摘要
此硏究是以台灣學習英語為外國語(English-as-a-foreign-language, EFL)的三人對話中，外國人的情感反應及聲調語音的訊號對於對話中所產生的影響，以英語為母語的對話者因其韻律和聲調的不同，進而影響非英語母語者在對話中的表現情形尚未在文獻中有詳細的探討過，並且包含這些韻律和聲調的差異以及其它ㄧ些特徵統稱為所謂的外國人引導下的發言(foreigner-directed speech, FDS)尚很少與其他有關形式的引導講話(像是嬰兒、寵物、成人的引導講話)統整比較，此對於三人為主的FDS的硏究提供ㄧ些獨特的见解，有別於文獻中曾經報導的兩人為主的FDS的硏究，並且可能提供以任務為基礎及談話為基礎的研究的另種詮釋。
本硏究使用健談的學習者，即可以習慣性的進行口頭英語交談的學生，並且定義一個高功能溝通(treatment)組和低功能溝通控制組，以找出其在FDS的特徵上的變化。本硏究也有興趣描述三人對話內容如何因考官的坦率看法而有所不同。語言樣本引用跨兩個三向的會話內容（a two-way, task-based context and a three-way, conversation-based context），編碼系統是引用文獻上已有的編碼系統，此外，第一和第二共振峰的元音 / a /，/i/，和 / u / 被用來分析考官的音頻樣本。此研究的具體目標是要回答：以英語為母語的發言者的坦言看法對於EFL的學生在三邊談話中的情感上的表現是否扮演重要的角色，並且在談EFL的三邊談話中，是什麼因素及互動關係對於以英語為母語的談話者在元音的 hyperarticulation的影響。
本硏究結果顯示，3位參與的以英語為母語的發言者在每ㄧ組的三邊談話中，其對於EFL的學生的情感反應，在高溝通組和低功能溝通組都有差異，以英語為母語的考官與EFL的學生在談話中的互動意味著，考官願意給高功能溝通組的學生在談話中較多的主控權，而給低功能溝通組的學生在談話中較少的主控權。此外，元音hyperarticulation來源的重大變化，高功能溝通組與低功能溝通組的差異在主考人員的積極編碼的言論，而在考官是否引進新的問題並沒有什麼區別。這些硏究結果建議，無論談話的成員如何，考官在引進一個新的問題時，必須明確讓學生引起注意，因為不管組的成員如何，在這段時間，在低功能溝通組的hyperarticulation減少，在高功能溝通組的hyperarticulation增加。這項研究對於分類為L2級能力的學生有一些爭論性的看法。

The purpose of this observational study was to examine changes in the affective behaviors and acoustic speech signals of 3 native English speaking adults occurring naturally when addressing English-as-a-foreign-language (EFL), university students under triadic circumstances. Adult native speakers of English show prosodic and acoustic differences in speech to non-native English speakers for reasons that are unclear in the literature. Moreover, these measurable differences comprise sets of distinguishing features, collectively known as foreigner-directed speech (FDS), that poorly generalize between studies and with other related forms of directed speech, notably infant-, pet-, and adult-directed speeches. An investigation of triadic FDS provides a distinct perspective that differs from the dyadic-centered FDS found in the literature and may offer alternate explanations for its appearance in task-based studies, absence in conversation-based studies, and ambiguous status in laboratory studies. The thesis used outspoken learners, i.e. students who demonstrate a propensity or natural tendency to engage people verbally in English, to define a high-communicative treatment group and a low-communicative control group to identify variations in FDS features. Of equal interest to the purposes of this study was describing the triadic coalitions that formed, in part, along examiners’ perceptions of outspokenness. Language samples were elicited across two triadic, conversational contexts (a two-way, task-based context and a three-way, conversation-based context). A compiled coding system based on coding systems in the existing literature and those that emerged from the data was used to analyze the language samples. In addition, the first and second formants for the vowels /a/, /i/, and /u/ were used to analyze the examiners’ audio samples. The specific aims of this were to answer: do native English speakers’ perception of outspokenness among EFL students play a significant role in affective behavior displayed within triads; what factors and their interactions in conversation contribute to hyperarticulation of native English speakers’ vowels in EFL triads.
