臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

語用知識決定了言談者是否有恰當應對的能力，其反映在語言學習者能否使用目標語言進行有效的溝通。「請求」為威脅面子的言語行為之一，此語言行為在外語及第二語言教育領域中被廣泛地研究，然而，以往文獻著重在學習者使用「請求」策略的表現，卻缺乏深入調查受試者對於不同社交情境中所持有之想法。針對此現象，本研究收錄英語為外國語言之學習者為受試者，以調查他們面對不同社會階級的對話者時，在「請求」中使用英語修飾詞句的語用語言能力。本研究更深入了解這些語言學習者之社交語用能力的表現，特別著重於學習者如何反思及探討自己的「請求」行為。
本研究受試者為四十八位台灣私立大學之大一新生。研究工具為「請求行為問卷調查表」，其中包括「問答型言談填充題」及「選擇型言談填充題」兩部分。「問答型言談填充題」主要檢視受試者英文修飾詞句之應用，而「選擇型言談填充題」則是檢視受試者對於「請求」之言談表達的判斷取向。本研究進一步安排追蹤訪談，共二十四位受試者自願參與，於訪談中了解他們對於「請求」行為所持有的態度及想法。研究結果顯示只有少數受試者使用了些許的英文內部修飾詞句，顯示了受試者普遍有限的語用語言能力。此外，受試者在針對不同情境做出社交判斷時，會將社會階級、社會距離及負擔程度等因素列入考量，此發現歸屬於受試者之社交語用能力的表現。即便如此，受試者在面對不同的社交情境時只表現了略微的行為差異，他們認為在面對不同階級之對話者，皆應該要以較不直接且溫和的方式來陳述他們的「請求」行為。針對本研究所呈現的結果及研究設計限制，對於未來課室教學之課程規劃及相關研究之設計等議題皆提供建議。

Language learners’ pragmatic competence determines the extent to which they communicate appropriately in target languages. As one of the face-threatening speech acts, requests have been widely investigated by pragmatic researchers in the foreign or second language education field. Yet, previous studies mainly focused on language learners’ use of request strategies but rarely on modification usage. In addition, limited investigations further examined learners’ perception when making requests in varied scenarios. To fill the literature gap, this study investigated university EFL learners’ pragmalinguistic performance of using modifications when making requests to interlocutors with different social statuses. In particular, this investigation depicted these learners’ sociopragmatic performance by further exploring how they perceived and elaborated on their speech act behaviors.
The participants were 48 freshmen recruited from a private university in central Taiwan. The research instrument was a Request Making Task, including Written Discourse Completion Task and Multiple-choice Discourse Completion Task. The former examined learners’ use of modifications, while the latter documented participants’ judgments on the appropriateness of request utterances. Additionally, an individual followed-up interview was conducted with 24 voluntary participants to uncover their perception towards particular request utterances in the social settings. The findings suggested that these participants overproduced Grounders to support their utterances, while they produced few internal modifications due to limited pragmalinguistic knowledge. It also revealed that the participants have limited lexical knowledge to modification usage because only few forms were produced to present particular modifications. Little situational differences were found in the participants’ sociopragmatic performance, although their awareness of social relationship, social distance and degree of imposition were revealed. They perceived that request utterances should be produced in an indirect and gentle manner. Pedagogical implications and research suggestions are provided based on the findings and limitations of this study.The participants were 48 freshmen recruited from a private university in central Taiwan. The research instrument was a Request Making Task, including Written Discourse Completion Task and Multiple-choice Discourse Completion Task. The former examined learners’ use of modifications, while the latter documented participants’ judgments on the appropriateness of request utterances. Additionally, an individual followed-up interview was conducted with 24 voluntary participants to uncover their perception towards particular request utterances in the social settings. The findings suggested that these participants overproduced Grounders to support their utterances, while they produced few internal modifications due to limited pragmalinguistic knowledge. It also revealed that the participants have limited lexical knowledge to modification usage because only few forms were produced to present particular modifications. Little situational differences were found in participants’ sociopragmatic performance, although their awareness of social relationship, social distance and degree of imposition were revealed. They perceived that request utterances should be produced in an indirect and gentle manner. Pedagogical implications and research suggestions are provided based on the findings and limitations of this study.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...................................................................................ii
ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................ iv
中文摘要.................................................................................................................. vi

