幼童敘說中因果連接詞和因果類型之發展

以作者查詢圖書館館藏

、以作者查詢臺灣博碩士

、以作者查詢全國書目

、勘誤回報

、線上人數：22

、訪客IP：18.224.149.242

姓名

溫宜潔(I-Chieh Wen) 查詢紙本館藏

畢業系所

學習與教學研究所

論文名稱

幼童敘說中因果連接詞和因果類型之發展
(The development of causal connectives and causal categories in children′s narrative)

相關論文

★ 以同儕互評與討論提升小六學童之寫作表現 ~以行動學習輔具教室為例	★ 從眼動資料探討字形與聲旁在篇章閱讀的效果
★ 從眼動資料探討連接詞與閱讀歷程之關係	★ EFL大學生閱讀英文的眼動資料分析
★ 以眼動型態探討背景知識對詞彙辨識的影響	★ 閱讀教學與國民小學學童閱讀動機及行為的關係—以2005年PIRLS資料為例
★ 合作寫作對於國小學童科學概念學習之影響	★ 記憶廣度與語境效應對閱讀歧義句的影響：來自眼動的證據
★ 由句法探討手語聽障生書面語閱讀的現象	★ 英文閱讀能力與先備知識對閱讀物理篇章推論的影響
★ 正負數量表徵的心理數線發展	★ 識字教學法與口語詞彙能力對新移民女性中文識字學習之影響
★ 國小學生對統計圖理解層次之研究	★ 國小學童對幽默漫畫閱讀歷程之研究
★ 成人與小六學童在中文多義詞語意激發和選擇的比較	★ 線上閱讀測驗之發展與學生能力表現之探究

檔案

[Endnote RIS 格式]

[Bibtex 格式]

[相關文章]

[文章引用]

[完整記錄]

[館藏目錄]

[檢視]

[下載]

本電子論文使用權限為同意立即開放。
已達開放權限電子全文僅授權使用者為學術研究之目的，進行個人非營利性質之檢索、閱讀、列印。
請遵守中華民國著作權法之相關規定，切勿任意重製、散佈、改作、轉貼、播送，以免觸法。

摘要(中)

過去研究較少探討幼童如何表達故事中因果關係（因果連接詞的使用情形）以及因果類型在年齡上的發展。本研究第一部分以五歲幼兒為研究對象，探討幼兒如何表達故事中的因果關係（有無使用因果連接詞）並歸納出四種因果關係表達方式：(1)使用因果關係連接詞；(2)使用替代連接詞；(3)省略連接詞；(4)使用不適切。第二部分使用CHILDES兒童語料庫中三、五、七歲幼童敘說故事「青蛙，你在哪裡」的語料，依據Trabasso、van den Broek和Suh（1989）所提出的「因果關係網路分析模式」中故事組成元素的編碼定義、判斷因果關係原則及因果關係類型的分類（動機、心理、物理），以及上述四種因果關係表達方式進行分析，採用二因子變異數分析，探討年齡在因果關係表達方式的使用次數上的發展、年齡在因果關係類型的表達次數上的差異，以及在三種因果關係類型中，年齡與因果關係表達方式的關係。研究結果顯示：
1.幼兒經常「使用替代連接詞」或「省略連接詞」來表達因果關係，很少使用因果關係連接詞來表達。
2.從因果關係表達方式總次數來看，七歲大於五歲，五歲大於三歲，但七歲和五歲沒有顯著差異，由此可知，到五歲時，幼兒已經具備因果關係的表達能力，但多「使用替代連接詞」或「省略連接詞」來表達。
3.從三種因果關係類型來看，三歲幼兒以表達「物理上因果關係」為多，到了五歲以表達「動機上因果關係」為多，且隨年齡成長，表達次數越多。
4.三歲和五歲在三種因果關係類型中，多「使用替代連接詞」來表達，次之是「省略連接詞」。七歲在「心理上因果關係」和「物理上因果關係」中，多以「省略連接詞」的方式來表達，其次是「使用替代連接詞」。由此可知，幼童不會因為不同因果關係類型而有不同的因果關係表達方式。
上述研究結果將可以瞭解幼童表達故事中因果關係的方式以及年齡、因果關係表達方式和因果關係類型三者之間的關係，並在論文中討論研究結果並提出建議以作為幼兒教育及未來研究的參考。

摘要(英)

