(3.215.183.251) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/04/22 22:25
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:張家銘
研究生(外文):Chia-ming Chang
論文名稱:代理道歉:台灣及北美文化語言行為之跨文化研究
論文名稱(外文):Proxy Apology: A Cross-cultural Comparison between Taiwan and Northern America
指導教授:忻愛莉忻愛莉引用關係林玉惠林玉惠引用關係
指導教授(外文):Ai-li Cindy HsinYuh-Huey Grace Lin
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立高雄師範大學
系所名稱:英語學系
學門:人文學門
學類:外國語文學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2006
畢業學年度:94
語文別:英文
論文頁數:114
中文關鍵詞:代理道歉北美台灣社會語言學集體主義個人主義
外文關鍵詞:proxy apologysociolinguisticcollectivismindividualism
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:2
  • 點閱點閱:723
  • 評分評分:系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔系統版面圖檔
  • 下載下載:239
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:9
相較於社會行為「道歉」,社會語言學家比較少研究「代理道歉」,也就是代替別人執行道歉的社會行為。這篇論文目的是要觀察兩組不同文化背景的人,28個台灣人及28個北美地區的外國人,他們「代理道歉」行為的差異。我們小心的設計需要「代理道歉」的情境,要求受試者對每個情境作反應,說出他們可能做「代理道歉」的機率,並對該情境做出反應。在反應之後,在訪談受試者為什麼會做出那些行為。在收集並分析所有的語料之後,我們有五個主要發現:
1.對於所有情境,台灣人做「代理道歉」的機率比北美人士高。
2.社會距離還有犯錯者的性別這兩個因素明顯的影響台灣人的道歉機率:和犯錯者越親近越容易幫他道歉,也比較容易幫女性的犯錯者道歉。
3.台灣受試者使用的道歉策略大多以分擔責任,減低冒犯程度為主,而北美受試者的道歉策略則是表示對被冒犯者的關心。
4.北美受試者對情境的嚴重性判斷與他們的道歉程度是成正比,而台灣受試者的嚴重性判斷及道歉程度之間並無類似的關聯;換句話說,北美受試者的嚴重性判斷會影響他們道歉的機率,而台灣人則無此關聯。
5.兩組受試者都有較高的意願幫女性冒犯者,及對女性被冒犯者做出「代理道歉」。
藉著「集體主義」及「個人主義」的理論,我們可以解釋前四個發現。台灣人是「集體主義」份子,強調社會和協,關心其他社會成員。因此,當他們的同伴犯了錯,他們將很有可能去做「代理道歉」,幫助他們的同伴解決問題。也因為「集體主義」份子重視和社會成員之間的關係,所以他們對於不同社會距離的同伴,會有不同的道歉機率。再者,因為北美人士的「個人主義」特質,他們會根據自己的想法和感覺去做出行為,所以他們對於事件嚴重性的判斷,會決定他們道歉程度。反之,台灣人比較重視社會期望,而不是自己的感覺,所以他們的嚴重性判斷並不會影響他們的道歉程度。至於第五點,Holmes在1989發現到女性會做較多道歉,也接受較多道歉。這一點可以用來從旁佐證本篇論文中,受試者容易幫女性道歉,也易於向女性道歉的發現。
The social behavior Proxy Apology, apologizing for other people, receives less attention from sociolinguists. This thesis mainly aims to observe the difference uses of proxy apology by two groups of subjects: one contains 28 Taiwanese subjects and the others contains 28 Northern American people. By designing a list of scenarios for oral DCT and interviewing two groups of subjects after the oral DCT, this study collected the likelihood of proxy apology and strategies used by these two groups. After coding the response and analyzing the collected data, we have the five major findings:

1. The Taiwanese subjects show statistically significantly higher likelihood to make the proxy apology in all scenarios.
2. The social distance between the Taiwanese subjects and the offender does affect their likelihood of proxy apology with statistically significant difference.
3. The Taiwanese subjects mainly use the apology strategies which allow subjects to share part of offender's responsibility or reduce the severity of offense, while the Northern American subjects mainly use the strategies that express the concern for the offended interlocutor.
