政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/131439

政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/131439

English | 正體中文 | 简体中文 | Post-Print筆數 : 27 | 全文筆數/總筆數 : 113303/144284 (79%)
造訪人次 : 50825694 線上人數 : 855

RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.

搜尋範圍

查詢小技巧：

您可在西文檢索詞彙前後加上"雙引號"，以獲取較精準的檢索結果

若欲以作者姓名搜尋，建議至進階搜尋限定作者欄位，可獲得較完整資料

進階搜尋

主頁 ‧ 登入 ‧ 上傳 ‧ 說明 ‧ 關於政大典藏 ‧ 管理

到手機版

政大機構典藏 > 外國語文學院 > 英國語文學系 > 學位論文 > Item 140.119/131439

請使用永久網址來引用或連結此文件: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/131439

題名:	台灣高中英文教科書語言行為之研究 —以「邀請」、「不同意」為例 An Analysis of the Presentation of the Speech Acts of Invitation and Disagreement in Taiwanese English Textbooks for Senior High Schools in Taiwan
作者:	吳沛芸 Wu, Pei-Yun
貢獻者:	余明忠 Yu, Ming-Chung 吳沛芸 Wu, Pei-Yun
關鍵詞:	教科書評鑑語言行為邀請不同意 Textbook Evaluation Speech Acts Invitation Disagreement
日期:	2020
上傳時間:	2020-09-02 11:33:52 (UTC+8)
摘要:	近幾年來，隨著溝通能力的看重，語言行為在教科書當中的重要性也與日俱增，不過針對「邀請」與「不同意」兩種語言行為在三民、龍騰高中英文教科書當中的相關研究仍是十分匱乏。因此，本研究的目的主要分析「邀請」與「不同意」在兩版本六冊教科書中的次數分佈及呈現情形，是否符合美國人的使用習慣，並進一步檢視兩版本教科書及其對應的教師手冊是否有提供跨文化解釋。本研究以理論為基礎，計算並分類兩版本中「邀請」與「不同意」的使用策略及回應的方式，以卡方檢定探究，試圖找出台灣教科書及美國人使用最為頻繁的策略，並予以比較。研究結果發現，「邀請」出現在兩版本的次數分佈沒有明顯差異，而「不同意」則有明顯的差異。另外，兩種語言行為在兩版本教科書的使用策略大都符合美國人的使用習慣。不過，兩版本和教師手冊提供的跨文化解釋非常有限。本研究也建議未來研究者不僅可以涵蓋108年新課綱的新版本教科書，探討「邀請」與「不同意」的次數及呈現情形，而母語的正向或負向語言移轉或不同世代的語言使用習慣對於策略的選擇及使用頻率的影響都是未來可研究的方向。 The speech acts in textbooks have gained considerable significance with the focus on communicative competence, but there have not been sufficient investigations on the speech acts of invitations and disagreements in the two series of senior high school English textbooks published by Textbook San Min and Textbook Lung Teng. Therefore, the study aims to examine the frequency and presentation of invitations and disagreements and see the presentation of the American convention of employing the speech acts. Also, explanations of cultural differences in textbooks and their corresponding teachers’ manuals are studied as well. This research was conducted through the quantitative analysis of Pearson’s chi-square tests to compare the two series of textbooks and to see whether they correspond to American ways of employing the two speech acts. The results of this study showed that there were almost no discrepancies in the distribution of frequency in terms of the speech act of invitations while there were discrepancies in terms of the frequency of disagreements. Besides, both speech acts were mostly presented in American ways. However, limited explanations of cultural differences between American and Chinese were provided in the two series of senior high school English textbooks and their corresponding teachers’ manuals. Suggestions for the inclusion of the 108 new curricula are made, not just based on the frequency and presentation of the speech acts but also on insights derived from the influence of the L1 positive or negative language transfer or the influence of language conventions in different generations on the choice and frequency of strategy use.
參考文獻:	Allwright, R. L. (1981). What do we want teaching materials for. ELT Journal, 36(1), 5-18. Angouri, J., & Locher, M. A. (2012). Theorising disagreement. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(12), 1549-1553. Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Beebe, L.M., & Takahashi, T. (1989). Sociolinguistic variation in face-threatening speech acts: Chastisement and disagreement. In M. R. Eisenstein (Ed.), The dynamic interlanguage: Empirical studies in second language variation (pp. 199-218). New York: Plenum. Beebe, L. M., Takahashi, T., & Uliss-Weltz, R. (1990). Pragmatic transfers in ESL refusals. In R. C. Scarcella, E. S. Andersen, & S. D. Krashen (Eds.), Developing communicative competence in a second language (pp. 55-73). Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle. Bella, S., & Moser, A. (2018). What`s in a first? The link between impromptu invitations and their responses. Journal of Pragmatics, 125, 96-110. Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G. (1989). Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies (Vol. 31). Ablex Pub. Brown, J.D. (1995). The elements of language curriculum: A systematic approach to program development. Boston: Heinle & Heinle. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1978). Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. In E. N. Goody (Eds.), Questions and politeness: Strategies in social interaction (pp. 56-289). