Sociolinguistic Variation of Power and Severity in Interlanguage Behavior of Disagreement_

:::

詳目顯示

第 1 筆 / 總合 1 筆

/1頁

來源文獻資料
摘要
外文摘要
引文資料

題名：	Sociolinguistic Variation of Power and Severity in Interlanguage Behavior of Disagreement
書刊名：	高應科大人文社會科學學報
作者：	段惠珍
作者(外文)：	Tuan, Jeanne H.
出版日期：	2005
卷期：	2
頁次：	頁169-195
主題關鍵詞：	面子威脅；不贊同；權力；冒犯程度；中介言語行為；禮貌；Face threat；Disagreement；Power；Degree of severity；Interlanguage behavior；Politeness；English；Speech act
原始連結：	連回原系統網址
相關次數：	被引用次數:期刊(0) 博士論文(0) 專書(0) 專書論文(0) 排除自我引用:0 共同引用:0 點閱:8

本研究旨在比較臺灣英語學習者為舒緩或加強不贊同面子威脅力量所使用的策略及用語，以瞭解不同文化所造成差異。本研究經由角色扮演問卷調查進行語料收集，並以描述統計來分析不贊同語式與不同文化的語用差異 (pragmatic difference)。我們有以下幾點發現： 1.當美語為母語者扮演公司總裁對屬下所提出的計劃案表達不贊同時，大多先表達對屬下的努力與計劃肯定的看法(positive remarks)及感謝，然後在對此案進行批評。而大多數的臺灣英語學習者對屬下所提出計劃案直接進行批評，並鮮少使用肯定或感謝用語。 2.當美語為母語者扮演大學學生對教授的評分表達不贊同時，卻以批評教授評分不公或反駁教授對他們能力的否定，來捍衛自己的價值與能力。相反地，臺灣英語學習者在同一狀況時，則訴說自己得低分的心情感受，並且強調自己對此考試的重視與努力，進而要求教授再給自己補考的機會。 Brown & Levinson (1978; 1987)的禮貌理論中，權力地位與冒犯程度二因素可說明在自然情境裡，人們使用不同的策略與用語去表達不贊同，但不足解釋所有不贊同語式的產生。本研究則指出文化差異與說話者所回應的語式〈如不合理的指責〉亦會影響說話者選擇使用表達不贊同的策略及用語。

以文找文

The propose of this paper is to make a comparative study of act types of and politeness strategies for Turn 2 (T2) disagreements between American English native speakers and Taiwanese EFL learners in the institutionalized talks for better EFL/ESL teaching and learning. Two situations for disagreement are devised for college students in the United States and Taiwan to fill in what they would say when the disagree with the claim or assertion made by interlocutors with power differentials: the higher-status (a university professor) and the lower-status (an assistant). When disagreeing with the assistant, the Taiwanese speakers were found to employ more face-aggravating oppositional acts (challenges and contradiction) than the American participants do. In addition, the Taiwanese subjects applied less politeness strategies to disapprove of the assistant’s proposal than their American counterparts do. The use of the positive remark has been identified as an important preface to disagreement among the American participants. When disagreeing with the professor, quite the reverse, the American speakers used the act type of contradiction relatively higher than the other types of T2 disagreement and the proportion of use of aggravated disagreement rises. To the contrary, due to the influence L1 sociolinguistic rules, Taiwanese EFL speakers tended to resort to the strategies of complaints and make justifications on the time, work or effort to minimize threat to the professor. Severity of disagreement, demonstrated by different cultural groups, could have two opposite results: in one, politeness was increased to lessen face threat to the addressee (like American corporate executive’s disapproval of their assistant’s proposal and Taiwanese student’s disagreement with a professor’s assessment); in the other, face threat to the speaker outweighed considerations of the addressee’s face, leading to aggravated disagreement (in this case, American student’s disagreement with a professor’s assessment and Taiwanese corporate exeutives’ disapproval of their assistant’s proposal). Brown and Levinson’s (1987) factors of power and rating (=severity) can be used to understand some of the ways in which disagreement was expressed in the natural data, but these factors cannot be treated as formulaic variables, nor are they sufficient to account for all means for expressing disagreement. This study also highlights the significance of the type of act with degree of severity to which participants respond to their interlocutors with an asymmetrical power relation.

