跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(18.204.56.185) 您好!臺灣時間:2022/08/14 02:29
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果 :::

詳目顯示

我願授權國圖
: 
twitterline
研究生:蔡柏珍
研究生(外文):Po-chen Tsai
論文名稱:漢語道歉語行之研究
論文名稱(外文):A Study of the Speech Act of Apology in Chinese
指導教授:曹逢甫曹逢甫引用關係
指導教授(外文):Feng-fu Tsao
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立清華大學
系所名稱:語言學研究所
學門:人文學門
學類:語言學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2002
畢業學年度:90
語文別:英文
論文頁數:101
中文關鍵詞:道歉語行道歉
外文關鍵詞:apologyapologies
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:2
  • 點閱點閱:673
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:0
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:2
摘要
道歉語行(the speech act of apology)是日常生活中常被使用的語言行為,因此,本文擬就漢語中道歉語行之運用情形,進行探討與分析。
Austin (1962)和Searle (1969)都曾在其對語言行為(speech act)的研究當中,提到道歉的語行,但卻都沒有對它進行詳細地分析。而後,Jenny Thomas (1995)曾參照 Searle (1969)對『應允語行』(the speech act of promise)的分析模式,對道歉語行的適切條件(felicity conditions),提出如下的分析(1995: 99):
命題條件 說者為其過去的某一行為A表示遺憾
先備條件 說者相信行為A不符合聽者之最大利益
誠信條件 說者對行為A表示遺憾
緊要條件 被認定為對行為A的道歉
緊接著,Thomas舉出實例來指出這些適切條件有必要做調整與修正。但Thomas的論證在我們的重新檢視與檢討之後,發現其中仍有一些可議之處,因此在本文中,乃對其所做的修正提出再修正。
此外,本文藉由觀察日常生活上的多方面語料,對漢語中道歉之策略進行分類,並檢視不同道歉策略的結合情形,結果我們發現,漢語使用者對道歉所使用的策略非常多樣化,而且道歉策略的組合也十分自由。
另一方面,Brown and Levinson (1978, 1987)認為語言行為的表現,會受到社會因素(social factors)的影響,這些因素包含了行為本身的冒犯程度(ranks of imposition)、談話者間的地位高低(relative power)以及親疏遠近(social distance),因此本文欲參照Brown and Levinson所提出的社會因素,來探討其對道歉者策略之選擇以及策略分佈情形之影響,結果我們發現,行為本身的冒犯程度愈高,或是聽者的地位愈高,說者就愈會選擇形式化(formal)且精緻(elaborate)的道歉策略組合,反之,則傾向選擇非形式化(informal)且簡單(simple)的方式;至於談話者的親密度(intimacy)方面,結果顯現對陌生人(strangers)比較會使用單一的道歉形式語(a single apologetic formula),對親密的人(intimates)則常會使用非形式化(informal)之道歉策略,而對朋友(friends),則偏向選擇形式化(formal)且精緻(elaborate)的道歉策略組合。最後,本文對漢語中最常見的三個道歉語:『對不起』、『抱歉』、『不好意思』進行觀察與分析,我們發現它們在用法及分佈上有很大的重疊,但其中仍有些微妙的差異。
本文最後做一總結,並對未來可能的研究發展提出進一步的說明與討論。
Abstract
In daily life, apology is a speech act we often use. For this, I attempt to explore and analyze the uses of apology in Mandarin Chinese in this study.
Austin (1962) and Searle (1969) once mentioned the speech act of apology in their researches into speech acts. However, they didn’t offer any further analysis. Later, Jenny Thomas (1995) followed Searle’s model of the speech act of promise, and proposed the felicity conditions of apology. The analysis is shown as follows (1995: 99):
Propositional act The speaker (S) expresses regret for a past act (A) of S.
Preparatory condition S believes that A was not in the hearer’s (H) best interest.
Sincerity condition S regrets A.
Essential condition Counts as an apology for A.