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION .................................................................... 1
1.1 Background of the Study ................................................................................ 1
1.2 Statement of the Problem................................................................................4
1.3 Purpose of the Study ....................................................................................... 5
1.4 Research Questions.........................................................................................6
1.5 Definition of Terms.........................................................................................6
1.5.1 Pragmatic Competence ............................................................................ 6
1.5.1.1 Pragmalinguistic Competence .......................................................... 7
1.5.1.2 Sociopragmatic Competence ............................................................ 8
1.5.2 Speech Acts .............................................................................................. 8
1.5.3 Discourse Completion Task (DCT).......................................................... 9
1.5.3.1 Written Discourse Completion Task (WDCT)..................................9
1.5.3.2 Multiple-choice Discourse Completion Task (MDCT) .................. 10
1.5.4 Modifications ......................................................................................... 10
1.5.4.1 Internal Modifications..................................................................... 11
1.5.4.2 External Modifications.................................................................... 12
1.6 Significance of the Study .............................................................................. 14

CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW ..................................................... 16
2.1 Pragmatic Competence ................................................................................. 16
2.2 Speech Act Theory ........................................................................................ 17
2.3 The Speech Act of Requests ......................................................................... 19
2.4 The Analysis of Request Utterances ............................................................. 20
2.5 Pragmalinguistics in Studies on Requests Making ....................................... 23
2.5.1 L2 Learners’ Modification Use .............................................................. 28
2.6 Sociopragmatics in Studies on Requests Making ......................................... 34
2.7 Summary ....................................................................................................... 37

CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY ............................................................ 40
3.1 Participants.................................................................................................... 40
3.2 Data Collection Methods .............................................................................. 40
3.3 Data Collection Procedures........................................................................... 47
3.4 Data Analysis ................................................................................................ 48
3.4.1 Coding Scheme ...................................................................................... 49
3.5 The Pilot Study ............................................................................................. 51

CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS..............................................................................55
4.1 Pragmalinguistic Performance ...................................................................... 55
4.1.1 The Amount of Internal and External Modifications Used .................... 55
4.1.2 The Use of External Modifications in Scenarios ................................... 58
4.1.3 The Use of Internal Modification in Scenarios......................................64
4.1.4 Why Limited Use of Internal Modifications..........................................70
4.2 Sociopragmatic Performance ........................................................................ 72
4.2.1 Communication with Subordinates........................................................72
4.2.2 Communication with Peers .................................................................... 75
4.2.3 Communication with Superiors ............................................................. 77
4.2.4 Self-perceived Competence in Sociopragmatic Performance................ 79

CHAPTER FIVE DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS ................................. 82
5.1 Summary of the Study .................................................................................. 82
5.2 Abundant Use of Grounders ......................................................................... 83
5.3 Lack of Pragmalinguistic Performance in Internal Modifications................85
5.4 Limited Lexical Knowledge of Modification Usage .................................... 86
5.5 Adherence to Politeness and Indirectness ..................................................... 89
5.6 Implications................................................................................................... 93
5.7 Limitations and Suggestions ......................................................................... 95

APPENDICES ..................................................................................................... 102
Appendix A. Request Making Tasks ................................................................. 102
Appendix B. Definitions and examples of internal modifications.................... 111
Appendix C. Definitions and examples of external modifications ................... 112


LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Modifications in defined units-----------------------------------------------------11
Table 2 Internal modifications--------------------------------------------------------------- 13
Table 3 External modifications -------------------------------------------------------------- 14
Table 4 Cohen’s (1996) categories of speech acts ----------------------------------------18
Table 5 WDCT items specifications -------------------------------------------------------- 44
Table 6 MDCT items specifications -------------------------------------------------------- 45
Table 7 Data analyses------------------------------------------------------------------------- 49
Table 8 Coding scheme-----------------------------------------------------------------------50
Table 9 Total numbers of coded modifications -------------------------------------------56
Table 10 External modification uses in scenarios------------------------------------------59
Table 11 Internal modifications uses in scenarios------------------------------------------65
Table 12 Percentages of chosen MDCT options (to subordinates) ----------------------73
Table 13 Percentages of chosen MDCT options (to peers) -------------------------------76
Table 14 Percentages of chosen MDCT options (to superiors)---------------------------78

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Data collection procedures .............................................................................. 48
Figure 2. Grounders used in scenarios............................................................................ 60
Figure 3. Sweeteners used in scenarios...........................................................................61
Figure 4. Understaters used in scenarios........................................................................65
Figure 5. Hedges used in scenarios.................................................................................66
Figure 6. Intensifiers used in scenarios...........................................................................67

