外语学习者在书面语中逻辑连接词使用的错误分析

论文总字数：29683字

摘 要

作为语篇衔接的一种手段，英语中的逻辑连接词对篇章的衔接、连贯起着重要的作用。所以，研究逻辑连接词的使用错误有助于外语学习者学习掌握第二语言，提高对语言的认识。然而，国内外学者在研究外语学习者逻辑连词使用时，较多选择某个逻辑词作为案例进行分析，很少学者探究从错误分析的角度来探讨逻辑连接词的使用。本文将通过搜集有关逻辑连接词使用的资料，运用错误分析的理论来研究者逻辑连接词使用错误的类型及其成因，并对于英语学习者正确使用逻辑连接词方面达到一定的指导作用。

关键词：逻辑连接词；错误分析；连贯性

Contents

1. Introduction 1

2. Literature Review 1

2.1 Logical Connectors 1

2.2 Error Analysis 3

2.3 Researches about the Analysis of the Errors in Logical Connectors 5

3. Analysis of Errors in Logical Connectors 6

3.1 Omission of Logical Connectors 6

3.2 Addition of Logical Connectors 7

3.3 Overrepresentation of Logical Connectors 8

3.4 Disordering of Logical Connectors 8

4. Causes for the Errors in logical connectors 9

4.1 Interference of Negative Transfer 9

4.2 Lack of Register Knowledge 10

4.3 Misdirection by Input 10

5. Conclusion 11

Works Cited 13

1. Introduction

In the process of writing, it is always the problems which troubles the author that how to use the logical connectors correctly and appropriately. It does not only relate to the formation of the logical relationship between the sentences, but also reflects the thoughts and ideas of the authors. If the author always can use the logical connects correctly, he can make the articles in a clear logical order, which is helpful for readers to understand what the article says. However，quite a lot of authors cannot use the logical connectors accurately to express their own thoughts. It is more common among the language learners. In the past 30 years, many teachers, along with some researchers, pay more attention to the problems in language teaching.

2. Literature Review

2.1 Logical Connectors

Connectors, also called logical connectives and conjunctions, are used to join or connect two ideas that have a particular relationship. That is to say, the main function of these words is cohesion and indicates the logical relationship as well. From the angle of form, the logical connectors can act by the words, phrases and sentence patterns; from the angle of semantics, the logical connectors can show different semantic relationship. In this part, the author will clarify the definition of logical connectors, and then the classification of logical connectors.

2.1.1 The Definition of Logical Connectors

In fact, different linguists have different definitions on logical connectors. Biber et al. used the term linking adverbials, which can state the writers/speakers viewpoint of relationship between two parts of discourse (Biber et al., 2000: 970). Oshima and Hogue defined linking adverbials as words and phrases that connect the idea in one sentence or clause with the idea in another (Oshima amp; Hogue, 1997: 127). Halliday and Hasan called them "conjunctions", which are words or short phrases showing the interrelation between two statements or clauses in a text by explicitly specifying a conceptual relationship between statements (Halliday amp; Hasan, 1976: 226). Logical connectors are used to show or express logical relations, but those obvious logical relations need not logical connectors to show them clearly.

2.1.2 The Classification of Logical Connectors

There are five major devises to achieve semantic cohesion in the book Cohesion in English (Halliday amp; Hasan, 1976: 226). It is realized through the semantic connections between differences forms in a discourse, which is reference, substitution, ellipsis, conjunction and lexical cohesion. Conjunction is a different type of semantic relation from the other cohesive devices. With these conjunction elements, one can comprehend the semantic relations between sentences. He can even logically presume the meaning of the following sentence by virtue of what has gone. According to their semantic relations, Halliday and Hasan divided logical connectors into four types: (Halliday amp; Hasan, 1976: 226)

Additive means by that a linking word or phrase used to add new content to express previous meaning when a previous sentence is finished. For example, and, or, nor, furthermore, alternatively, incidentally, that is, for instance, likewise, on the other hand, etc.

