本篇論文主要藉由錄音語料與BBS語料來觀察台灣人對不同意語行(the speech act of disagreement)的使用情形。我們將針對不同意語的語言特徵和語用策略以Brown and Levinson (1987)的禮貌理論(Politeness Theory)為原則做分類，亦將討論不同情境如BBS、朋友間、媒體上等，與社會因素如權威(power)、熟悉程度(social familiarity)、私下或公開(formality of context)、話題冒犯程度(imposition of topic)等對說話者語言表達的影響。
我們認為不同意語在本質上具備一種內定的不被喜愛的特質(default value with dispreference)，屬於會危害面子的語言行為(face-threatening speech act)，而這種特質會影響人們在溝通時考慮到自身或對方的面子需求並進而使用較和緩的方式表達不同意語。然而，在某些情況下，當說話者有其他優於內定值的考量時，他們也可能會使用較直接的策略表達不同意語。以下是我們發現不同意語受到不同情境或社會因素影響的結論:
1. 在BBS的情境中，根據我們的觀察，由於說話者受到私下情境與話題的冒犯程度影響高於受到不同意語內定值的影響，導致說話者傾向選擇許多直接的策略如對立或批判式的言論，同時他們亦使用許多間接的策略例如反諷和反詰問句。
2. 在朋友間的互動情境中，說話者受到私下情境與熟悉程度的影響高於不同意語內定值的影響，所以他們傾向選擇直接的語用策略，而不是緩和性的策略。
3. 在媒體的環境如電視或廣播節目上，由於說話者受到公開情境的影響最大，為了顧慮他人的面子需求，因此他們所使用的句式及策略中，帶有禮貌特質的緩和性不同意語(softened disagreement with positive or negative politeness)比例最高。然而有時說話者也會被其他次層考量如互動目的、權威、熟悉程度、話題冒犯程度影響他們的表達策略。
4. 關於社會因素的影響，我們發現高權威的說話者比低權威的說話者更傾向用直接策略。再者，說話者間的熟悉程度會影響他們的表達方式，例如好朋友傾向選擇非緩和性的策略，但亦不至於影響到彼此的和諧。此外，私下情境比公開場合更容易出現直接策略。最後，在互動中當話題導致個人的特質、價值、專業受到威脅時，說話者將傾向使用強烈性的語用策略(aggravated disagreement)。
　　本研究對於漢語不同意語行各個面向的分析與討論希望能夠幫助讀者更了解台灣人運用不同意語行的情形。

The present study attempts to investigate how Taiwanese perform the speech act of disagreement, to examine the classification of features and strategies of disagreement based on Brown and Levinson’s (1987) Politeness Theory, and to explore the influences of various contexts, such as in Bulletin Board System, among friends, and in media. Besides, four social factors, including power, social familiarity, formality of context, and imposition of topic, can also influence speaker’s choices of disagreement. Our spontaneous data are gathered through natural recording and from BBS.
The speech act of disagreement is a face-threatening act that holds a default value of dispreference intrinsically. Thus, it may generally affect people to consider self and other’s face-wants and to alleviate their expression when they disagree with interlocutors. However, when speakers have other prior considerations ranking higher than the default value of disagreement, they may tend to choose more direct or aggravated strategies. Our findings of the influences of contexts and social factors on disagreement are as below:
1. In the context of BBS, speakers prefer to choose more on record strategies such as judgmental and contradictory statement and off record strategies such as irony and rhetorical question since the private context and heavy imposition of topic make the default value become recessive and form their tendency of disagreement.
2. With respect to the interaction among friends, the private context and social familiarity are their prior considerations that influence them to choose more direct and offensive disagreement, rather than mitigated forms.
3. In terms of the context in TV or radio programs, under the influence of the public setting, speakers tend to use softened disagreement with positive or negative politeness for considering others’ face-wants. Sometimes, they may be affected by other less prior considerations, such as interactive targets, power, social familiarity, and imposition of topic, to their choices of strategies.
4. The more powerful speakers tend to use more direct disagreements with less politeness than the less powerful speakers. In addition, the familiarity between speakers can show its effects in that close friends tend to use non-softened disagreements without hurting their solidarity. Moreover, speakers tend to show their disagreement more directly in private than in public. Finally, as we can see, the speakers have tendency to use aggravated disagreement as their personal value, quality, or professionalism are jeopardized by others.
