本文主要在探討以英語為外語的進階學習者在書面敘述文中，對於指涉詞（referential form）的使用與分布情形，並且討論其篇章功能（discourse function）。本研究將學習者的指涉詞分為：零指稱詞（Zero），代名詞 （Pronoun），限定名詞組（Definite NP），專有名詞（Name），專有名詞加修飾語（Name + modifier）等五大類。研究發現學習者最常使用專有名詞與代名詞來指涉敘述文中的角色；而鮮少使用限定名詞組與專有名詞加修飾語。相較於其他指涉詞，代名詞最容易引起讀者混淆。專有名詞常被用來標示敘述文中個別事件的界線（episode boundary）。就指涉詞的篇章功能而言，學習者最常使用零指稱詞與代名詞來延續指涉（maintain）已被提及的對象；用專有名詞來重新提及（reintroduce）已被指涉的角色；用專有名詞、專有名詞加修飾語、非限定名詞組來介紹（introduce）敘述文中的人物。本研究也發現，指涉詞所表現的指涉距離長度值（referential distance value）符合讀者認知理解的需求：高訊息量的指涉詞（如專有名詞加修飾語），回指其先行詞的距離較長；低訊息量的指涉詞（如零指稱詞），回指其先行詞的距離較短。不過從讀者較度看來，進階學習者在指涉詞使用仍有未臻完美之處。學習者之所以未能完全掌握某些指涉詞的章法功能的原因，可能是受到母語影響，或忽略了某些指涉詞的規則。根據研究結果，本文亦提出指涉詞習得的建議：學習者應該進一步了解指涉詞在使用上篇章的考量。 / The present study investigates advanced EFL learners’ referential forms in their written narratives. The purpose is to specify the distributional patterns of referential forms and their discourse function in learners’ narrative production. EFL learners’ referential forms are divided into five categories: Zero anaphora, Pronoun, Definite NP, Name, and Name + modifier. It is found that all learners unanimously use abundant Names and Pronouns in their written narratives, whereas the least frequent types are Definite NP and Name + modifier. With respect to the discourse function, advanced learners tend to perform the function of Introduction by Name, Name + modifier, and Indefinite NP. When maintaining same subject topics, advanced learners tend to use Zero and Pronoun. And the Reintroduction functions are often fulfilled by Name. Overall, Pronoun is more likely to cause ambiguity than any other forms. And the abundant use of Names may have something to do with the marking of episode boundaries. The referential distance values of the referential forms comply with the cognitive need of readers’ discourse processing. The more informative forms such as Name + modifier can refer back to their antecedents at a distance, while the semantically empty forms such as Pronoun can only refer back to their antecedents within few clauses. From readers’ perspective, there remain a few inappropriate referential forms in learners’ narratives, which may arise from L 1 interference or ignorance of rule restriction. The problematic use of referential forms suggests that although advanced learners can produce grammatically correct referential forms, they have not fully acquired the discourse function of these forms. It is recommended that the discourse aspects such as distance and episodic unit be considered when EFL learners use referential forms.

剛出生前幾年，幼兒已逐漸能理解並談論自己和別人的不同。然而，真正習得用來指涉自己和別人的指涉詞不是那麼容易，因為至少得先理解角色轉換概念和說話者當時的說話目的為何。因此，在幼兒學會用大人模式指涉自己和別人前，他們會先有自己一套獨特的語言使用模式。本研究的目的在於探討一位以中文為母語的小孩如何用指涉詞表達自己的語用動機。研究對象是一對中階家庭的母女。語料來自於受試親子在家互動的語言。研究結果顯示幼兒特別容易會用指涉詞表達的語用功能種類不多。在語段層次，幼兒初期較會在和母親協調當下要做的事時，以及在和母親討論故事中虛幻世界時指涉自己；後期則除了在和母親協調當下要做的事時較會指涉自己外，在和母親協調未來要做的事、討論和現在或非現在相關的事時也較會指涉自己。另外，幼兒比較會指涉別人時，則是當她想要轉移母親焦點，或是在和母親討論兩人當下共同注視的目標、故事中虛幻世界、和現在相關的事、或是非現在發生的事時。在語句層次，幼兒則是當她在表達願望、要求母親為她做事、陳述個人想法、陳述她想要執行某動作的目的時較會指涉自己。較會指涉別人時則是當她在吸引母親注意、要求母親為她做事、陳述個人想法、和回答Wh-問句時。整體比較來看，母親特別會用指涉詞表達的語用功能種類比幼兒來得多元化。 / During the first years of life, children come to realize and talk about themselves distinct from others. However, acquisition of self- and other-reference forms is not always so easy because it presupposes at least a grasp of shifting roles, together with concept of the speaker’s communicative intents. Before children match adult-like usages of reference, they temporarily formulate their own linkages between language forms and functions. This paper examined how a Chinese young child formulated her pragmatic moves through self- and other-reference