4. The Northern American subjects' severity of offense is consistent with their likelihood of proxy apology, while the Taiwanese subjects show difference between the severity of offense and the likelihood of proxy apology. In other words, the Northern American subjects' severity will determine their likelihood to make proxy apology, while the Taiwanese subjects' severity seems not the factor to determine their proxy apology.
5. Both groups show higher likelihood to apologize for the female offender and to the female offended interlocutor.
Through the theory of Collectivism and Individualism, we can explain first four findings. The Taiwanese subjects, as collectivists, emphasize the social harmony and care about the member in their social network. Therefore, when their companion makes the offense, they will be more likely to help deal with the event and rid the offender of the problem by apologizing for s/he. And because the collectivists care about their relationship with the social member, it is predictable that the social distance between they and the social member will make the difference in the likelihood of proxy apology. As individualists, the Northern American subjects' behavior is made according to their own thought and feeling. As a result, their severity determines their likelihood. However, the Taiwanese subjects are more concerned about the social expectation, rather than their own feeling. Therefore, their severity may not affect their social behavior. For the fifth finding, the result that both groups apologize more for the female offender and to the female offended party is consistent with Holmes (1989) finding that the female makes and receives more apology.
TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS i
CHINESE ABSTRACT ii
ENGLISH ABSTRACT…………………………………………………………….…iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS……………………………………………………......….…vi
LIST OF TABLES ix
LIST OF FIGURES xi
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background and Motivation…..……………………………………………1
1.2 Purpose of the Study 4
1.3 Research Questions and Hypotheses 5
1.4 Significance of the Study 5
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 7
2.1 Politeness 7
2.1.1 Brown and Levinson's Notion of Face and Politeness 9
2.1.2 Chinese Lian and Mianzi 12
2.1.3 Chinese Face vs. Brown and Levinson's Face 15
2.2 Collectivism and Individualism 17
2.2.1 What are Collectivism and Individualism? 17
2.2.2 Vertical and Horizontal Elements of Individualism and Collectivism 19
2.2.3 Ingroup and Outgroup 21
2.2.4 Chinese Culture vs. American Culture 22
2.3 Speech Act 24
2.3.1 Apology 26
2.3.2 Contextual Factors 29
2.3.3 Proxy Apology 30
2.4 Conclusion 31
CHAPTER 3 METHOD 32
3.1 Participants 32
3.2 Material 33
3.2.1 Scaled-response Questionnaires........................................................33
3.2.2 Oral DCT 33
3.2.3 Recall Protocols 37
3.3 Procedure 38
3.4 Data Analysis 39
3.5 The Coding of Collected Data…………………………………………….41
CHAPTER 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 46
4.1 Scaled-response Questionnaires 46
4.1.1 Severity 47
4.1.1.1 Offender's Gender…………………………………………...50
4.1.1.2 Social Distance………………………………………………50
4.1.1.3 Offendee's Gender…………………………………………..51
4.1.1.4 Drunkenness………………………………………………..52
4.1.2 Embarrassment 53
4.1.2.1 Offender's Gender………………………………………….56
4.1.2.2 Social Distance…………………………………….……... .56
4.1.2.3 Offendee's Gender……………………………………….…57
4.1.2.4 Drunkenness………………………………………………..57
4.1.3 Likelihood 59
4.1.3.1 Offender's Gender…………………………………………63
4.1.3.2 Social Distance……………………………………………..64
4.1.3.3 Offendee's Gender…………………………………………..65
4.1.3.4 Drunkenness...........................................................................66
4.2 Oral DCT 68
4.2.1 Different Strategies of Proxy Apology by Two Groups... 69
4.2.2 The Influence of Social Factors on Each Groups' Strategies 72
4.2.2.1 Offender's Gender…………………………………………..73
4.2.2.2 Social Distance………………………………………………75
4.2.2.3 Offendee's Gender…………………………………………...78
4.2.2.4 Drunkenness…………………………………………………81
4.2.3 Types of IFID.....................................................................................87
4.3 Recall Protocol 89
CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS 93
5.1 Two groups' behaviors in terms of collectivism and individualism 93
5.2 Contributions to Sociolinguistic Research 94
5.3 Limitations of the Study 94
5.4 Future Research 95
References 96
Appendix 1: The scenarios for oral DCT---English version 103
Appendix 2: The scenarios for oral DCT---Chinese version…………………….109
Appendix 3: Use of Apology Strategies (Mean) by NS of English (EN) and NS
of Chinese (CH)……………………………………………………...114
References
Austin, J. L. (1976). How to do things with words, 2nd edition. Oxford, etc.: Oxford University Press (Edited by J.O. Urmson & Marina Sbisa).