Adversative indicates that the linking word or phrase connect two the meaning of opposite sentences. Examples of adversative relations are: yet, though, but, however, actually, instead, at least, rather, in any case, anyhow.

Causal refers to a word or phrase connects two sentences that relationship is cause-effect or antecedent-consequent. Such as so, hence, consequently, because of this, for this reason, as a result, for this purpose, reversed form such as for, because, then, in that case, under the circumstances, otherwise, in this respect.

Temporal logical connectors usually used to express the temporal order of things or actions happened. The relations of temporal could be divided into several subcategories, which are sequential ones, simultaneous ones, preceding ones and conclusive relations, such as at the same time, simultaneously, in the end and so on.

In the book of A Comprehensive Grammar of English (Quirk et al., 1985: 631), it has made an extensive accept for classifying logical connectors. They, according to the semantic relations, classify logical connectors into seven major categories:

1. Listing. Listing logical connectors can be subdivided into enumerative ones and additive ones, such as first(ly), on the other hand, similarly, furthermore, moreover.

2. Summative. These types of logical connectors "introduce an item that embraces the preceding ones, such as therefore, then, thus, to sum up, in conclusion.

3. Appositional. These group logical connectors either express the content of the preceding item or items in other terms, for example, namely, for instance, that is to say, specifically.

4. Resultive. These logical connectors need reasons or causes to be given in the preceding discourse, for example, accordingly, consequently, hence, as a consequence, somehow.

5. Inferential. Inferential logical connectors state a conclusion based on logic and supposition (Quirk et al., 1985: 638), such as else, otherwise, in other words, in that case.

6. Contrastive. They express either contrastive words or events in respect of what has happened, such as rather, alternatively, alternatively, worse of all, ,instead, then, on the contrary, in contrast, however and nevertheless.

Even though different linguists have different definition of the logical connectors, it is the fact that they have something in common in the aspect of semantics. Here in this research the first kind of classification is focused, that is, four types of logical connectors: additive, adversative, causal and temporal.

2.2 Error Analysis

Error Analysis (EA) is the first approach to the study of SLA which includes an internal focus on learners’ creative ability to construct language. It is based on the description and analysis of actual learner errors in L2, rather than on idealized linguistic structures attributed to native speakers of L1 and L2.

2.2.1 The Procedures of Error Analysis

The procedures for analyzing learners’ errors including the following steps (Saville- Troike, 2008: 99):

Step 1 Collection of a sample of learner language.

Most samples of learner language which have been used in EA include data collected from many speakers who are responding to the same kind of task or test in Morpheme Order Studies. Some studies use samples from a few learners which are collected over a period of time.

During this step, there are three issues concerning collecting the examples. Firstly, the errors that learners make can be influenced by a large number of factors. Unfortunately, many EA studies have not paid attention to these factors. Secondly, decisions also need to be made regarding the manner in which the samples are to be collected. Thirdly, whether the samples of learner language are collected cross-sectionally or longitudinally is also one of the most important issues.

Step 2 Identification of errors.

The first step in the analysis requires determination of elements in the sample of learner language which deviate from the target second language in some way. Corder distinguishes between systematic errors and mistakes, which he excludes from the analysis. (Corder, 1967: 161)

Step 3 Description of errors.

The description of learners’ errors involves a comparison of the learners’ idiosyncratic utterances with a reconstruction of those utterances in the target language. It requires, therefore, attention to the surface properties of the learners’ utterances.

For purpose of analysis, errors are usually classified according to language level, specific linguistic elements and other aspects. It focuses only on observable, surface features of errors, as a basis for subsequent explanation.

Step 4 Explanation of errors.

Accounting for why an error was made is the most important step in trying to understand the processes of SLA. Two of the most likely causes of L2 errors are interlingual factors, resulting from negative transfer and intralingual factors, not attributable to cross-linguistic influences.

For purpose of analysis, errors are usually classified according to language level, specific linguistic elements and other aspects.