With our observation, we anticipate making a better understanding of the speech act of disagreement in Mandarin used in Taiwan society.

REFERENCES

Atkinson, J. M., & Drew, P. (1979). Order in Court. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press.
Barnlund, D. C. & Araki, S. (1985). Intercultural encounters: The management of compliments by Japanese and Americans. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 16, 1, 9-26.
Baym, N. K. (1996). Agreements and Disagreements in a Computer-Mediated Discussion. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 29, 315-346.
Beebe, L. M. & Cumming, M. C. (1985). Speech act performance: A function of the data collection procedure. Paper Presented at the sixth Annual TESOL and Sociolinguistics Colloquium at the International TESOL Convention. New York.
Beebe, L. M. & Takahashi, T. (1989a). Do you have a bag?: Social status and patterned variation in second language acquisition. In S. Gass, C. Madden, D. Preston, & L. Selinker (Eds.), Variation in Second Language Acquisition Volume 1: Discourse and Pragmatics. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Beebe, L. M. & Takahashi, T. (1989b). Sociolinguistic variation in face-threatening speech acts: Chastisement and disagreement. In M. Eisenstein (Ed.), The Dynamic Interlanguage: Empirical Studies in Second Language Variation (pp. 199-218). New York: Plenum.
Beebe, L. M., Takahashi, T., & Uliss-Welts R. (1990). Pragmatic transfer in ESL refusals In R. Scarcella, E. Andersen, & S. Krashen. (Eds.), Developing Communicative competence in a second language: series on issues in second language research (pp.55-73). New York, NY: Newbury House Publishers.
Biq, Y. O. (1994). Conversational Interaction and Language Usage. [會話互動性和語言使用]. The Fourth International Conference on Teaching Chinese as the Second Language. Dec. 26-29. Taipei.
Blum-Kulka, S. (1982). Learning how to say what you mean in a second language: A study of the speech act performance of learners of Hebrew as a second language. Applied Linguistics, 3, 29-59.
Blum-Kulka, S., House, J. & Kasper, G. (1989). Cross-cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. D. (1978). Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. In E. N. Goody (Ed.), Questions and Politeness (pp. 56-289). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brown, P., and Levinson, S. D. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge University Press.
Chen, M. T. (2007). An Interlanguage Study of the Speech Act of Disagreement Made By Chinese EFL Speakers in Taiwan. MA thesis. National Sun Yat-Sen University.
Clayman, S. E. (1988). Displaying neutrality in television news interviews. Social Problems, 35(4), 474-492.
Condon, J. C. (1984). With Respect to the Japanese. Tokyo: Yohan.
Condon, J. C. & Yousef, F. (1975). An Introduction to Intercultural Communication. New York: Macmillan.
Dogancay-Aktuna, S., and Kamisli, S. (1996). Discourse of power and politeness: Through the act of disagreement. Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Association for Applied Linguistics (18th, Chicago, IL, 1996)
Eisenstain, W. & Bodman, J. W. (1986). “I very appreciate”: Expressions of gratitude of native and non-native speakers of American English. Applied Linguistics, 7, 167-85.
Ferrara, K., Brunner, H., & Whittemore, G. (1991). Interactive written discourse as an emergent register. Written Communication, 8, 8-34.
Gass, S. and Neu, Joyce (Eds.) (1995). Speech Acts Across Cultures: Challenges to Communication in a Second Language. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Georgakopoulou, A. (2001). Arguing about the future: On indirect disagreements in conversations. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 1881-1900
Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior. New York: Anchor Books.
Goffman, E. (1971). Relations in Public: Microstudies of the Public Order. NewYork: Basic Books.
Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Graham, S. (2007). Disagreeing to agree: Conflict, (im)politeness and identity in a computer-mediated community. Journal of Pragmatics, 39, 742-759.
Greatbatch, D. (1985). The Social Organization of News Interview Interaction. Unpublished PhD dissertation. University of Warwick.
Greatbatch, D. (1992). On the management of disagreement between news interviewees. In: Paul Drew and John Heritage, eds., Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings, 268-301. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gu, Y. (1990). Politeness phenomena in modern Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 237-257.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-related Values. Newbury Park, CA:SAGE.
