簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

回結果列表
研究生： 劉姿穎
Liu Zi-ying
論文名稱： 台灣大學生華語道歉策略之性別差異分析
A Pragmatic Study on Sex Differences in Mandarin Apology Strategies of Taiwanese Undergraduate Students
指導教授： 呂菁菁
Lu, Ching Ching
口試委員:
學位類別： 碩士
Master
系所名稱：
論文出版年： 2009
畢業學年度： 97
語文別： 英文
論文頁數： 117
中文關鍵詞： 道歉策略 、性別差異 、文化 、華語
外文關鍵詞： apology strategies, gender differences, culture, Mandarin
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

    • Much of the pragmatic research has discussed the similarities and differences of the apologetic behavior between native American English speakers and other language speakers, such as Japanese, Polish, Hungarian, Russian, Sudanese Arabic, Jordanian Arabic, and Italian. However, there are only few studies which discuss Taiwanese apology strategies in Mandarin on gender differences and fewer that give a further discussion of other studies on apology strategies of undergraduate students. Therefore, the aim of this study attempts to investigate the apologetic behavior of native Chinese speakers based on the gender differences. In this research, a DCT questionnaire is used to collect data for analysis. Subjects who participated in this study were one hundred university students (50 males and 50 females). The different strategies Taiwanese respondents use not only reveal the within-cultural differences but also indicate the important role “gender” plays in its speaker’s speech act performance. The results of the present study are presented as follows:
    1. Women tend to employ more apology strategies than men do in overall situation.
    2. Women give and receive more the strategy ‘IFIDs’ than men do.
    3. Women give and receive more the strategy ‘Code-switching IFIDs’ than men do.
    4. Men employ more frequently the strategy ‘Non-apology’ than women, particularly in men to male gender relationship.
    5. Women are inclined to employ indirect ‘Compensation’ and ‘Reparation’, while men are inclined to employ these strategies in a direct way.
    6. In the “possession” and “miscommunication” offenses, both men and women employ more frequently the strategy ‘Acknowledgment of responsibility’ to female addressees. In the “time” offense, men to male addressees employ most frequently this strategy among the four gender relationships. And, in the “standing someone up” situation, either men or women would like to admit their wrong doing.
    7. Both men and women are inclined to employ more ‘informal’ or ‘impolite’ form of apology strategies to family members.
    8. When apologizing to a group of people under the setting of “time” offense and “standing someone up”, they tend to employ the strategy ‘IFIDs’ and ‘Accounts’. On the contrary, they are prone to employ the strategy ‘Code-switching IFIDs’ and ‘Acknowledgment of responsibility’ when apologizing to a person.

    已有許多語用學的研究討論道歉行為在英語為母語的人士與以其他語言為母語的人士之間的相似性及差異性，比如日語、波蘭語、匈牙利語、俄語、蘇丹阿拉伯語、約旦阿拉伯語以及義大利語。然而，卻很少有研究討論台灣大學生華語道歉策略上的性別差異且進一步探討關於其他大學生道歉策略的研究。因此，本研究旨在探討以華語為母語的說話者在道歉行為上的性別差異。本文的語料收集以DCT問卷發放的方式進行，受試者為一百位大學生 (男女各五十位)。台灣受試者使用不同的道歉策略不僅顯示出文化內的差異也指出「性別」在說話者的言語行為表現上扮演著一個重要的角色。其研究結果如下：
    1. 在所有的情境中，女性比男性傾向使用較多的道歉策略。
    2. 女性傾向給予跟接受較多的IFID策略。
    3. 女性傾向給予跟接受較多的Code-switching IFIDs策略。
    4. 男性比女性更常使用「不道歉」策略，由其是處在男說話者對男聽話者的性別關係時。
    5. 女性傾向使用間接式的「賠償」及「補償」策略，而男性則傾向使用直接式的道歉策略。
    6. 在『所有物』及『誤會』的冒犯情境下，男性及女性都傾向對女聽話者使用較多的「負責」策略。在『時間』的冒犯情境下，男說話者對男聽話者則使用最多。在『放鴿子』的冒犯情境下，不管是男性還是女性都不願承認有錯。
    7. 男性及女性都傾向對家庭成員使用較「非正式」、「不禮貌」的道歉策略。
    8. 處在『時間』及『放鴿子』的冒犯情境時，所有的受試者都傾向對一群人使用IFID及「解釋」策略；對個人使用Code-switching IFIDs及「負責」策略。