Allan, G. (2003). A Critique of Using Grounded Theory as a Research Method, Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 2(1), 1-10.
Austin, J. L. (1975). How to do things with words. (2nd ed.). US: Oxford University Press.
Atay, D. (2005). Raising the Pragmatic Consciousness of Turkish Prospective EFL Teachers. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research (EJER), (20), pp.48-61.
Bardovi-Harlig, K (2010). Pragmatics and second language acquisition. In R. B. Kaplan (Ed.) (2nd edition), The Oxford handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 363-377). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Griffin, R. (2005). L2 pragmatic awareness: Evidence from the ESL classroom. System, 33(3), 401-415. doi:10.1016/j.system.2005.06.004
Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Hartford, B. S. (1993). Learning the rules of academic talk. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15(03), 279-304. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100012122
Barron, A. (2003). Acquisition in interlanguage pragmatics: Learning how to do things with words in a study abroad context. Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing Co.
Blum-Kulka, S., & Olshtain, E. (1984). Requests and Apologies: A Cross-Cultural Study of Speech Act Realization Patterns (CCSARP). Applied linguistics, 5(3), 196-213. doi: 10.1093/applin/5.3.196
Brown, P & Levinson, S.C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. UK: Cambridge University Press.
Byon, A. S. (2004). Sociopragmatic analysis of Korean requests: Pedagogical settings. Journal of Pragmatics, 36(9), 1673-1704. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2004.05.003
Canale, M. (1987). The measurement of communicative competence. Annual review of applied linguistics, 8, 67-84.
Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of com-municative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied linguistics, 1(1), 1-47. doi: 10.1093/applin/I.1.1
Chang, Y. F. (2011). Interlanguage pragmatic development: the relation between pragmalinguistic competence and sociopragmatic competence. Language Sciences, 33(5), 786-798. doi:10.1016/j.langsci.2011.02.002
Chomsky, N. (1980). Rules and representations. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3(1), 1-15.
Cohen, A. D., & Shively, R. L. (2007). Acquisition of requests and apologies in Spanish and French: Impact of study abroad and strategy‐building intervention. The Modern Language Journal, 91(2), 189-212. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2007.00540.x
Dendenne, B. (2014). “Could you help me with these bags, brother? My shoulders are falling.” Transfer in IL requests performed by Algerian EFL learners. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 10(2), 29-47.
Economidou-Kogetsidis, M. (2010). Cross-cultural and situational variation in requesting behaviour: Perceptions of social situations and strategic usage of request patterns. Journal of pragmatics, 42(8), 2262-2281. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2010.02.001
Ellis, R. (1992). Learning to communicate in the classroom: a study of two learners’ requests. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 14(1), 1–23. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100010445
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. New York: Oxford University Press.
Felix-brasdefer, C.J. (2005). Indirectness and politeness in Mexican requests. In Eddington, D (Ed), Selected Proceedings of the 7th Hispanic Linguistic Symposium (pp. 66-78). New Mexico: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
Grant, L., & Starks, D. (2001). Screening appropriate teaching materials Closings from textbooks and television soap operas. IRAL-International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 39(1), 39-50.
Harlow, L. L. (1990). Do they mean what they say? Sociopragmatic competence and second language learners. The Modern Language Journal, 74(3), 328-351. doi: 10.2307/327628
Halenko, N., & Jones, C. (2011). Teaching pragmatic awareness of spoken requests to Chinese EAP learners in the UK: Is explicit instruction effective?, System, 39(2), 240-250.
Hassall, T. (2001). Modifying requests in a second language. IRAL, 39(4), 259-284.
Hendriks, B. (2008). Dutch English requests: A study of request performance by Dutch learners of English. In Pütz, M & Aertselaer, J.N (Eds), Developing Contrastive Pragmatics: Interlanguage and Cross-cultural Perspectives (pp. 335-354). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Jalilifar, A., Hashemian, M., & Tabatabaee, M. (2011). A cross-sectional study of Iranian EFL learners’ request strategies. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 2(4), 790-803. doi:10.4304/jltr.2.4.790-803
Jordà, M. P. S. (2004). An analysis on EAP learners' pragmatic production: a focus on request forms. Ibérica: Revista de la Asociación Europea de Lenguas para Fines Específicos, 8, 23-39.
Kasper, G. (1981). Pragmatic aspects in the interim language: a study of English advanced German learners. German: Gunter Narr Verlag
Kasper, G. & Rose, K. R. (2001). Pragmatics in language teaching. German: Ernst Klett Sprachen.
Kobayashi, H. & Rinnert, C. (2003). Coping with high imposition requests: High vs low proficiency EFL students in Japan. In Flor, A.M, Guerra, A.F & Juan, E.U (Eds), Pragmatic competence and foreign language teaching (pp. 161-184). Spain: Universitat Jaume I.
