簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

回結果列表
研究生： 溫鈺伶
Wen, Yu-Ling
論文名稱： 不同英語流利程度之台灣大學生的拒絕行為探討
A Study of Refusal Acts by Taiwanese College English Learners of Different Proficiency Levels
指導教授： 吳睿純
Wu, Jui-Chun
口試委員: 葉瑞娟
Yeh, Jui-Chuan
許婷婷
Hsu, Ting-Ting
學位類別： 碩士
Master
系所名稱： 竹師教育學院 - 英語教學系
English Instruction
論文出版年： 2024
畢業學年度： 112
語文別： 英文
論文頁數： 125
中文關鍵詞： 拒絕策略 、英語能力 、台灣英語學習者 、社會地位 、強加 、語用能力
外文關鍵詞： refusal strategies, English proficiency, Taiwanese EFL learners, social status, imposition, pragmatic competence
相關次數： 點閱：3  下載：0 
分享至:
查詢本校圖書館目錄 查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統 勘誤回報

    • 本論文利用語篇完成任務（DCT）來探討台灣英語學習者的英語拒絕策略，並研究不同的英語能力者在面對不同社會地位和強加程度的拒絕情境時，會採取何種拒絕方式。研究結果顯示，英語能力較低的台灣英語學習者傾向於使用直接拒絕的方式，而且通常伴隨特定理由。相較之下，英語能力較高的台灣英語學習者則會均衡地使用直接和間接的策略，在處理社交互動時展現出更大的靈活性和適當性。
    此外，當面對較高社會地位的交談對象時，英語能力較高的學習者更傾向於採用間接策略來減輕拒絕的影響。而英語能力較低者無論面對何種社會地位的交談對象，都更頻繁地使用直接策略。研究也發現，在高強加情境中，英語能力較高的學習者更可能選擇間接策略以避免衝突發生。
    研究結果顯示若能將語用能力融入語言教育，則學習者在跨文化情境中便能更有效地溝通。本研究有助於理解中介語用學，並為未來的語言教育研究提供寶貴的見解。

    This thesis explores the refusal strategies employed by Taiwanese EFL learners (TELs) and examines how varying English proficiency, social status, and imposition levels shape these strategies. The study utilizes a Discourse Completion Task (DCT) methodology to collect data from Taiwanese college students across different proficiency levels. Participants were presented with various scenarios requiring refusals, which varied according to the interlocutor’s social status and the level of imposition involved.
    The findings reveal that TELs with lower English proficiency tend to rely more on direct refusals, often justified with specific reasons. In contrast, higher-proficiency TELs use a more balanced mix of direct and indirect strategies, demonstrating greater flexibility and appropriateness in managing social interactions. Additionally, higher-proficiency learners are more inclined to use indirect strategies when refusing requests from individuals of higher social status, while lower-proficiency learners consistently use direct strategies regardless of social status.
    The results underscore the importance of integrating pragmatic competence into language education to better equip learners for effective communication in cross-cultural contexts. This study enhances the understanding of interlanguage pragmatics and offers valuable insights for future research in language education. The limitations of the study and suggestions for further research are also discussed.