Barron, A. (2003). Acquisition in interlanguage pragmatics: learning how to do things with words in a study abroad context. Germany: University of Bonn.
Bargiela-Chiappini, F. (2003). Face and politeness' new (insights) for old (concepts). Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 1453-1469.
Bergman, M. L., & Kasper, G. (1993). Perception and performance in native and non-native apology. In G. Kasper & Blum-Kulka(Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics(pp. 82-107). New York: Oxford University Press.
Bharuthram, S. (2003). Politeness phenomena in the Hindu sector of South African Indian English speaking community. Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 1523-1544.
Blum-Kulka, S., and E. Olshtain. (1984). Requests and apologies: A cross-cultural study of speech act realization patterns(CCSARP). Applied Linguistics, 5, 196-213.
Bond, M. H. (1988). The cross-cultural challenge to social psychology. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage.
Brown, P., and Levinson, S. (1978). Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. In: E. Goody, ed., Questions and politeness, 56-289. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brown, P., and Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chan, D. K-S. (1991). Effects of concession pattern, relationship between negotiators, and culture on negotiation. Unpublished Master's Thesis, Department of Psychology, University of Illinois.
Clancy, P. M. (1986). The acquisition of communicative style in Japanese. In B. B. Shieffelin & E. Ochs, (Eds.), Language socialization across cultures (pp.199-212). Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
Cohen, A. D., & Olshtain, E. (1981). Developing a measure of sociocultural competence: the case of apology. Language Learning, 31, 113-134.
Cohen, A. D., Olshtain, E., & Rosenstein, D. (1986). Advanced EFL apologies: What remains to be learned. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 62, 51-74.
Cohen, A. D. (1996). Developing the ability to perform speech acts. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18 (2), 253-267.
Cutting, J. (2001). The speech acts of the in-group. Journal of Pragmatics, 33 (8), 1207-1233.
Fraser, B. (1980). On Apologizing. In Coulmas, F. (ed.), Conversational Routines. the Hague: Mouton.
Fraser, B. (1990). Perspectives on politeness. Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 219-236.
Grice, P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Peter Cole and Jerry L. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts, 41-58. New York/ San Francisco/ London: Academic Press.
Gu, Y. (1990). Politeness phenomena in Modern Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 237-257.
Gudykunst, W. B., Yoon, Y., and Nishida, S. (1987). The influence of individualism-collectivism on perceptions of communication in ingroup and outgroup relationships. Communication Monographs 54, 295-306.
Hill, B., Ide, S., Ikuta, S., Kawasaki, A., and Ogino, T. (1986). Universals of linguistic politeness. Quantitative evidence from Japanese and American English. Journal of Pragmatics, 10, 347-371.
Herbert, R. K. (1990). Sex-based differences in compliment behavior. Language in Society, 19, 201-224.
Ho, D. Y. F. (1975). On the concept of face. American Journal of Sociology 81(4), 867-884.
Ho, D.Y.F., and Chiu, C.Y. (1994). Component Ideas of Individualism, Collectivism, and Social Organization: An Application in the Study of Chinese Culture. In U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S-C. Choi, & G. Yoon(eds.) Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method, and applications(pp. 137-156). Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. London: McGraw-Hill.
Holmes, J. (1988). Paying compliments: a sex-preferred positive politeness strategy. Journal of Pragmatics, 12, 3, 445-465.
Holmes, J. (1989). Sex differences and apologies: One aspect of communicative competence. Applied Linguistics, 10, 194-213.
Holmes, J. (1992). An introduction to sociolinguistics. London, etc.: Longman.