Holtgraves, T. M. (2002). The interpersonal underpinnings of talk: Face Management and Politeness. Language as social action: Social Psychology and Language use. Mahwah, N. J.: Erlbaum.
Ide, S. (1989). Formal forms and discernment: Two neglected aspects of universals of linguistic politeness. Multilingua, 8, 223-248.
Kakava, C. (1993a). Negotiation and Disagreement by Greeks in Conversation and Classroom Discourse. Georgetown University Dissertation, Washington, DC.
Kakava, C. (1993b). Conflicting argumentative strategies in the classroom. In: Alatis, James (Ed.), Strategic Interaction and Language Acquisition: Theory, Practice, and Research, Georgetown University Round Table 1993. Georgetown University Press, Washington, DC, pp. 395-414.
Kakava, C. (1995). Directness and Indirectness in professor-student interactions: The intersection of contextual and cultural constraints. In: Alatis, James E., Straehle, Carolyn A. (Eds.), Georgetown University Press, Washington, DC, p229-246.
Kakava, C. (2002). Opposition in modern Greek discourse: Cultural and contextual constraints. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 1537-1568
Krainer, E. (1988). Challenges in a psychotherapy group. In S. Axmaker, A. Jaisser, &H. Singmaster (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (pp. 100-113). Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.
Kuo, S. H. (1992). Formulaic opposition markers in Chinese conflict talk. Georgetown University Round Table on Language and Linguistics (pp.388-402)
Kuo, S. H. (1994). Agreement and disagreement strategies in a radio conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 27(2), 95-121.
Leech, G. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. New York: Longman.
Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Liao, C. (1994). A study on the strategies, maxims, and development of refusal in Mandarin Chinese. Taipei: Crane Publishing House.
Lii-shih, Yu-hwei E. (1994). What do “Yes” and “No” really mean in Chinese? In James E. Alatis (ed.), Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics: Educational Linguistics, Crosscultural Communication, and Global Interdependence. pp.128-149. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
Lin, Z. Y. (1999). Disagreement in Mandarin Chinese Conversation. MA thesis. Taipei: National Chengchi University.
Manes, J. & Wolfson, N. (1980). The compliment as a social strategy. Papers in Linguistics: International Journal of Human Communication. 13, 391-409.
McLaughlin, M. L., Osborne, K. K., & Smith, C. B. (1995). Standards of conduct on Usenet. In S. Jones (Ed.), Cybersociety: Computer-mediated community and communication (pp. 90-111). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Nakajima, Y. (1997). Politeness strategies in the workplace: When experiences help Japanese businessmen acquire American English native-like strategies? Working Papers in Educational Linguistics, 13(1), 49-69.
O’Donnell, K. (1990). Difference and dominance: How labor and management talk conflict. In: Allen D. Grimshaw, ed., Conflict talk: Sociolinguistic investigations of arguments in conversations, 210-240. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Olshtain, E. and Cohen, A. (1983), ‘Apology: a speech act set’, in Wolfson, N. and Judd, E. (eds.), Sociolinguistics and Language Acquisition. Rowley: Newbury House: 18-36
Passin, H. (1980). Japanese and the Japanese: Language and Culture Change. Tokyo: Kinseido.
Pomerantz, A. (1975). A study of some features of agreements/ disagreements. Unpublished Dissertation. University of California, Irvine.
Pomerantz, A. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/ dispreferred turn shapes. In J. M. Atkinson, and J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rees-Miller, J. (2000). Power, severity, and context in disagreement. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 1087-1111.
Schiffrin, D. (1984). Jewish Argument as Sociability. Language in Society 13, 311-355
Takahashi, T. & Beebe, L. (1993). Cross-linguistic influence in the speech act of correction. In G, Kaspter & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage Pragmatics (pp. 138-157). London: Oxford University Press.
Tanskanen, S. K. (1998). Discourse in cyberspace: studying computer mediated communications, Anglicana Turkuensia, vol. 16, pp.143-56.
Wang, Y. F. (1998). The Linguistic Structures of Agreement and Disagreement in Mandarin Conversation. Paper Presented at the 10th North American Conference on Chinese Linguistics, Stanford University, California, U.S.A.
Wu, C. S. (2003). The Expression of the Speech Act of Refusal. [拒絕語的表達方法]. Journal of Sichuan Institute of Foreign Languages. Vol. 19.4.