forms. One mother-child dyad from middle socioeconomic class were asked to do what they normally did at home. Results show that only a small set of communicative intents provided the particularly fertile contexts for the child’s self- and other-reference. In the speech interchange tier, the child earlier tended to refer to self in Negotiating the immediate activity(NIA) and Discussing the fantasy world(DFW), but later in Negotiating both the immediate and future activity(NIA, NFA),and Discussing the related-to-present(DRP) and the non-present(DNP). She tended to refer to other in Directing hearer’s attention(DHA), Discussing the joint focus of attention(DJF), the fantasy world(DFW), the related-to-present(DRP), and the non-present(DNP). In the speech act tier, the child tended to refer to self to Express a wish (WS), Request / Propose action for hearer(RS), State a proposition(ST), and State intent to carry out act by speaker(SI). She tended to refer to other to Call the hearer’s attention(CL), Request / Propose action for hearer(RS), State a proposition(ST) and Answer a wh-question by a statement(SA). In contrast, the contexts where the mother referred to self and other were more diversified than those where the child referred to self and other.

本文主要探討台灣電視新聞的言談結構(discourse structure)，以及標示各單位的言談標記(discourse marker)。本研究分析25則電視新聞，文類限定於社會新聞。首先，在結構上，每一則新聞包含兩大結構︰導語(news kernel)以及旁白與影片(news body)。兩大結構又可細分為七個較小的單位，分別為︰開場白 (opening)、摘要 (abstract of the news)、事件現場畫面 (event scene presentation)、主要新聞事件 (main news events)、後續發展 (follow-up)、評語 (evaluation)、結尾 (routine ending)。而這七個單位還可再細分為更小的單位。此外，本文所探討的言談標記可分為五類︰1. 指涉詞 (referential forms) 2. 連詞 (connectives) 3. 地方副詞 (locative phrase) 4. 話題轉換填充詞 (topic shift fillers) 5. 畫面轉換 (shot shift)。是故，本文研究重點有二︰1.將新聞結構分為三個階層—Level 1、Level 2、Level 3，並探討出現於不同階層的言談標記在類型與數量上是否反映出階層 (hierarchy)？ 2. 標示各個結構的言談標記為何？ 研究結果指出︰1. 三個階層的言談標記在類型上除了Level 1固定有畫面轉換之外，其餘兩個階層皆無固定的言談標記。另外，在數量上僅Level 1可同時出現多個言談標記，Level 2與Level 3在數量上並無差異，顯示出電視新聞為口說語(spoken language)的一種，訊息與訊息之間的連結性比表現出文體結構階層性更為重要 2. 標示各單位的言談標記並無一致性。受到各單位特性影響，言談標記呈現不同的分佈。 / The present study examines twenty five pieces of broadcast news about crimes and damages in Taiwan. The purpose is to examine the relationship between the discourse structures and their corresponding markers. The discourse structure of a piece of broadcast news is divided into seven components and they are categorized into three levels. Level 1 includes news kernel and news body. Level 2 includes abstract in news kernel, main news events, follow-ups, evaluation, and routine ending in news body. Level 3 contains the smaller units in the Level 2 units. The boundary markers to be examined are divided into four categories: topic shift filler, referential forms, connectives, and shot shift. The present study has two major findings. First, the amounts of markers only show significant difference in Level 1. Down to Level 2 and Level 3, linearity overrides hierarchy. Second, the types of markers are decided by the nature of each unit. The opening is always marked by shot shift and speaker shift plus topic shift fillers/temporals/additives. The abstract section is marked by locative phrase plus referential forms. The event scene presentation section is marked by shot shift and speaker shift plus referential forms. The main news events section is marked by shot shift plus temporals which signal the exact time. Then, the follow-up section is marked by shot shift plus referential forms/connectives. The evaluation section is marked by shot shift plus referential forms. The routine ending section is marked by a relatively longer pause.