以文找文

期刊論文
1.	Brenneis, D.(1988)。Language and disputing。Annual Review of Anthropology，17，221-237。
2.	Edstrom, A.(2004)。Expressions of disagreement by Venezuelans in conversation: Reconsidering the influence of culture。Journal of Pragmatics，36，1499-1518。
3.	Fraser, B.(1990)。Perspectives on politeness。Journal of Pragmatics，14(2)，219-236。
4.	Hernández-Flores, N.(1999)。Politeness ideology in Spanish colloquial conversation: The case of advice。Pragmatics，9，37-49。
5.	Holtgraves, T.(1997)。Yes, but Positive politeness in conversation arguments。Journal of Language and Social Psychology，16，222-239。
6.	Janney, R. W.、Amdt, H.(1993)。Universality and relativity in cross-cultural politeness research: A historical perspective。Multilingua，12，13-50。
7.	Kotthoff, H.(1993)。Disagreement and concession in disputes: On the context sensitivity of preference structures。Language in Society，22，193-216。
8.	Muntigl, P.、Turnbull, W.(1998)。Conversational structure and facework in arguing。Journal of Pragmatics，29，225-256。
9.	Norrick, N.(1991)。On the organization of corrective exchanges in conversation。Journal of Pragmatics，16，59-83。
10.	Nwoye, O.(1992)。Linguistic politeness and socio-cultural variations of the notion of face。Journal of Pragmatics，18，309-328。
11.	Rees-Miller, J.(2000)。Power, severity, and context in disagreement。Journal of Pragmatics，32，1087-1111。
12.	Schegloff, E.、Sacks, H.(1973)。Opening up closings。Semioticay，8，289-327。
13.	Thomas, J. A.(1983)。Cross-cultural pragmatic failure。Applied Linguistics，4，91-112。
14.	Yeung, L. N. T.(2000)。The question of Chinese indirectness: A comparison of Chinese and English participative decision-making discourse。Multilingua，19(3)，221-264。
15.	Sacks, H.、Schegloff, E. A.、Jefferson, G.(1974)。A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation。Language，50，696-735。
16.	Matsumoto, Y.(1988)。Reexamination of the universality of face: Politeness phenomena in Japanese。Journal of Pragmatics，12，403-426。
17.	顧曰國(1990)。Politeness phenomena in Modern Chinese。Journal of Pragmatics，14(2)，237-257。

會議論文
1.	Beebe, L. M.、Cummings, M. C.(1985)。Speech act performance: A function of the data collection procedure。TESOL' 85。New York。
2.	Kakava, C.(1995)。Directness/indirectness in student-professor disagreement sequences: Issues of power and politeness。Annual AAAL Conference。Long Beach, CA.。
3.	Su, I-Ru(2003)。L1 and L2 interaction in requesting behavior。The 21st International Conference on English Teaching & Learning in the Republic of China。