Holmes, J. (1998), Complimenting - A positive politeness strategy. In: Coates, J. (ed.), Language and Gender. A Reader. Oxford/ Malden, MA: Blackwell: 100-120. (Handapparat)
Hu, H. C., (1944). The Chinese concepts of "face". American Anthropologist 46(1), 45-64
Hymes, D., (1972). On Communicative Competence. In Sociolinguistics, Pride, J. B. and Holmes. J. (eds.) 269-293. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Ide, S. (1989). Formal forms and discernment: two neglected aspects of universals of linguistic politeness. Multilingua 8(2/3), 223-238.
Iwata, O. (1992). Comparative study of person perception and friendly/altruistic behavior intentions between Canadian and Japanese undergraduates. In S. Iwawaki, Y. Kashima, & Leung, K. (eds.). Innovations in cross-cultural psychology, 173-183. Amsterdam/ Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.
Ji, S. (2000). "Face" and polite verbal behaviors in Chinese culture. Discussion note. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 1059-1062.
Johnson, D. M., & Roen, D. H. (1992). Complimenting and involvement in peer reviews: gender variation. Language in Society, 21, 1, 27-57.
Kasper, G., and Dahl, M. (1991). Research Methods in Interlanguage Pragmatics. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 13, 215-247.
Kim, U., Triandis H. C., Kagitcibasi C., Choi S-C., & Yoon G. (eds.). (1994). Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method, and applications. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage.
Lakoff, R. (1973). The logic of politeness, or minding your p's and q's. Chicago Linguistics Society 9, 292-305
Lakoff, R. (1989). The limits of politeness: Therapeutic and courtroom discourse. Multilingua 8, 101-129
Lebra, T. S. (1992). Self in Japanese culture. In N. R. Rosenberger (Eds.), Japanese sense of self (Chap. 6, pp. 105-120). Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
Leech, G. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London and New York: Longman.
Lin, Yuh-Huey & Shi, Hsiang-Yi. (2006). Interlanguage Apology Realization— Cross- cultural Variations and Effect of Exposure to the Target Language. Paper to be presented at the 5th Pacific Second Language Research Forum (PacSLRF 2006), July, 4-6, Brisbane, Australia.
Linnel, J., Porter, F., Stone, H., & Chen, W-L. (1992). Can you apologize me? An investigation of speech act performance among non-native speakers of English. Working Papers in Educational Linguistics, 8(2), 33-53
Maeshiba, N., Yoshinaga, N., Kasper, G., and Ross, S. (1996). Transfer and proficiency in interlanguage apologizing. In S. M. Gass& M. Neu (Eds.), Speech acts across cultures: Challenges to communication in a second language (pp. 155-187). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Mao, L. R. (1994). Beyond politeness theory: "face" revisited and renewed. Journal of Pragmatics, 21, 451-486.
Markus, H. R. & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review 98(2), 403-426.
Matsumoto, Y. (1988). Reexamination of the universality of face: Politeness phenomena in Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics, 12, 403-426.
Matsumoto, Y. (1989). Politeness and conversational universals---observations from Japanese. Multilingua 8(2/3), 207-221.
Nwoye, O. G. (1992). Linguistic politeness and socio-cultural variations of the notion of face. Journal of Pragmatics, 18, 309-328.
Probst, T. M., Carnevale, P. J., & Triandis, H. C. (1999). Cultural values in intergroup and single-group social dilemmas. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 77(3), March, 171-191.
Realo, A., Allik, J., & Vadi M. (1997). The hierarchical structure of collectivism. Journal of research in personality, 31, 93-116.
Reykowski, J. (1994). Collectivism and individualism as dimensions of social change. In Kim, U., Triandis, H. C., Kagitcibasi, C., Choi, S-C., & Yoon, G. (eds.). (1994). Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method, and applications, 276-292. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage.
Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Beyond individualism and collectivism: New cultural dimensions of values. In Kim, U., Triandis, H. C., Kagitcibasi, C., Choi, S-C., & Yoon, G. (eds.). (1994). Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method, and applications, 85-122. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage.
Sinclair, J., & Coulthard, R. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse. London: Oxford University Press.
