跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(3.236.68.118) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/07/31 19:16
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

: 
twitterline
研究生:陳又誠
研究生(外文):Chen, Yucheng
論文名稱:台灣大學生在性別、權力地位、與社會距離差異下之拒絕策略之研究
論文名稱(外文):A Study Of Mandarin Refusal Strategies By Undergraduate Students In Taiwan With A Focus On Gender, Power Relation And Social Distance
指導教授:黃麗蓉黃麗蓉引用關係
指導教授(外文):Huang, Lijung
口試委員:賴春燕朱曼妮
口試委員(外文):Lai, ChunyenChu, Manni
口試日期:2012-06-15
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:靜宜大學
系所名稱:英國語文學系
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:2012
畢業學年度:100
語文別:英文
論文頁數:115
中文關鍵詞:言談行為拒絕策略性別差異權力地位社會距離
外文關鍵詞:Speech actRefusalGender differencesPower relationSocial distance
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:2
  • 點閱點閱:611
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:144
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:1
言談行為(speech acts)在語言學中因為在日常生活便於觀察而被廣泛地討論。因此近幾十年來有越來越多的相關研究。其中有幾個主題日漸成為學者們的討論重心,像是拒絕、請求或者是道歉等等。另外,這些言談行為常常被拿來與一些社會因素(social factor)做關聯性的研究。而本論文選擇討論在性別(gender)、權力地位(power relation)與社會距離(social distance)的差異下,台灣大學生在拒絕策略(refusal strategy)使用上的差別。此篇討論另外也要針對長期以來較少被探討的兩個問題做深入討論。一個是關於被拒絕者性別對於拒絕策略使用的影響。另一個則是不同性別的受測者在權力地位或者社會距離的差異下,是否有不同的拒絕表現。
研究語料蒐集自39名台灣男大學生與47名台灣女大學生。全部的受試者的母語皆為國語和/或者台語。另外為了著重於三個社會因素的影響,全部受試者的年齡範圍選在18到22歲之間,並選自於同一間學校。他們會被要求填寫一份言談情境填充問卷(Discourse Completion Test)。此問卷根據性別(拒絕者與被拒絕者)、權力地位(高對低與平等)還有社會距離(較親密和較為疏遠)設計出八種不同的情境來引導受試者寫出在不同情況下的拒絕策略再加以討論。
研究結果顯示,在單一社會因素的影響下,受試者的拒絕策略呈現顯著的差異,但是被拒絕者的性別卻被證明不會影響受試者的選擇。在拒絕者性別的影響之下,女生比男生更常使用比較間接的拒絕策略(indirect refusal)。而在權力地位與社會距離的影響之下,受試者比較容易對於較有權利或者較有距離的人表現出間接的拒絕方式。此外,在面對權力地位或者社會距離不同的情況下,男生和女生也展現出不同的拒絕策略模式,此舉表現出男女生各自的禮貌傾向(politeness tendency)。

Speech act is the most widely discussed topic in pragmatics because it can be easily observed in daily life. Therefore, there has been abundant research done in the past two decades. Among these studies, several speech acts have become increasingly important, like refusal, request, apology, and etc. In addition, various social factors have been studied in relation to the use of these speech acts in order to find out the relationship between the use of speech act and social factors.
This study examined the use of one selected speech act, refusal, by undergraduate students in relation to three selected social factors, gender, power relation and social distance. The study has two main purposes in mind: 1) to examine how the gender of refusees and refusers influences their choices of refusal strategies; and 2) to explore the differences between females and males when they refused the invitation from interlocutors with different power relation or social distance.
The participants included 39 male and 47 female undergraduate students in Taiwan. All of the participants are native speakers of Mandarin and/or Taiwanese. Their age ranged from 18 to 22. All the participants were given a Discourse Completion Test (DTC), in which they were asked to write their responses to eight pre-designed prompts, representing the different situations involving the factors of gender (of both speakers and hearers), power relation (with or without superior-inferior relationship), and social distance (with low or high distance).
