking between SE and SN was nearly equal (48% and 52% respectively).3. FL proficiency brought about the different distribution of L1 thinking during of the FL composing. The senior students majored English used 85 percent of L1 thinking on idea developing including idea selecting, reasoning and expressions evaluating. While the freshman who was non-English major imposed 65 percent of L1 thinking in the linguistic forms searching involved in FL equivalents seeking, reasoning and grammar correctness. With regard to category of task response, idea organizing and process controlling, FL proficiency do not lead to significant differences on the aspect of L1 thinking.This thesis consists of five chapters. Chapter One is a brief introduction to the research background, research questions and the significance of the study. Chapter Two is literature review, which presents the historical background against which the present study was developed and provides the empirical findings relevant to the theme of the present study. Chapter Three describes study design in detail, including the participant selection, data collection and analysis procedures. Chapter Four presents the results in response to the two research questions designated for this study and discusses possible factors leading to the results. Chapter Five is the conclusion with main findings, pedagogical implications, and limitations of this study as well as suggestions for future research.更多还原