Sugimoto, N. (1998). Norms of Apology Depicted in U.S. American and Japanese Literature on Manners and Etiquette. Journal of Intercultural Relations, 22(3), 251-76.
Schmidt, R. W, & Richards, J. C. (1980). Speech acts and second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 1, 129-157.
Thomas, J. (1995). Meaning in interaction: an introduction to pragmatics. London: Longman.
Triandis, H. C. (1972). The analysis of subjective culture. New York: Wiley. (ed.)
Triandis, H. C. (1988). Collectivism vs. Individualism: A reconceptualization of a basic concept in cross-cultural social psychology. In G. K. Verma & C. Bagley (eds.). Cross-cultural studies of personality, attitudes and cognition, 60-95. London: Macmillan.
Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism & collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview.
Trosborg, A. (1987). Apology strategies in natives / non-natives. Journal of Pragmatics, 11, 147-167.
Turner, K. (1996). The principal principles of pragmatic inference: politeness. Language Learning, 29, 1-13.
Wierzbicka, A. (1991). Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: The Semantics of Human Interaction [Trends in Linguistics: Studies and Monographs 53]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Wolfson, N. (1984). Pretty is as pretty does: a speech act view of sex roles. Applied Linguistics, 5, 3, 236-244.
Wolfson, N. (1988). The Bulge: A theory of speech behavior and social distance, In: Fine, J. (Ed.), Second Language Discourse: A textbook of current research, 21-38. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Wolfson, N. (1989). Perspectives: Sociolinguistics and TESOL. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Wolfson, N., Marmor, T., & Jones, S. (1989). Problems in the comparison of speech acts across cultures. In Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G. (eds.), 174-196.
Yuan, Y. (2001). An inquiry into empirical pragmatics data-gathering methods: Written DCTs, oral DCTs, field notes, and natural conversations. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 271-292.
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
1. 王秀紅、邱啟潤、王瑞霞、李建廷(1992),〈婦女健康促進行為及其相關因素之探討─以屏東縣高樹鄉及高雄市三民區為例〉,《公共衛生》,19(3),251-265 。
2. 丁志音(1988a),〈生活方式與健康:概念、倫理及政策的探討(上)〉,《公共衛生》,15(1),16-26。
3. 丁志音(1988a),〈生活方式與健康:概念、倫理及政策的探討(上)〉,《公共衛生》,15(1),16-26。
4. 丁志音(1988a),〈生活方式與健康:概念、倫理及政策的探討(上)〉,《公共衛生》,15(1),16-26。
5. 黃松元(2000),《健康促進與健康教育》,台北:師大。
6. 黃松元(2000),《健康促進與健康教育》,台北:師大。
7. 黃松元(2000),《健康促進與健康教育》,台北:師大。
8. 王秀紅、邱啟潤、王瑞霞、李建廷(1992),〈婦女健康促進行為及其相關因素之探討─以屏東縣高樹鄉及高雄市三民區為例〉,《公共衛生》,19(3),251-265 。
9. 王秀紅、邱啟潤、王瑞霞、李建廷(1992),〈婦女健康促進行為及其相關因素之探討─以屏東縣高樹鄉及高雄市三民區為例〉,《公共衛生》,19(3),251-265 。
10. 陳政友(2001),〈台灣地區高中(職)與大專學生健康生活型態與相關因素研究〉,《學校衛生》,38,1-31。
11. 陳政友(2001),〈台灣地區高中(職)與大專學生健康生活型態與相關因素研究〉,《學校衛生》,38,1-31。
12. 陳政友(2001),〈台灣地區高中(職)與大專學生健康生活型態與相關因素研究〉,《學校衛生》,38,1-31。
13. 陳美燕(1993),〈公衛護士與健康促進的生活方式〉,《護理雜誌》,40(3),43-47。
14. 陳美燕(1993),〈公衛護士與健康促進的生活方式〉,《護理雜誌》,40(3),43-47。
15. 陳美燕(1993),〈公衛護士與健康促進的生活方式〉,《護理雜誌》,40(3),43-47。
 
系統版面圖檔 系統版面圖檔