There are few studies that explore the way of children expressing the causal relationships in stories (mainly how they use causal connectives) and the development of causal categories. The first part of this study examined how the 5-year-old children using causal connectives to express the causal relationships in stories. Four kinds of expression were proposed: (1) correctly using causal connectives; (2) using alternatives; (3) omitting connectives; (4) inappropriate expression.
The second part of this study used CHILDES database which included the corpus of three-, five- and seven-year-old children who all told the “Frog, where are you?” story. A causal network of discourse analysis was adopted. It was proposed by Trabasso, van den Broek and Suh (1989), including coding story components coding, causal relationship judgement and three causal categories (motivational, psychological, physical) analysis.
Two-way ANOVA was conducted to investigate the relationship among age, causal connectives and causal categories. The major findings were as following:
1.Children often expressed causal relationship by using alternative connectives or omitting connectives. They seldom used causal connectives to express causal relationships.
2.In terms of total frequency of four ways to express causal relationship, seven-year-old’s frequency had more than five-year-old’s and five-year-old children’s frequency had more than three-year-old’s.
3.Concerning three causal categories, three-year-old children told the physical causal relationship more often than the other two categories. Five- and seven-year-old children showed more expression of motivational causal relationship.
4.Three- and five-year-old children expressed three causal categories by using alternative connectives, then by omitting connectives. Seven-year-old children often omitted connectives to express motivational and physical causal relationships, or they used alternative connectives. This result shows that children do not express causal relationship differently because of different causal categories.
Finally, this study discussed the results in terms of future research recommendations and practical perspectives with the restriction of research design.

關鍵字(中)

★ 因果連接詞
★ 因果類型
★ 敘說
★ 幼童

關鍵字(英)

論文目次

中文摘要--------------------------------------------------I
英文摘要------------------------------------------------III
致謝-----------------------------------------------------V
目次----------------------------------------------------VI
圖次--------------------------------------------------VIII
表次----------------------------------------------------IX
第一章緒論-----------------------------------------------1
第一節研究背景與動機-------------------------------------1
第二節研究目的與問題-------------------------------------4
第三節名詞釋義------------------------------------------5
第二章文獻探討-------------------------------------------8
第一節故事基模與故事結構---------------------------------8
第二節因果關係網路分析----------------------------------12
第三節幼兒敘說故事能力與發展-----------------------------17
第三章研究一--------------------------------------------27
第一節研究對象-----------------------------------------27
第二節研究工具-----------------------------------------28
第三節實施流程-----------------------------------------33
第四節語料處理分析--------------------------------------34
第五節結果---------------------------------------------36
第四章研究二--------------------------------------------39
第一節研究對象-----------------------------------------39
第二節研究工具-----------------------------------------40
第三節語料處理分析--------------------------------------41
第四節結果---------------------------------------------42
第五章結論、綜合討論與建議-------------------------------65
第一節結論---------------------------------------------65
第二節綜合討論-----------------------------------------68
第三節研究限制-----------------------------------------69
第四節建議---------------------------------------------70
參考文獻-------------------------------------------------72
附件一：「青蛙，你在哪裡？」故事內容-----------------------76
附件二：三歲幼兒敘說故事語料-------------------------------80
附件三：五歲幼兒敘說故事語料-------------------------------81
附件四：七歲幼兒敘說故事語料-------------------------------83