Results showed that all 3 participants exhibited significant, locally contingent differences in affective behavior between their respective high-communicative and low-communicative groups. These interactions imply examiners were willing to give the high-communicative group more control over the conversation than in the low-communicative group. Furthermore, the source of significant variation for vowel hyperarticulation in the treated group differed from the control group at examiners’ positive-coded utterances while at examiners’ introduction of new questions there was no difference. These data suggest that there was a need for examiners to be clear and for the students to be attentive at the introduction of a new question regardless of group membership since during these times hyperarticulation decreased in the low-communicative group and increased in the high-communicative group.

Biersack, S., Kempe, V., & Knapton, L. (2005). Fine-Tuning Speech Registers: A Comparison of the Prosodic Features of Child-Directed and Foreigner-Directed Speech, Interspeech-2005 (pp. 2401-2404).
Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2005). Praat: Doing Phonetics by Computer (Version Version 4.3.04): [Online]
Burnham, D., Kitamura, C., & Vollmer-Conna, U. (2002). What's New, Pussycat? On Talking to Babies and Animals. Science, 296(5572), 1435-.
Caplow, T. (1959). Two Against One: Coalitions in Triads. Engelwood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Coe, R. M., & Prendergast, C. G. (1985). The formation of coalitions: interaction strategies in triads. Sociology of Health & Illness, 7(2), 236-247.
Cooren, F., Taylor, J. R., & Van Every, E. J. (Eds.). (2006). Communication as organization: Empirical and theoretical explorations in the dynamic of text and conversation. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Dewaele, J.-M., & Furnham, A. (2000). Personality and Speech Production: A pilot study of second language learners. Personality and Individual Differences, 28(355-365).
Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in Applied Linguistics: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods. New York: Oxford.
Ferguson, C. (1975). Towards a characterization of English foreigner talk. Anthropological Linguistics, 17, 1-17.
Fletcher, K. E., Mariellen, F., Barkley, R. A., & Smallish, L. (1996). A sequential analysis of the mother-adolelescent interactions of ADHD, ADHD/ODD, and normal teenagers during neutral and conflict discussions. Journal of Abnormal Child Development, 24(3), 26.
Gafter, R., Jurafsky, D., & Sumner, M. (2009, 22-25 October). Where accommodation to non-native speakers doesn’t happen. Paper presented at the NWAV 38, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.
Gan, Z. (2008). Extroversion and group oral performance: A mixed quantitative and discourse analysis approach. Prospect, 23(3), 24-42.
Gendrot, C., & Adda-Decker, M. (2005). Impact of duration on F1/F2 formant values of oral vowels: an automatic analysis of large broadcast news corpora in French and German, INTERSPEECH 2005 (pp. 2453-2455).
Goffman, E. (1961). Encounters; two studies in the sociology of interaction. Indianapolis,: Bobbs-Merrill.
Gottman, J. M., & Roy, A. K. (1990). Sequential analysis: A Guide for behavioral researchers. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Hakuta, K. (2000). How Long Does It Take English Learners to Attain Proficiency. UC Berkeley: University of California Linguistic Minority Research Institute.
Hallihan, M. T. (2003). Ability Grouping and Student Learning. Brookings Papers on Education Policy, 95-124.
Harklau, L. (2000). From the "Good Kids" to the "Worst": Representations of English Language Learners across Educational Settings. TESOL Quarterly, 34(1), 35-67.
Kent, R. D., & Read, C. (1992). The acoustic analysis of speech. San Diego: Singular Publishing Company.
Kim, H., Diehl, M. M., Panneton, R., & Moon, C. (2006). Hyperarticulation in Mothers' Speech to Babies and Puppies. Paper presented at the XVth Biennial International Conference on Infant Studies, Kyoto, Japan.