2.2.2 Significance of Errors Analysis in Logical Connectors

Students’ incorrect utterances are important evidences concerning EFL processes. In the light of the new hypotheses, errors are best not regarded as the persistence of old habits, but rather as signs that the learner is investigating the systems of the new language. (Corder, 1967: 161)

Errors are significant in the following three different ways. Firstly, they show how far towards the goal the learner has progressed and what remains for him to learn to the teachers. Secondly, they provide evidence of how language is learned and what strategies or procedures the learner is employing to the researchers. Besides, errors are considered to be a way the learners have of testing their hypotheses about the nature of the language they are learning.

Errors are likely to be repeated and can be applied to reveal the learner’s underlying knowledge of the target language. Thus, to help the learners use the logical connectors correctly, it is meaningful to discuss the errors in logical connectors. Two main significance of errors in logical connectors are addressed as following: on the one hand, to make college English teachers and language learners realize the importance of using logical connectors as a cohesive device in English writing; on the other hand, to provide referential information and materials For those researchers who are interested in establishing a new text model for teaching of EFL writing.

2.3 Researches about the Analysis of the Errors in Logical Connectors

In the early studies on the problems of using logical connectors for second / foreign language learners, some scholars associated the discussions with cohesion and coherence, hoping to find the link between them. However, Mosenthal found that there exists “convergence" in almost every article, but it cannot prove that there is any corresponding relationship between cohesion and coherence (Mosenthal, 1983: 26). Neuner also cited some statistics to illustrate that there is no difference between the good and poor articles written by the native English author in the use of cohesive devices. With the emergence of research and development of theory of IL (interlanguage), people research the problems of using logic connectors for ESL/EFL in writing more deeply (Neuner, 1987: 93). Many studies use the method of contrastive analysis based on corpus (Milton amp; Tsang, 1993: 33, Granger amp; Tyson, 1996: 96, Bolton, 2002: 54, and Lorrita Yeung, 2009: 69) to conduct the studies in the various aspects of the discussions.

Some domestic scholars also pay much attention to the study of the situation of using logical connectors in Chinese students’ writing. Zhao Weibin selects a lot of corpus, comparing the corpus of Chinese students’ writing and native students’ writing (Zhao Weibin, 2003:72). The students studied are in different English levels and in different majors. Zhao discovered that Chinese learners have got aware of using logical connectors in their writing with diversities in different genre to clarify logical relations, but they overuse such logical connectors such as “so”, “for example”, etc., which may result in monotonous or confusion among readers in reading their writings. After concluding some disadvantages in previous study, Luo Yi planned the study more carefully. Subjects in the study are the postgraduates of English majors and some native English writers. In the learner corpus, she collected 67 essays all aboard. After finishing building the corpus, the frequency of about 140 logical connectors were searched. The results of her research show that: 1) the learners tend to use more logical connectors than the native writers； 2）the same semantic categories of logical connectors is used in both the learners’ and the native writers’ papers； 3）corroborative conjunctions are underused in the learners’ papers. Luo Yi’s analysis also shows that the learners lack a full understanding of style appropriateness and semantic properties of some conjunctions (LuoYi, 2003:67).

In the processing of language learning, making errors of logical connectors in writing is a common phenomenon. To find the reasons why the errors occur is a difficult problem that must be solved. Therefore, it is necessary to analyze the causes based on the theory of Error Analysis.

3. Analysis of Errors in Logical Connectors

Having analyzed the logical connector in the argumentative writing in model test of CET-4 in Wentong College of Huaiyin Normal University, the author finds that most of the students are beginning to use the logical connectors consciously to make the discourse in cohesion that they tend to use more than four logical connectors in such a 150-words composition, especially the addictive and the causal logical connectors. However, they usually make more or less errors in using the logical connectors. The errors in logical connectors in ESL/EFL writing can be classified into the following kinds: omission, addition, overrepresentation and disordering. Among them, the proportion of the amount of disordering is much larger.

剩余内容已隐藏，请支付后下载全文，论文总字数：29683字