Then, Thomas took some examples to point out that these felicity conditions must be revised. However, after re-examining Thomas’ claim, we find that her revision may still be modified further.
Besides, by observing the data collected from various origins, I intend to categorize the strategies of apology, and examine the combinations of apology strategies. Then, we find that the strategies of apology used by the speakers in Mandarin Chinese are quite various, and the combinations of apology strategies are also in very free order.
On the other hand, Brown and Levinson (1978, 1987) claimed that the performance of the speech act would be influenced by social factors. These social factors include ranks of imposition, relative power and social distance between participants. Therefore, in this thesis, I attempt to make use of Brown and Levinson’s social factors to explore the influence of the apologizer’s choice of strategies and the distribution of apology strategies. Then, we find that if the seriousness of offence is heavier or the power of the addressee is higher, the apologizer tends to use more formal and more elaborate combinations of strategies. On the contrary, the apologizer would be inclined to using more informal and simpler combinations if the severity of offence is lighter or the power of the addressee is lower. As for the intimacy between interlocutors, the result is shown that the speakers in Mandarin Chinese tend to use a single apologetic formula to the strangers, the more informal strategies to the intimates, and the more formal and more elaborate combinations to the friends. Finally, in this study, I intend to observe and analyze the three apologetic formulae most often used in Mandarin Chinese: duibuqi 對不起 “sorry”, baoqian 抱歉 “sorry” and buhaoyisi 不好意思 “excuse me”. Then, we find that their usages and distributions are overlapped very much, but there are still some differences among them.
At the end of this thesis, I give a conclusion and offer some suggestions of the further studies.
Table of Contents
Chinese Abstract……………………………………………………..………Ⅰ
English Abstract……………………………………………………………..Ⅱ
Acknowledgement……………………………………………………………Ⅳ
Table of Contents…………………………………………………………….Ⅴ
List of Figures………………………………………………………………..Ⅶ
List of Tables…………………………………………………………………Ⅷ
1. Introduction…………………………………………………………………1
1.1 Background……………………………………………………………………..1
1.2 Motivation………………………………………………………………………2
1.3 Objective………………………………………………………………………..2
1.4 The Method and Origin of the Data in this Thesis………………………...……2
1.5 Outline of this Thesis…………………………………………………………...3
2. Literature Review…………………………………………………………..4
2.1 Speech Act Theory……………………………………………………………...4
2.1.1 J. L. Austin…………………………………………………………………4
2.1.2 J. R. Searle………………………………………………………………….6
2.2 Politeness Theory……………………………………………………………….7
2.2.1 The Face-Saving View……………………………………………………..8
2.2.2 The Conversational-Maxim View………………………………………...12
2.2.3 Politeness in Chinese……………………………………………………...15
2.3 Related Works…………………………………………………………………16
2.4 Discussion……………………………………………………………………..22
3. Apology Defined…………………………………………………………...23
3.1 The Definition of Apology…………………………………………………….23
3.2 The Factors of Apology……………………………………………………….37
4. Strategies of Apology……………………………………………………...41
4.1 Strategies of Apology………………………………………………………….41
4.1.1 Categorization of Apology Strategies………………………………….42
4.1.1.1 Direct Apologies ( = Apologetic Formulae (IFID) )……………45
4.1.1.1.1 Sub-strategies of Apologetic Formulae………………….46
4.1.1.2 Indirect Apologies………………………………………………47
4.1.2 Modifications…………………………………………………………..53
4.1.3 Discussion……………………………………………………………...54
4.2 Responses to Apologies in Mandarin Chinese………………………………...59
4.3 Distribution of Apology Strategies……………………………………………64
4.3.1 Seriousness of Offence…………………………………………………68
4.3.2 Power…………………………………………………………………...70
4.3.3 Social Distance…………………………………………………………72
5. The Comparison between duibuqi對不起 “sorry”, baoqian抱歉 “sorry”, and buhaoyisi不好意思 “excuse me”………………………….76
5.1 Similarities…………………………………………………………………….76
5.2 Differences…………………………………………………………………….77
5.2.1 Functions of duibuqi對不起 “sorry”, baoqian抱歉 “sorry”, and buhaoyisi不好意思 “excuse me”………………………………………81
5.3 The comparison of duibuqi對不起, baoqian抱歉, buhaoyisi不好意思 in Mandarin Chinese and ‘I’m sorry’, ‘excuse me’ in English…………………..88
5.4 Summary………………………………………………………………………90
6. Conclusion…………………………………………………………………93
6.1 Summary of this Thesis………………………………………………………..93
6.2 Suggestions for Further Study…………………………………………………95
References…………………………………………………………………….97
References
Austin, J. L. 1962. How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Oxford UP.