Kordnaeij, A., Ebrahimi, M., Dehkordi, L., & Fani, A. (2014). Investigating fundamentals of knowledge based economy using grounded theory. Management Science Letters, 4(11), 2423-2426.
Kılıçkaya, F. (2010). The pragmatic knowledge of Turkish EFL students in using certain request strategies. University of Gaziantep Journal of Social Sciences, 9(1), 185-201.
Kim, D., & Hall, J. K. (2002). The role of an interactive book reading program in the development of second language pragmatic competence. The Modern Language Journal, 86(3), 332-348.
Kim, J. (1995). " Could you calm down more?": requests and Korean ESL learners. Working Papers in Educational Linguistics, 11(2), 67-82.
Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. UK: Taylor & Francis.
Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. UK: Cambridge University Press.
Lin, Y. H. (2009). Query preparatory modals: Cross-linguistic and cross-situational variations in request modification. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(8), 1636-1656. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2008.12.007
Lundell, F. F., & Erman, B. (2012). High-level requests: A study of long residency L2 users of English and French and native speakers. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(6), 756-775. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2012.02.010
Najafabadi, S. A., & Paramasivam, S. (2012). Iranian EFL learners’ interlanguage request modifications: Use of external and internal supportive moves. Theory and practice in language studies, 2(7), 1387-1396.
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta‐analysis. Language learning, 50(3), 417-528
Pearson, L. (2006). Patterns of development in Spanish L2 pragmatic acquisition: An analysis of novice learners' production of directives. The Modern Language Journal, 90(4), 473-495. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2006.00427.x
Pérez-paredes, P., Hernández, P. S., & Jiménez, P. A. (2011). The use of adverbial hedges in EAP students’ oral performance. In Bhatia, V & Sánchez , P (Eds), Researching Specialized Languages (pp. 95-113). Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing.
Rose, K. R. (1999). Teachers and students learning about requests in Hong Kong. In Hinkel, E (Ed), Culture in Second Language Teaching and Learning (pp. 167-180). UK: Cambridge University Press
Rose, K. R. (2000). An exploratory cross-sectional study of interlanguage pragmatic development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22(1), 27-67. doi: 10.4236/ojml.2013.34037
Rose, K. R., & Ono, R. (1995). Eliciting speech act data in Japanese: The effect of questionnaire type. Language learning, 45(2), 191-223. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-1770.1995.tb00438.x
Tagliamonte, S., & Roberts, C. (2005). So weird; so cool; so innovative: The use of intensifiers in the television series Friends. American Speech, 80(3), 280-300.
Suh, J. S. (1999). ESL Korean Learners' Use of External and Internal Modifications in Request Realizations. Retrieved October, 5, 2015, from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED430400
Scarcella, R. (1979). On speaking politely in a second language. In C. Yorio, K. Perkins, & J. Schachter (Eds.), On TESOL’ 79: The Learner in Focus. (pp. 275-287). Washington, D.C. : TESOL.
Schauer, G.A. (2004). May you speak louder maybe?. In Foster-cohen et al (Eds), EUROSLA Yearbook: Volume 4 (pp. 253-273). Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing.
Schmitt, N. (2010). An introduction to Applied Linguistics. UK: Hodder & Stoughton.
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. UK: Cambridge university press.
Searle, J. R., Kiefer, F., & Bierwisch, M. (Eds.). (1980). Speech act theory and pragmatics (Vol. 10). Dordrecht: D. Reidel.
Soler, E. A. (2005). Does instruction work for learning pragmatics in the EFL context? System, 33(3), 417-435.
Stalnaker, R, C. (1972). Pragmatics. In D. Davidson, and G. Harman (Ed.), Semantic of Natural Language (pp. 380-397). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Reidel.
Suh, J. (1999). Pragmatic perception of politeness in requests by Korean learners of English as foreign language, International Review of Applied Linguistics, 37(3), 195-213. doi: 10.1515/iral.1999.37.3.195
Tanaka, S., & Kawade, S. (1982). Politeness strategies and second language acquisition. Studies in second language acquisition, 5(1), 18-33. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100004575
Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 91-112. doi: 10.1093/applin/4.2.91
Trosborg, A. (1995). Interlanguage pragmatics: Requests, complaints, and apologies. German: Walter de Gruyter.
Vellenga, H. (2004). Learning pragmatics from ESL & EFL textbooks: How likely. Retrieved October, 8, 2015, from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1068091
Walters, J. (1979). Strategies for requesting in Spanish and English structural similarities and pragmatic differences. Language Learning, 29(2), 277-293. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-1770.1979.tb01069.x
Wang, N. (2013). An analysis of the pragmatic functions of “swearing” in interpersonal talk. Griffith Working Papers in Pragmatics and Intercultural Communications, 71-79.
Xiaole, G. (2009). A Study of Interrelations Between Sociopragmatic and Linguistic Competences. Intercultural Communication Studies, 18(1), 237-259.