The results showed that there were significant differences between the use of refusal strategies and each individual social factor, except the gender of refusees, which presented no influence on participants’ choice of refusal strategies. When concerning individual factor, females tended to use indirect refusal strategies more often than males; in addition, when facing the interlocutors with higher status or social distance, participants adopted indirect refusals more frequently. Furthermore, females and males showed significant differences in refusing the interlocutors with different power relation or social distance. The findings indicated that females and males had different preferences for specific refusal strategies.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ix
LIST OF FIGURES xi
CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background and Motivation 1
1.2 Research purpose and research questions 3
1.3 The overviews of the study 3
CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW 5
2.1 Speech act theory 5
2.2 Face and politeness 8
2.2.1 Face issue 8
2.2.2 Face threatening acts 9
2.2.2.1 Negative face threatening acts: 10
2.2.2.2 Positive face threatening acts 10
2.2.3 Strategies for doing FTAs – Politeness theory 11
2.3 Factors influencing language use 16
2.3.1 Factors from Brown and Levinson 16
2.3.2 Age 18
2.3.3 Gender 19
2.4 Strategies of refusal 20
2.5 Previous studies on Chinese refusals 22
CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY 25
3.1 Participants 25
3.2. Experimental variables in the study 25
3.3 Instrument 26
3.4 Data analysis 29
3.4.1 Data classification 29
3.4.2 Statistical Analysis 33
CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 35
4.1 Refusal strategies and gender 35
4.1.1 Interaction between refusal strategies and refusee’s gender 36
4.1.1.1 Direct refusal strategies 36
4.1.1.2 Indirect refusal strategies 37
4.1.2 Interaction between refusal strategies and refuser’s gender 39
4.1.2.1 Direct refusal strategies 39
4.1.2.2 Indirect refusal strategies 39
4.1.3 Main findings of refusal strategies and gender 41
4.1.3.1 Refusee’s gender 42
4.1.3.2 Refuser’s gender 44
4.1.4 Discussion 46
4.2 Refusal strategies and power relation 46
4.2.1 Interaction between the refusal strategies and equal power relation on gender 47
4.2.1.1 Direct refusal strategies 47
4.2.1.2 Indirect refusal strategies 48
4.2.2 Interaction between the refusal strategies and unequal power relation on gender 50
4.2.2.1 Direct refusal strategies 50
4.2.2.2 Indirect refusal strategies 50
4.2.3 Differences of refusal strategies in relation to power relation 52
4.2.3.1 Female participants 52
4.2.3.2 Male Participants 55
4.2.4 Gender difference on power relation 58
4.2.4.1 Equal power relation 58
4.2.4.2 Unequal power relation 61
4.2.5 Difference of power relation on gender 63
4.2.5.1 Female participants 64
4.2.5.2 Male participants 65
4.2.6 Discussion 67
4.3 Refusal strategies and social distance 68
4.3.1 Interactions between the refusal strategies and low social distance on gender 69
4.3.1.1 Direct refusal strategies 69
4.3.1.2 Indirect refusal strategies 69
4.3.2 Interaction between the refusal strategies and high social distance on gender. 71
4.3.2.1 Direct refusal strategies 71
4.3.2.2 Indirect refusal strategies 72
4.3.3 Differences of refusal strategies in relation to social distance 74
4.3.3.1 Female participants 74
4.3.3.2 Male participants 77
4.3.4 Gender difference on social distance 80
4.3.4.1 Low social distance 81
4.3.4.2 High social distance 83
4.3.5 Difference of socials distance on gender 85
4.3.5.1 Female participants 86
4.3.5.2 Male participants 87
4.3.6 Discussion 89
CHAPTER FIVE CONCLUSION 91
5.1 Summary of the study 91
5.2 Limitations of the study 94
5.3 Suggestions for further study 94
REFERENCES 96
APPENDIXES 97
Appendix I: Quesstionnaire of Chinese Version 100
Appendix II: Questionnaire of English Version 103

Austin, J. L. 1975. How to do things with words (2nd edition). Oxford: Clarendon.
Baron, D. E. 1986. Grammar and gender. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Beebe, L. M., Takahashi, T. and Uliss-Welta, R. 1990. “Pragmatic Transfer in ESL Refusals.” In R. Scarcella, E. Andersen, S. D. Krashen (Eds.), Developing Communicative Competence in a Second Language. Cambridge, MA: Newbury House.
Beeching, K. 2002. Gender, politeness and pragmatic particles in French. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Brown, P. and S. C. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., and Kasper, G. (Eds). 1989. Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Cameron, D. 1998. “Is there any ketchup, Vera?”: Gender, power and pragmatics, Discourse and Society, 9: 437-55
Chen, X. Ye, L. and Zhang, Y. 1995. Refusing in Chinese. In G. Kasper (Ed.), Pragmatics of Chinese as a Native and Target Language. Honolulu: University of Hawaii, Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center.
Chu, Hui-Mei. 1995. The influence of social relations on refusals. Journal of Taipei Municipal Teachers College(台北市立師範學院學報), 26: 423-438.
Falbo, T. and Peplau, L. A. 1980. Power strategies in intimate relationship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38: 618-28.
Gass, S. and Houck, N. 1999. Interlanguage refusals. USA: New York.
Goffman, E. 1967. Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. New York: Pantheon Books.
Grice, H. P. 1975. Logic and Conversation. In P. Cole, & J. Morgan (Eds). Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 3: Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press.
Grundy, P. 2000. Doing Pragmatics (2nd Edition). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gu, Yueguo. 1990. Politeness phenomena in modern Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics, 14: 237-257.