Bean, J. M. and Johnstone, B. 1994. Workplace Reasons for Saying You’re Sorry: Discourse Task Management and Apology in Telephone Interviews. Discourse Processes 17: 59-81.
Blum-Kulka S. and Olshtain E. 1984. Requests and Apologies: A Cross-Cultural Study of Speech Act Realization Patterns (CCSARP). Applied Linguistics 5-3: 196-213.
Blum-Kulka S., House J. and Kasper G. 1989. Investigating Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: An Introductory Overview. In Blum-Kulka, S. and House, J. and Kasper, G. (eds.) Corss-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies: 1-34.
Blum-Kulka S., House J. and Kasper G. 1989. The CCSARP Coding Manual. In Blum-Kulka, S. and House, J. and Kasper, G. (eds.) Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies: 273-294.
Borkin N. and Reinhart S. M. 1978. “Excuse me” and “I’m sorry.” TESOL Quarterly 12-1: 57-70.
Brown P. and Levinson S. C. 1978, 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
Chung S. and Timberlake A. 1985. Tense, aspect, and mood. In Shopen T. (eds.) Language Typology and Syntactic Description iii: Grammatical Categories and the Lexicon: 202-58. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
Clyne M., Ball M. and Neil D. 1991. Intercultural Communication at Work in Australia: Complaints and Apologies in Turns. Multilingua 10-3: 251-273. New York: Berlin.
Cohen A. and Olshtain E. 1981. Developing a Measure of Sociocultural Competence: The Case of Apology. Language Learning 31-1: 113-34.
Comrie, Bernard. 1976. Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
Coulmas, Florian. 1981. Poison to Your Soul. Thanks and Apologies Contrastively Viewed. In Coulmas, Florian (eds.) Conversational Routine: Explorations in Standardized Communication Situations and Prepatterned Speech: 69-91. The Netherlands: Mouton.
Comrie, Bernard. 1985. Tense. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
Edmondson, W. 1981. On Saying You’re Sorry. In Coulmas, Florian (eds.) Conversational Routine: Explorations in Standardized Communication Situations and Prepatterned Speech: 273-288. The Netherlands: Mouton.
Edmondson W. and House J. 1981. Let’s Talk and Talk about it. Munchen: Urban and Schwarzenberg.
Fraser, Bruce. 1981. On Apologizing. In Coulmas, Florian (eds.) Conversational Routine: Explorations in Standardized Communication Situations and Prepatterned Speech: 259-271. The Netherlands: Mouton.
Fraser, Bruce. 1990. Perspectives on Politeness. Journal of Pragmatics 14-2: 219-236.
Goffman, E. 1967. Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior. Garden City, New York.
Goffman, E. 1971. Relations in Public: Microstudies of the Public Order. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Grice, H. P. 1975. Logic and Conversation. In Cole P., Morgan J. L. (eds.) Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech acts: 41-58. Academic, New York.
Gu, Yueguo. 1990. Politeness Phenomena in Modern Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics 14: 237-257. North-Holland.
Holmes, Janet. 1989. Sex Differences and Apologies: One Aspect of Communicative Competence. Applied Linguistics 10-2: 194-213. Oxford: Oxford UP.