    ABSTRACT..................................................i 摘要......................................................ii TABLEOFCONTENTS..........................................iii LIST OF TABLES.............................................v CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 1.1 Rationale.............................................1 1.2 Statement of the problem..............................3 1.3 Purpose and significance of the study.................4 Overview of the Chapters..................................5 CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Politeness Theory.....................................6 2.1.1 Western Concepts of Face and Politeness.............7 2.1.2 Chinese Concepts of Face and Politeness.............9 2.1.3 Criticisms of Politeness Theory.....................12 2.2 Communication Styles..................................18 2.2.1 Culture.............................................18 2.2.2 Gender..............................................19 2.3 Apologies and Cultures................................20 2.4 Apologies and Gender..................................21 2.5 Apology Strategies....................................22 2.6 Apology Strategies Used in the Present Study..........28 CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY 3.1 The Adoption of Questionnaire.........................39 3.1.1 The design of questionnaire.........................40 3.2 Subjects..............................................43 3.3 Instrumentation.......................................44 3.4 Data Collection and Data Analysis.....................44 CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS 4.1 Overall Description...................................47 4.2 The Distribution of Strategy Use by MM, MF, FM, and FF in the Four Types of Offense..............................51 4.3 The Distribution of Strategy Use by MM, MF, FF and FM.59 4.3.1 The variable of intimacy............................60 4.3.2 The variable of the offended party..................65 4.4 General Discussion....................................74 4.4.1 The First Finding...................................74 4.4.2 The Second Finding..................................76 4.4.3 The Third Finding...................................79 4.4.4 The Fourth Finding..................................82 4.4.5 The Fifth Finding...................................85 4.4.6 The Sixth Finding...................................88 4.4.7 The Seventh Finding.................................90 4.4.8 The Eighth Finding..................................93 CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION 5.1 A Discussion of Bataineh and Bataineh’s findings (2005)99 5.2 A Discussion of Li’s findings (2006)................103 5.3 A Discussion of Chen’s findings (2008)..............104 CHAPTER SIX: CONCLUSION 6.1 Summary..............................................107 6.2 Contribution.........................................110 6.3 Limitations and Suggestions for Further Studies......111 REFERENCES...............................................112 APPENDICES...............................................116