    Chinese Abstract i English Abstract ii Acknowledgements iii List of Tables viii List of Figures ix Chapter 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Background of the study 1 1.2 Purpose and Significance of the Study 4 1.3 Structure of the Study 6 Chapter 2 Literature Review 7 2.1 Definitions of Refusal 7 2.2 Politeness Theory 9 2.3 Speech Act of Refusal 11 2.4 Refusals in Different Cultures 12 2.4.1 Empirical Studies on Refusals in Western Countries 16 2.4.2 Taiwanese Learners’ English Refusal Strategies 19 2.5 Variables Affecting Language Usage 21 2.5.1 Social Status 22 2.5.2 Imposition 23 2.5.3 Language Proficiency 25 2.6 The Gap Between the Current Research and Previous Studies 27 Chapter 3 Methodology 29 3.1 Research Design 29 3.2 Participants 30 3.3 Instrument 32 3.4 Procedures and Data Analysis 34 Chapter 4 Results 37 4.1 Overall findings 37 4.1.1 Frequency of Semantic Formulas 38 4.1.2 Order of Semantic Formulas 41 4.1.2.1 NESs’ Order of Semantic Formulas 41 4.1.2.2 TELs’ Order of Semantic Formulas 45 4.2 The Impact of Language Proficiency 52 4.2.1 Frequency of Semantic Formulas 52 4.2.2 Order of Semantic Formulas 55 4.2.2.1 High Achievers’ Order of Semantic Formulas 55 4.2.2.2 Low Achievers’ Order of Semantic Formulas 60 4.3 The Impact of Social Status 65 4.3.1 Frequency of Semantic Formulas 66 4.3.2 Order of Semantic Formulas 69 4.3.2.1 Orders in Responding to High-Status Scenarios 69 4.3.2.2 Orders in Responding to Equal-Status Scenarios 73 4.3.2.3 Orders in Responding to Low-Status Scenarios 77 4.4 The Impact of Imposition 82 4.4.1 Frequency of Semantic Formulas 82 4.4.2 Order of Semantic Formulas 85 4.4.2.1 Order of Semantic Formulas in High Imposition Scenarios 85 4.4.2.2 Order of Semantic Formulas in Low Imposition Scenarios 89 4.5 Summary 94 Chapter 5 Discussion 96 5.1 Interpretation of Key Findings 97 5.1.1 Differences in Refusal Strategies Among TELs with Different Proficiency Levels 97 5.1.2 Impact of English Proficiency on Refusal Strategies 99 5.1.3 Impact of Social Factors on Refusal Strategies 102 5.1.3.1 Different Social Statuses 103 5.1.3.2 Different Levels of Imposition 104 5.2 Implications of the Study 106 5.2.1 Theoretical Implications 106 5.2.2 Practical Implications 108 5.3 Summary 110 Chapter 6 Conclusion and Limitation 112 6.1 Conclusion 112 6.2 Limitations and Issues for Further Studies 114 Reference 117 Appendix A – DCT Questionnaire 122 Appendix B – High Achievers’ Background Information 124 Appendix C – Low Achievers’ Background Information 125

    陳超明[Chen, C.M.] (2019). 台灣的雙語政策是孩子的福氣，還是夢魘？[Is Taiwan’s bilingual policy a blessing or a nightmare for children?]. 親子天下 [Parenting World]. Retrieved from https://www.parenting.com.tw/article/5078613
    穆萱[Mu, X.] (2023). 加強英語教育是雙語政策成功的基石 [Strengthening English education as the cornerstone of successful bilingual policy]. 臺灣教育評論月刊 [Taiwan Journal of Education Review], 12(4), 94-98. Retrieved from https://www.airitilibrary.com/Article/Detail?DocID=P20130114001-N202304010020-00015
    Al-Eryani, A. A. (2007). Refusal strategies by Yemeni EFL learners. Asian EFL Journal, 9(2), 19-34.
    Al-Kahtani, S. A. W. (2005). Refusals realizations in three different cultures: A speech act theoretically-based cross-cultural study. Journal of King Saud University, 18(1), 35-37.
    Allami, H., & Naeimi, A. (2011). A cross-linguistic study of refusals: An analysis of pragmatic competence development in Iranian EFL learners. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(1), 385-406.
    Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford: Oxford University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198245537.001.0001
    Barešová, I. (2008). Politeness strategies in cross-cultural perspective: Study of American and Japanese employment rejection letters. Olomouc: Univerzita Palackého.
    Beebe, L. M., Takahashi, T., & Uliss-Weltz, R. (1990). Pragmatic transfer in ESL refusals. In R. Scarcella, E. Andersen, & S. D. Krashen (Eds.), On the development of communicative competence in a second language (pp. 55-73). New York: Newbury House.
    Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage (Vol. 4). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
    Bulut, D. (2003). Saying ‘No’ in a foreign language: Can you really do it. The Linguistic Association of Korea Journal, 11(3), 145-169.
    Campillo, P. S., Jordà, M. P. S., & Espurz, V. C. (2009). Refusal strategies: A proposal from a sociopragmatic approach. RAEL: revista electrónica de lingüística aplicada, (8), 139-150.
    Chang, Y. (2011). Refusing in a foreign language: An investigation of problems encountered by Chinese learners of English. Multilingua, 30(1), 71-98.
    Chang, Y. F. (2009). How to say no: an analysis of cross-cultural difference and pragmatic transfer. Language Sciences, 31(4), 477-493. doi:10.1016/j.langsci.2008.01.002
    Chen, H. J. (1996). Cross-cultural comparison of English and Chinese metapragmatics in refusal. Ph.D. Diss. Indiana University. Indiana University. (ERIC Document
    Chen, J., & Boonkongsaen, N. (2012). Compliment response strategies by Thai and Chinese EFL teachers: A contrastive study. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2(9), 1860-1867.
    Chen, S. C., & Chen, S. H. (2008). Cross-cultural study of refusal speech acts with American English and Taiwanese Mandarin. The Linguistic Journal, 2(2),1-29.
    Chen, X., Ye, L., & Zhang, Y. (1995). Refusing in Chinese. In G. Kasper (Ed.), Pragmatics of Chinese As a Native and Target Language (pp. 119-163). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’I Press.
    Chung, S. H. (2007). Refusal strategies used by Chinese and American college students. Kaohsiung Normal University Journal, (23), 85-107.
    Cohen, A. (1996). Developing the ability to perform speech acts. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 253-267. doi:10.1016/s0388-0001(96)00043-5