Knoll, M. A., & Scharrer, L. (2008). How similar are pitch contours derived from ‘imaginary’ student interactions to those derived from real interactions?, SP-2008 (pp. 481-484). Campinas, Brazil.
Knoll, M. A., Scharrer, L., & Costall, A. (2009a). Are actresses better simulators than female students? The effects of simulation on prosodic modifications of infant- and foreigner-directed speech. Speech Communication, 51(3), 296 - 306.
Knoll, M. A., Uther, M., & Costall, A. (2009b). Effects of low-pass filtering on the judgment of vocal affect in speech directed to infants, adults and foreigners. Speech Communication, 51(3), 210-216.
Krashen, S. D. (1982). Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning (First Internet ed.). Los Angeles: Pergamon Press.
Kuhl, P. K., Andruski, J. E., Chistovich, I. A., Chistovich, L. A., Kozhevnikova, E. V., Ryskina, V. L., et al. (1997). Cross-language analysis of phonetic units in language addressed to infants. Science, 277(536), 684–686.
Lindblom, B. (1990). Explaining phonetic variation: a sketch of the H&H theory. In W. Hardcastle & A. Marchal (Eds.), Speech Production and Speech Modelling (pp. 403-439). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Liu, C. (2009). Auditory Model of Intensity Discrimination and Vowel Formant Discrimination: Effect of Signal Frequency, Bioinfomatics and Biomedical Engineering ICBBE 2009 (pp. 1-4). Beijing.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Pardo, J. S. (2006). On phonetic convergence during conversational interaction. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 119(4), 12.
Picard, R. (1997). Affective Computing. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Rao, Z. (2002). Chinese students' perceptions of communicative and non-communicative activities in EFL classroom. System, 30(1), 85-105.
Rasinger, S. M. (2008). Quantitative Research in Linguistics. London: Continuum International Publishing Group.
Ross, S. (1988). Accomodation in interlanguage discourse from an EFL perspective. System, 16(3), 347-354.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking in conversation. Language, 50, 696-735.
Scarborough, R., Brenier, J., Zhao, Y., Hall-Lew, L., & Dmitrieva, O. (2007, 6-10 August). An acoustic study of real and imaginary foreigner-directed speech. Paper presented at the poster session of the16th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, Saarbrücken, Germany.
Schmitz, B. (2006). Advantages of studying processes in educational research. Learning and Instruction, 16(5), 433-449.
Sharp, A. (2004). Language learning and awarness of personality type in Chinese settings. Asian EFL Journal, 6(2), 1-13.
SigmaPlot for Windows (Version 11.2.0.5). (2008). Systat Software, Inc.
Smith, C. (2007, 6 -10 August). Prosodic accommodation by French speakers to a non-native interlocutor. Paper presented at the 16th International Conference of the Phonetic Sciences, Saarbrücken, Germany.
SPSS 15.0 for Windows (Version Rel. 15.0.1). (2006). Chicago: SPSS Inc.
Trainor, L. J., Austin, C. M., & Desjardins, R. N. (2000). Is Infant-Directed Speech Prosody a Result of the Vocal Expression of Emotion? Psychological Science, 11(3), 188-195.
Uther, M., Knoll, M., & Burnham, D. (2007). Do you speak E-NG-L-I-SH? A comparison of foreigner- and infant- directed speech. Speech Communication, 49(1), 2–7.
Valdés, G. (1998). The World outside and inside Schools: Language and Immigrant Children. Educational Researcher, 27(6), 4-18.
Warren-Leubecker, A., & Bohannon, J. N. (1982). The effects of expectation and feedback on speech to foreigners. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 11(3), 207-215.
Wolfson, N. (1986). Research methodology and the question of validity. TESOL Quarterly, 20(4), 82-92.
Zuengler, J. (1992). Accommodation in Native-Nonnative Interactions: Going Beyond the 'What' to the 'Why' in Second Language Research. In H. Giles, N. Coupland & J. Coupland (Eds.), The Context of Accommodation: Development in Applied Sociolinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.