Gu, Yueguo. 1992. Pragmatic politeness and culture. Foreign Language Teaching and Tesearch. 4: 30-32
Guo, Yu-Feng. 2001. (郭玉鳳) A case study on South-Min pragmatic characteristics and development of a 2-year-old child. Unpublished M. A. Thesis, National Hsin-Chu Teachers College (新竹師範學院), Taiwan.
Holmes, J., 1995. Women, men, and politeness. London: Longman.
Holmes, J., 2008. An introduction to Sociolinguistics (3rd edition). London: Longman.
Hong, Wei. 1996. An empirical study of Chinese request strategies. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 122: 127-138
Hong, Wei. 1997. Gender differences in Chinese request patterns. Journal of Chinese Linguistics, 25: 193-210.
Hu, H. 1944. The Chinese concept of “face.” American Anthropologist, 46(1): 45-64.
Hudson, R. A. 1980. Sociolinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kasper, G. and Dahl, M. (1991). Research methods in interlanguage pragmatics. Honolulu: University of Hawaii.
Lakoff, R. 1973. The logic of politeness; or, minding your p’s and q’s. Chicago Linguistic Society, 292-305
Lakoff, R. 1975. Language and woman’s place. New York: Harper & Row.
Lee-Wong, S.-M. 1999. Politeness and face in Chinese culture. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Liao, Chao-chih. 1994. A study on the strategies, maxims, and development of refusal in Mandarin Chinese. Taipei: Crane.
Liao, Chao-chih. 1995. Refusing ways: cultural difference between Mandarin and American English. English Teaching and Learning, 19(4): 79-87.
Liao, Chao-chih and Bresnahan, M. I. 1996. A Contrastive Pragmatic Study on American English and Mandarin Refusal Strategies. Language Science, 18: 703-727.
Liao, Chao-chih. 1997. Comparing directives: American English, Mandarin and Taiwanese English. Taipei: Crane.
Lyuh, I. 1992. The art of refusal: Comparison of Korean and American cultures. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Indiana University.
Mao, L. R. 1994. Beyond politeness theory: “Face” revisited and renewed. Journal of Pragmatics, 21(5): 451-86.
Mills, S. 2003. Gender and politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nelson, G., Al Batal, M. and El Bakary, W. (2002) Directness vs. indirectness: Egyptian Arabic and US English communication style. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 26(1): 39-57.
Olshtain, E. & Weinbach, L. 1987. Complaints: A study of speech act behavior among native and nonnative speakers of Hebrew. In J. Verschueren & M. Bertucelli-Papi (Eds.), The pragmatic perspective (pp. 195-208). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Olshtain, E. & Weinbach, L. 1993. Interlanguage features of the speech act of complaining. In G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage Pragmatics (pp. 108-122). New York: Oxford University Press.
Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. W. 2001. Intercultural communication: A discourse approach (2nd edition). Malden, Mass.: Blackwell.
Searle, J. R. 1969. Speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Searle, J. R. 1979. Expression and meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Shimura, A. 1995. “Kotowari” toiu hatsuwa kouiniokeru taiguu hyougentoshiteno syouryakuno hindo, kinou, kouzouni kansuru chuukanngengo goyouron kenkyu (“Frequency, function, and structure of omissions as politeness expressions in the speech act of refusal”). Keiougijyuku Daigaku Hiyoshi Kiyou (Keio University at Hiyoshi, Language, Culture, Communication), 15: 41-62.
Van de Walle, Lieve. 1993. Pragmatics and classical Sanskrit: A pilot study in linguistic politeness. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
Wang, Ai-Hua. 2001. The investigation of verbal refusal behaviors in English and Mandarin. Foreign Language Teaching and Research (bimonthly) 3: 178-185.
Wardhaugh, R. 2000. An Introduction to Sociolinguistics (3rd Edition). Oxford: Blackwell.
Watts, R. 2003. Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wood, L. A. & Kroger, R. O. 1994. The analysis of face work in discourse. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 13: 248-277.
Yang, Jia. 2008. How to say “No” in Chinese: A pragmatic study of refusal strategies in five TV series. The 20th North American Conference on Chinese Linguistics, 2: 1041-1058. Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University.
Yang, Li-Chin. 2003 A study of young children’s production and perception of refusal in Mandarin Chinese. M.A. Thesis, Providence University.
Yang, Tsun-Ching. 2004. A study of refusals to requests of Taiwanese elementary school children. M.A. Thesis, Providence University.
Yule, G. 2006. The study of language, (3rd edition). Cambridge: Cambridge University press.
Zhu, J. and Bao, Y. 2010. The Pragmatic comparison of Chinese and western “politeness” in cross-cultural communication. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 1: 848-851.

QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
無相關期刊