    Eslami, Z. R. (2010). Refusals: How to develop appropriate refusal strategies. In A. Martínez Flor & E. Usó-Juan (Eds.), Speech Act Performance: Theoretical, Empirical and Methodological Issues (pp. 217-236). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    Félix‐Brasdefer, J. C. (2004). Interlanguage refusals: Linguistic politeness and length of residence in the target community. Language Learning, 54(4), 587-653.
    Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2006). Linguistic politeness in Mexico: Refusal strategies among male speakers of Mexican Spanish. Journal of Pragmatics, 38(12), 2158-2187.
    Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2008). Sociopragmatic variation: Dispreferred responses in Mexican and Dominican Spanish. Journal of Politeness Research, (4), 81–110.
    Gass, S., & Houck, N. (1999). Interlanguage refusals: A cross cultural study of Japanese-English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    Genç, Z. S., & Tekyıldız, O. (2009). Use of refusal strategies by Turkish EFL learners and native speakers of English in urban and rural areas. Asian EFL Journal, 11(3), 299-328.
    Günay, C. (2019). Refusal Strategies of Preservice EFL Teachers in Four Speech Acts: Requests, Suggestions, Invitations, Offers (Master’s thesis, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü).
    Guo. Y. L. (2012). Chinese and American refusal strategy: A cross-cultural approach. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2(2), 247-256.
    Kwon, J. (2004). Expressing refusals in Korean and in American English. Multilingua, 23(4), 339-364.
    Li, H. L. (2007). A comparative study of refusal speech acts in Chinese and American English. Candian Social Science,3(4), 64-74.
    Liao, C. C., & Bresnahan, M. I. (1996). A contrastive pragmatic study on American English and Mandarin refusal strategies. Language Sciences, 18(3-4), 703-727.
    LoCastro, V. (2012). Pragmatics for Language Educators: A Sociolinguistic Perspective. New York, NY: Routledge.
    Masaeed K. A, Taguchi N, Tamimi M. (2020). Proficiency effects on L2 Arabic refusals: Appropriateness, linguistic strategies and multidialectal practices. Applied Pragmatics, 2(1), 26-53.
    Maybin, J., & Swamn, J. (2009). The Routledge Companion to English Language Studies. Landon and New York: Routledge.
    Mirzaee, A., & Esmaeili, M. (2013). The effects of planned instruction on Iranian L2 learners’ interlanguage pragmatic development. International Journal of Society, Culture & Language, 1(1), 89-100.
    Nelson, G., Carson, J., Al Batal, M., & El Bakary, W. (2002). Crosscultural pragmatics: Strategy use in Egyptian Arabic and American English refusals. Applied Linguistics, 23(2), 163-189.
    Rattanaprasert, T., &Aksornjarung, P. (2011). The study of relationship between learners’ knowledge about grammar and vocabulary and pragmatic competence: A case study of 1st year medical students. The 3rd International Conference on Humanities and Social Sciences, Faculty of Liberal Arts, Prince of Songkla University Reproduction Service No. ED 408860).
    Searle, J. (1969). Speech Acts. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
    Searle, J. R. (1975). Indirect speech acts. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts (pp. 59-82). New York: Academic Press.
    Tabatabaei, S., & Farnia, M. (2015). Learner’s English proficiency and their pragmatic competence of refusal speech acts. Beyond Words, 3(1), 53-77.
    Wolfson, N. (1981). Compliments in cross-cultural perspective. TESOL Quarterly,15(2), 117-124.
    Wolfson, N. (1983). Rules of speaking. In J. C. Richards & R. W. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and Communication (pp. 61-87). New York: Longman.
    Yang, Y. (2022). The effect of English proficiency on Chinese learners’ L2 refusals. Journal of Education, Humanities and Social Sciences, 3, 32-39.
    Živković, E. (2022). Pragmatic competence of advanced Serbian EFL learners: A study of refusal strategies. Philogia Mediana, 14 (14).

    QR CODE