參考文獻

林清山（譯）（1991）。Richard E. Mayer（梅伊爾）著。教育心理學：認知取向。臺北：遠流出版社。
洪宜芳、張鑑如（2017）。三~六歲學齡前幼兒影片敘說：故事理解與故事重述之初探。教育心理學報，48（4），567-590。
張寶月（1995）。兒童故事基模的發展─以因果關係網路分析為例（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺灣師範大學家政教育研究所，臺北市。
張鑑如、章菁（2002）。幼兒敘述能力之發展：多年期研究。九十一學年度師範院校教育學術論文發表會論文集，1615-1641。嘉義：嘉義大學。
陳欣希、張鑑如、陳秀芬（2011）。學齡前幼兒的故事結構發展：故事文法之分析。教育心理學報，42（3），359-378。
程祥徽、田小琳（1992）。《現代漢語》。臺北：書林。
錡寶香（2003）。國小低閱讀能力學童與一般閱讀能力學童的敘事能力：篇章凝聚之分析。特殊教育研究學刊，24，63-84。
錡寶香（2003）。國小低閱讀能力學童與一般學童敘事能力：篇章凝聚之分析。特殊教育研究學刊，24，63-84。
錡寶香（2004）。國小低閱讀能力學童與一般學童敘事能力：故事結構之分析。特殊教育研究學刊，26，247-269。
簡馨瑩、連啟舜、張紹盈（2017）。故事提示策略、工作記憶能力對幼兒故事理解能力的影響。教育科學研究期刊，62（4），181-207。
Applebee, A. (1978). The child’s concept of story: Ages two to seventeen. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Berman, R. A. & Slobin, D. I. (1994). Relating events in narrative: A crosslinguistic developmental study. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Buss, R. R., Yussen, S. R., Matthews, S. R. II, Miller, G. E., & Rembold, K. L. (1983). Development of children′s use of a story schema to retrieve information. Developmental Psychology, 19(1), 22-28.
Chang, C. J. (2004). Telling stories of experiences: Narrative development of young Chinese children. Applied Psycholinguistics, 25(2004), 83-104.
Chang, C. J. (2006). Linking early narrative skill to later language and reading ability in Mandarin-speaking children: A longitudinal study over eight years. Narrative Inquiry, 16(2), 275-293.
Fivush, R., Haden, C., & Adam, S. (1995). Structure and coherence of preschoolers’ personal narratives over time: Implications for childhood amnesia. Journal of Experimental child psychology, 60, 32-56.
Halliday, M. A. K. & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
Hayward, D. (2003). What’s in a question? Measuring narrative comprehension using a picture story in typically developing children aged 4-8. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Alberta.
Hsu, J. H. (1985-1987). A study of development and acquisition of Mandarin Chinese. NSC research report.
Hudson, J. A., & Shapiro, L. R. (1991). From knowing to telling: The development of children’s scripts, stories, and personal narratives. In A. McCabe & C. Peterson (Eds.), Developing narrative structure (pp. 89-136). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Mandler, J. M., & Johnson, N. S. (1977). Remember of things parsed: Story structure and recall. Cognitive Psychology, 9, 111-151.
Miller, P. J., & Sperry, L. L. (1988). Early talk about the past: The origins of conversational stories of personal experience. Journal of Child Language, 15, 293-315.
Morrow, L. M. (2005). Literacy development in the early years: Helping children read and write. New York, NY: Pearson.
Munger, M. P. (1989). Children’s understanding of intentional action: Evidence from picture storytelling. Unpublished bachelor’s thesis, Department of Psychology, University of Chicago.
Olson, M. W. &; Gee, T. C. (1988). Understanding narratives: A review
of story grammar research. Childhood Education, 64(5), 302-306.
Poulsen, D., Kintsch, E., Kintsch, W., & Permack, D. (1979). Children’s comprehension and memory for stories. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 28, 379-403.
Rumelhart, D. (1975). Notes on a schema for stories. In D. Bobrow & A. Collins (Eds.), Representation and understanding: Studies in cognitive science (pp. 211-236). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Sah, W. H. (2015). The development of coherence in narratives: Causal relations. Taiwan Journal of Linguistics, 13(1), 25-51.
Schank, R. C. (1975). The structure of episodes in memory. In D. G. Bobrow & A. M. Collins (Eds.), Representation and understanding: Studies in cognitive science. New York: Academic.
Stein, N. L. (1982). What’s in a story: Interpreting the interpretation of story grammars. Discourse processes, 5, 319-335.
Stein, N. L., & Glenn, C. G. (1979). An analysis of story comprehension in elementary school children. In R. O. Freedle (Ed.), New directions in discourse processing (Vol. 2, pp. 53-120). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Thorndyke, P. (1977). Cognitive structures in comprehension and memory. Cognitive Psychology, 9, 7-11.
Trabasso, T. (1991). The development of coherence in narratives by understanding intentional action. In G. Denhiere & J. P. Rossi (Eds.), Text and text processing. Amsterdam, Netherlands: North Holland Press.
Trabasso, T., & Nickels, M.(1992). The development of goal plans of action in the narration of a picture story. Discourse Processes, 15, 249-275.
Trabasso, T., & Sperry, L. (1985). Causal relatedness and importance of story events. Journal of Memory and Language, 24, 612-630.
Trabasso, T., & van den Broek, P. (1985). Causal thinking and story comprehension. Memory and Language, 24, 612-630.
Trabasso, T., Stein, N. L., Rodkin, P. C., Munger, M. P., & Baughn, C. R. (1992). Knowledge of goals and plans in the on-line narration of events. Cognitive Development, 7, 133-170.
Trabasso, T., van den Broek, P., & Suh, S. Y. (1989). Logical necessity and transitivity of causal relations in stories. Discourse Processes, 12, 1-25.
Warren, W. H., Nicholas, D.W., & Trabasso, T. (1979). Event chain and inferences in understanding narratives. In R. O. Freedle (Ed.), New directions in discourse processing. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Wimmer, H. (1980). Children’s understanding of stories: Assimilation by a general schema for actions or coordination of temporal relations? In F. Wilkening, J. Becker, & T. Trabasso (Eds.), Information integration by children. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

指導教授

柯華葳

審核日期

2018-7-27

推文