Holmes, Janet. 1990. Apologies in New Zealand English. In Hymes, Dell (eds.) Language in Society 19: 155-199. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
Keenan, Susan K. 1993. Investigating Deaf Students’ Apologies: An Exploratory Study. Applied Linguistics 14-4: 364-384. Oxford: Oxford UP.
Leech, Geoffrey N. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. New York: Longman.
Levinson, Stephen C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
Lipson, Maxine. 1999. Apologizing: In Italian and English. Journal of Pragmatics:19-39. North-Holland.
Mao, LuMing Robert. 1994. Beyond Politeness Theory: ‘Face’ Revisited and Renewed. Journal of Pragmatics 21: 451-486. North-Holland.
Olshtain E. and Cohen A. D. 1983. Apology: A Speech Act Set. In Wolfson N. and Judd E. (eds.) Sociolinguistics and Language Acquisition: 18-35. Rowley, MA: Newbury.
Olshtain E. and Weinbach L. 1987. Complaints: A Study of Speech Act Behavior Among Native and Non-native Speakers of Hebrew. In M. B. Papi and Jef Verschueren (eds.) The Pragmatic Perspective: Selected Papers from the 1985 International Pragmatics Conference. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Benjamins.
Olshtain, Elite. 1989. Apologies Across Languages. In Blum-Kulka S., House J. and Kasper G. (eds.) Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies: 155-173.
Owen, Marion. 1983. Apologies and Remedial Interchanges: A Study of Language Use in Social Interaction. New York: Mouton.
Reiter, Rosina Marquez. 2000. Linguistic Politeness in Britain and Uruguay: A Contrastive Study of Requests and Apologies. John Benjamins B.V.
Rintell E. M. and Mitchell C. J. 1989. Studying Requests and Apologies: An Inquiry into Method. In Blum-Kulka S., House J. and Kasper G. (eds.) Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies: 248-272.
Sacks H., Schegloff E. A. and Jefferson G. 1974, 1978. A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking in Conversation. Language.
Scher S. J. and Darley J. M. 1997. How Effective Are the Things People Say to Apologize? Effects of the Realization of the Apology Speech Act. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 26-1: 127-140. Plenum Publishing Corporation.
Searle, John R. 1969. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
Searle, John R. 1975a. Indirect Speech Acts. In Cole P., Morgan J (eds.) Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts: 59-82. Academic, New York.
Searle, John R. 1975b. A Classification of Illocutionary Acts. Language in Society 5: 1-23.
Searle, John R. 1979. Expression and Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
Searle, John R., Ferenc Kiefer and Manfred Bierwisch. 1980. Speech Act Theory and Pragmatics. D. Reidel Publishing Company.
Spears, A. K. 1990. Tense, Mood, and Aspect in the Haitian Creole Preverbal Marker System. In J. V. Singler (eds.) Pidgin and Creole Tense-Mood-Aspect System: 119-142. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Suszczynska, M. 1999. Apologizing in English, Polish and Hungarian: Different Languages, Different Strategies. Journal of Pragmatics 31: 1053-1065.
Thomas, Jenny. 1995. Meaning in Interaction: an Introduction to Pragmatics. New York: Longman.
Trosborg, Anna. 1987. Apology Strategies in Natives / Non-Natives. Journal of Pragmatics 11: 147-167.
Trosborg, Anna. 1995. Interlanguage Pragmatics: Requests, Complaints and Apologies. New York: Berlin.
Vollmer H. J. and Olshtain E. 1989. The Language of Apologies in German. In Blum-Kulka S., House J. and Kasper G. (eds.) Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies: 197-218.
Wolfson, N. 1988. The Bulge: A Theory of Speech Behavior and Social Distance. In Fine, J. (eds.) Second Language Discourse: A Textbook of Current Research: 21-38. Norwood: Ablex.
Wolfson N., Marmor T. and Jones S. 1989. Problems in the Comparison of Speech Acts Across Cultures. In Blum-Kulka S., House J. and Kasper G. (eds.) Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies: 174-195.
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top