圖書
1.	Antaki, C.(1994)。Explaining and arguing: The social organization of accounts。London：Thousand Oaks：Sage。
2.	Grimshaw, A. D.(1990)。Conflict talk: Sociolinguistic investigations in conversations。Cambridge：Cambridge University Press。
3.	Kasper, G.、Dahl, M.(1991)。Research methods in interlanguage pragmatics。Honolulu, HI：University of Hawaii Press。
4.	Omaggio-Hadley, A.(1993)。Teaching languages in context。Boston：Heinle & Heinle。
5.	Sacks, Harvey(1992)。Lectures on conversation。Oxford：Blackwell。
6.	Searle, J. R.、Kiefer, F.、Bierwisch, M.(1980)。Speech act theory and pragmatics。Dordrecht, Holland：D. Reidel Publishing Company。
7.	Thomas, J. A.(1995)。Meaning in interaction: An introduction to pragmatics。London：Longman。
8.	Geis, M. L.(1995)。Speech acts and conversational interaction。Cambridge University Press。
9.	Levinson, Stephen C.(1983)。Pragmatics。Cambridge。
10.	Bachman, Lyle F.(1990)。Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing。Oxford University Press。
11.	Austin, J. L.(1962)。How to do thing with words。Cambridge, MA：Harvard University Press。
12.	Blum-Kulka, S.、House, J.、Kasper, G.(1989)。Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies。Norwood, NJ：Ablex Publishing Corporation。
13.	Brown, Penelope、Levinson, Stephen C.(1987)。Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage。Cambridge University Press。
14.	Leech, Geoffrey Neill(1983)。Principles of Pragmatics。Longman。

圖書論文
1.	Beebe, L. M.、Takahashi, T.(1989)。Sociolinguistic variation in face-threatening speech acts: Chastisement and disagreement。The dynamic interlanguage: Empirical studies in second language variation。New York：Plenum Press。
2.	Bond, M.、Zegarac, V.、Spencer-Oastey, H.(2000)。Culture as an explanatory variable: Problems and possibilities。Culturally speaking: Managing rapport through talk across cultures。New York：Contiuum。
3.	Brown, P.、Levinson, S.(1978)。Universals of language usage: Politeness phenomena。Question and politeness。Cambridge：Cambridge University Press。
4.	Fraser, B.(1985)。On the universality of speech act strategies。From the linguistic to the social context。Bologna：CLUEB。
5.	Goodwin, C.、Goodwin, M. H.(1990)。Interstitial argument. Conflict talk: sociolinguistic investigations in conversation。Conflict talk: sociolinguistic investigations in conversation。Cambridge, UK：Cambridge University。
6.	Günthner, S.(2000)。Argumentation and resulting problems in the negotiation of rapport in a German-Chinese conversation。Culturally speaking: Managing rapport through talk across cultures。New York：Contiuum。
7.	Hymes, D.(1968)。The ethnography of speaking。Readings in the sociology of language。The Hague：Mouton。
8.	Murphy, B.、Neu, J.(1996)。My grade’s too low: The speech act set of complaining。Speech acts across cultures。New York：Mouton de Gruyter。
9.	Spencer-Oatey, H.(2000)。Rapport management: a framework for analysis。Culturally speaking: Managing rapport through talk across cultures。New York：Contiuum。
10.	Zhang, Y.(1995)。Indirectness in Chinese requesting。Pragmatics of Chinese as a native and target language。University of Hawai'i Press。
11.	Pomerantz, Anita(1984)。Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes。Structures of social action: studies in conversation analysis。Cambridge：Cambridge University Press。
12.	Paul, Grice H.(1975)。Logic and Conversation。Syntax and Semantics, vol. 3: Speech Acts。New York：Academic Press。
13.	Takahashi, T.、Beebe, L.(1993)。Cross-linguistic influence in the speech act of correction。Interlanguage pragmatics。New York：Oxford University Press。
14.	Du, J. S.(1995)。Performance of face-threatening acts in Chinese: Complaining, giving bad news, and disagreeing。Pragmatics of Chinese as a native and target language。Manoa, Hawai'i：University of Hawai'i Press。

推文
推薦
引用網址
引用嵌入語法
轉寄

top

:::

相關期刊
相關論文
相關專書
相關著作
熱門點閱

1.	Analysis of Responses to Face-Threatening Speech Acts: American and Taiwanese English

無相關博士論文

無相關書籍

無相關著作

無相關點閱

QR Code

臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫系統

詳目顯示

臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