    REFERENCES
    Bataineh, R. F., & Bataineh, R. F. (2005). American university students’ apology strategies: An intercultural analysis of the effect of gender. Journal of Intercultural Communication, 9, 1404-1634.
    Bataineh, R. F., & Bataineh, R. F. (2006). Apology strategies of Jordanian EFL university students. Journal of Pragmatics, 38(11), 1901-1927.
    Bataineh, R. F., & Bataineh, R. F. (2008). A cross-cultural comparison of apologies by native speakers of American English and Jordanian Arabic. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(4), 792-821.
    Bergman, M.L., & Kasper, G. (1993). Perception and performance in native and nonnative apology. In G. Kasper, & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics (pp. 82-107). New York: Oxford University Press.
    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.
    Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: some universals in language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Chen, R. (2001). Self-politeness: A proposal. Journal of Pragmatics, 33(1), 87-106.
    Chen, H.-p. (2008). A sociopragmatic study on gender differences in apologetic strategies. M.A Thesis. Fu Jen Catholic University.
    Fraser, B. (1981). On apologizing. In F. Coulmas, Conversational routine. The Hague: Mouton. 259-271.
    Fraser, B. (1990). Perspectives on politeness. Journal of Pragmatics, 14(2), 219-236.
    Gao, G. (1998). An initial analysis of the effects of face and concern for “other” in Chinese interpersonal communication. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 22(4), 467-482.
    Goffman, E. (1967). Interactional ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. Garden City, NY: Anchor& Doubleday.
    Gu, Y. (1990). Politeness phenomena in modern Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics, 14(2), 237-257.
    Guan, X., Park, H. S., et al. (2009). Cross-cultural differences in apology. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 33(1), 32-45.
    Hill, B., Ide, S., et al. (1986). Universals of linguistic politeness: Quantitative evidence from Japanese and American English. Journal of Pragmatics, 10(3), 347-371.
    Ho, D. Y.-f. (1976). On the Concept of Face. American Journal of Sociology, 81(4), 867-884.
    Holmes, J. (1988). Paying compliments: A sex-preferential politeness strategy. Journal of Pragmatics, 12(3), 445-65.
    Holmes, J. (1989). Sex differences and apologies: One aspect of communicative competence. Applied Linguistics, 10, 194-213.
    Holmes, J. (1990). Apologies in New Zealand English. Language in Society, 19 (2), 155-199.
    Hu, H. C. (1944). The Chinese concepts of ‘face’. American Anthropologist, 46 (1), 45- 64.
    Hua, Z., Wei, L., et al. (2000). The sequential organization of gift offering and acceptance in Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics, 32(1), 81-103.
    Ide, S. (1982). Japanese sociolinguistics politeness and women’s language. Lingua, 57, 357-385.
    Ide, S. (1989). Formal forms and discernment: Two neglected aspects of linguistic politeness. Multilingua, 8(2/3), 223-248.
    Johnstone, B., Ferrara, K., et al. (1992). Gender, politeness, and discourse management in same-sex and cross-sex opinion-poll interviews. Journal of Pragmatics, 18(5), 405-430.
    Kasper, G. (1990). "Linguistic politeness: : Current research issues." Journal of Pragmatics, 14(2), 193-218.
    Kádár, D. (2007). On historical Chinese apology and its strategic application. Journal of Politeness Research, 3, 125-150.
    Lakoff, R. (1973). Language and women’s place. Language in Society, 2, 45-80.
    Leech, G. (2007). Politeness: Is there an East-West divide? Journal of Politeness Research, 3, 167-206.
    Li, Y. (2006). A Comparative Study of Apology Strategy among Chinese and American Undergraduates. Researches in Medical Education, 5(4), 314-315.
    Liao, C.-c. (1994a). A study on the strategies, maxims, and development of refusal in Mandarin Chinese. Crane, Taipei.
    Liao, C.-c. (1996). A contrastive study of culture and sex in the use of post-refusal maxims. Journal of Feng Chia University, 30, 29-62.
    Liao, C.-c. and M. I. Bresnahan (1996). A contrastive pragmatic study on American English and Mandarin refusal strategies. Language Sciences, 18(3-4), 703-727.
    Ma, R. (1996). Saying "yes" for "no" and "no" for "yes": A Chinese rule. Journal of Pragmatics, 25(2), 257-266.
    Mao, L. R. (1994). Beyond politeness theory: `Face' revisited and renewed. Journal of Pragmatics, 21(5), 451-486.
    Matsumoto, Y. (1988). Reexamination of the universality of face: Politeness phenomena in Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics, 12(4), 403-426.
    Matsumoto, Y. (1989). Politeness and conversational universals−observations from Japanese. Multilingua, 8(2/3), 207-221.
    Meier, A. J. (1995). Passages of politeness. Journal of Pragmatics, 24(4), 381-392.
    Nureddeen, F. A. (2008). Cross cultural pragmatics: Apology strategies in Sudanese Arabic. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(2), 279-306.
    Nwoye, O. G. (1992). Linguistic politeness and socio-cultural variations of the notion of face. Journal of Pragmatics, 18(4), 309-328.
    Pizziconi, B. (2003). Re-examining politeness, face and the Japanese language. Journal of Pragmatics, 35(10-11), 1471-1506.
    Sugimoto, N. (1997). A Japan-U.S. comparison of apology styles. Communication Research, 24(4), 349-370.
    Suszczynska, M. (1999). Apologizing in English, Polish and Hungarian: Different languages, different strategies. Journal of Pragmatics, 31(8), 1053-1065.
    Tannen, D. (1990). You just don’t understand: Women and men in conversation. New York: William Morrow.
    Thomas, J. (1984). Cross-cultural discourse as “unequal encounter”: towards a pragmatic analysis. Applied Linguistics, 5, 226-235.
    Wierzbicka, A. (1985). Different cultures, different languages, different speech acts : Polish vs. English. Journal of Pragmatics, 9(2-3), 145-178.
    Wouk, F. (2006). The language of apologizing in Lombok, Indonesia. Journal of Pragmatics, 38(9), 1457-1486.
    Yu, M.-c. (2003). On the universality of face: evidence from Chinese compliment response behavior. Journal of Pragmatics, 35(10-11), 1679-1710.

    無法下載圖示 全文公開日期 本全文未授權公開 (校內網路)
    全文公開日期 本全文未授權公開 (校外網路)
    全文公開日期 本全文未授權公開 (國家圖書館：臺灣博碩士論文系統)
    QR CODE