Corpus Analyses of English and Chinese

博士 === 國立高雄師範大學 === 英語學系 === 99 === This study mainly aimed to examine the similarity and difference between English and Chinese tag questions in literary texts or corpora that were written in the years from 1950s to 2000s, randomly selected from some online linguistic corpora—the British Natio...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: 吳泰良
Other Authors: Yuang-Shan Chuang
Format: Others
Language:en_US
Published: 2011
Online Access:http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/22528651318860987676
id ndltd-TW-099NKNU5240081
record_format oai_dc
spelling ndltd-TW-099NKNU52400812016-11-20T04:18:30Z http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/22528651318860987676 Corpus Analyses of English and Chinese 英文及中文附加問句之語料分析 吳泰良 博士 國立高雄師範大學 英語學系 99 This study mainly aimed to examine the similarity and difference between English and Chinese tag questions in literary texts or corpora that were written in the years from 1950s to 2000s, randomly selected from some online linguistic corpora—the British National Corpus (BNC), the Corpus of Historical American English (COHA), the Corpus of the Center for Chinese Linguistics (CCL) at PKU and the Academia Sinica Balanced Corpus of Modern Chinese (Sinica Corpus). The contribution of the study to the language field indicated that language teachers could have a deeper understanding of tag questions in English and Chinese so as to help students enhance their listening and speaking ability in language communication. The corpora in the present study consisted of 6000 English and 6000 Chinese tag questions collected from high school textbooks, literary works and online corpora. The tag question items were designed based on these corpora and were revised by two native speakers. In addition, there were 284 subjects selected for this research. They studied at senior high schools in Kaohsiung City. All the students were required to take the test. Moreover, statistical measures and quantitative analysis were employed to investigate the similarity and difference between English and Chinese tag questions and the variable of gender difference in male and female students’ performance on the tag questions test. The major findings of this study were summarized as follows: First, the use or occurrence of English and Chinese tag questions in different periods of time actually varied with different polarity types. Second, the tendencies in the frequency distribution of polarity types of both English and Chinese tag questions showed that in Chinese the percentage hierarchy is P-P > N-P > P-N > N-N, while the hierarchy in English was P-N > N-P > P-P > N-N. Third, although there were differences between English and Chinese tag questions, Universal Grammar was found to exist in the use of English and Chinese tag questions, which was manifested with the OT regulation. Fourth, there was no significant gender difference in male and female students’ performance on the test of the three polarity types of both English and Chinese tag questions. However, taking the three polarity types into consideration, we found the hierarchy of the percentage of three polarity types of English and Chinese tag questions for male and female students: Male: ENP > EPN > EPP; CPN > CNP> CPP vs. Female: ENP > EPN > EPP; CPN > CNP> CPP. Fifth, tag question that had the function of expressing “request” or “invitation” and that contained an embedded clause so as to form a complex sentence were difficult for students to make judgments on the choice of polarity type Moreover, the use of the word with a negative meaning in the formation of a tag question was also unfamiliar to many students. The study concluded with a discussion of the implications for the teaching of English tag questions and offered some suggestions for further research. The researcher hopes that the research results can draw corpus linguists’ attention, provoke theoretical linguists’ interest in Optimality Theory-based research on sentence patterns, and further arouse language teachers’ awareness of teaching tag questions. Yuang-Shan Chuang Pi-Chong Su 莊永山 蘇碧瓊 2011 學位論文 ; thesis 181 en_US
collection NDLTD
language en_US
format Others
sources NDLTD
description 博士 === 國立高雄師範大學 === 英語學系 === 99 === This study mainly aimed to examine the similarity and difference between English and Chinese tag questions in literary texts or corpora that were written in the years from 1950s to 2000s, randomly selected from some online linguistic corpora—the British National Corpus (BNC), the Corpus of Historical American English (COHA), the Corpus of the Center for Chinese Linguistics (CCL) at PKU and the Academia Sinica Balanced Corpus of Modern Chinese (Sinica Corpus). The contribution of the study to the language field indicated that language teachers could have a deeper understanding of tag questions in English and Chinese so as to help students enhance their listening and speaking ability in language communication. The corpora in the present study consisted of 6000 English and 6000 Chinese tag questions collected from high school textbooks, literary works and online corpora. The tag question items were designed based on these corpora and were revised by two native speakers. In addition, there were 284 subjects selected for this research. They studied at senior high schools in Kaohsiung City. All the students were required to take the test. Moreover, statistical measures and quantitative analysis were employed to investigate the similarity and difference between English and Chinese tag questions and the variable of gender difference in male and female students’ performance on the tag questions test. The major findings of this study were summarized as follows: First, the use or occurrence of English and Chinese tag questions in different periods of time actually varied with different polarity types. Second, the tendencies in the frequency distribution of polarity types of both English and Chinese tag questions showed that in Chinese the percentage hierarchy is P-P > N-P > P-N > N-N, while the hierarchy in English was P-N > N-P > P-P > N-N. Third, although there were differences between English and Chinese tag questions, Universal Grammar was found to exist in the use of English and Chinese tag questions, which was manifested with the OT regulation. Fourth, there was no significant gender difference in male and female students’ performance on the test of the three polarity types of both English and Chinese tag questions. However, taking the three polarity types into consideration, we found the hierarchy of the percentage of three polarity types of English and Chinese tag questions for male and female students: Male: ENP > EPN > EPP; CPN > CNP> CPP vs. Female: ENP > EPN > EPP; CPN > CNP> CPP. Fifth, tag question that had the function of expressing “request” or “invitation” and that contained an embedded clause so as to form a complex sentence were difficult for students to make judgments on the choice of polarity type Moreover, the use of the word with a negative meaning in the formation of a tag question was also unfamiliar to many students. The study concluded with a discussion of the implications for the teaching of English tag questions and offered some suggestions for further research. The researcher hopes that the research results can draw corpus linguists’ attention, provoke theoretical linguists’ interest in Optimality Theory-based research on sentence patterns, and further arouse language teachers’ awareness of teaching tag questions.
author2 Yuang-Shan Chuang
author_facet Yuang-Shan Chuang
吳泰良
author 吳泰良
spellingShingle 吳泰良
Corpus Analyses of English and Chinese
author_sort 吳泰良
title Corpus Analyses of English and Chinese
title_short Corpus Analyses of English and Chinese
title_full Corpus Analyses of English and Chinese
title_fullStr Corpus Analyses of English and Chinese
title_full_unstemmed Corpus Analyses of English and Chinese
title_sort corpus analyses of english and chinese
publishDate 2011
url http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/22528651318860987676
work_keys_str_mv AT wútàiliáng corpusanalysesofenglishandchinese
AT wútàiliáng yīngwénjízhōngwénfùjiāwènjùzhīyǔliàofēnxī
_version_ 1718395533295353856