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brown, P., Levinson, S. C., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage (Vol. 4). Cambridge University Press. Campbell, R., & Wales, R. (1970). The study of language acquisition. New horizons in linguistics, 1, 242-260. Candlin, C. N., & Breen, M. P. (1979). Evaluating, adapting and innovating language teaching materials. In C. Yorio, K. Perkins, & J. Schacter (Eds.), On TESOL’ 79: The Learner in focus (pp. 86-108). Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED208683) Canale, M. (1983). From communicative competence to communicative language pedagogy. In J. C. Richards & R. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and communication (pp. 2-27). London: Longman. Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1-47. Chamber, F. (1997). Seeking consensus in coursebook evaluation. ELT Journal, 51(1), 29-35. Chan, Y. W. (詹雨薇) (2004). Junior high school English teachers’ ideas of current English textbooks in Tainan county. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Kaohsiung Normal University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan. Chang, Y. F. (2009). How to say no: An analysis of cross-cultural difference and pragmatic transfer. Language Sciences, 31(4), 477-493. Chao, Y. R. (1968). A Grammar of Spoken Chinese. University of California Press, Berkeley. Chen, C. S. (陳慶昇) (2003). Reflections of elementary school teachers on the use of English textbooks in Taipei city. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Kaohsiung Normal University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan. Chen, S. H. (陳司樺) (2010). EFL speech act teaching: Analysis of senior high school English textbooks in Taiwan. Unpublished ETMA’s thesis, National Chengchi University, Taipei, Taiwan. Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/11296/6gpkzm Cheng, W., & Tsui, A. B. (2009). ‘ahh ((laugh)) well there is no comparison between the two I think’: How do Hong Kong Chinese and native speakers of English disagree with each other?. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(11), 2365-2380. Chui, K. (2002). Ritualization in evolving pragmatic functions: A case study of DUI. Language and linguistics, 3(4), 645-663. Cobuild, C. (2001). English grammar. (T.Y. Nguyen, Trans.). Ho Chi Minh City: Ho Chi Minh City Publishing House. Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational Psychological Measurement, 20, 37-46. Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2014). What does grammar tells us about action? Pragmatics, 24, 623-647. Crible, L., & Pascual, E. (2020). Combinations of discourse markers with repairs and repetitions in English, French and Spanish. Journal of Pragmatics, 156, 54-67. Cunningsworth, A. (1995). Choosing your coursebook. Oxford: Heinemann. Davidson, J. (1984). Subsequent versions of invitations, offers, requests and proposals dealing with potential or actual rejection. In: Maxwell Atkinson, J., Heritage, J. (Eds.), Structures of social interaction (pp. 102-128). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. De Stefani, E. (2018). Institutional invitations to a meeting: Cold calls to bank clients. Journal of Pragmatics, 125, 180-199. Diaz, L., & Heining-Boynton, A. L. (1995). Multiple intelligences, multiculturalism, and the teaching of culture. International Journal of Educational Research, 23(7), 607-617. Dogancay-Aktuna, S., & 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, March 23-26, 1996). Drew, P., 2013a. Turn design. In: Stivers, T., Sidnell, J. (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis, 131-149. Drew, P., 2013b. Conversation analysis and social action. Journal of Foreign Languages (Shanghai, PR China) 37, 2-20. Drew, P. (2018). Equivocal invitations (in English). Journal of Pragmatics, 125, 62-75. Drew, P., & Chilton, K. (2000). Calling just to keep in touch: Regular and habitualized telephone calls as an environment for small talk. In: Coupland, J. (Ed.), Small Talk. Harlow, UK: Longman/Pearson Education, 137-162. Dulay, H., & Burt, M. (1974a). Errors and strategies in child second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 8, 129-136. Dunkel, P. (1991). Listening in the native and second/foreign language: Toward an integration of research and practice. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 431-457. Ellis, R. (1997). The empirical evaluation of language teaching materials. ELT journal, 51(1), 36-42. Eshreteh, M. K. (2014). A cross-cultural socio-pragmatic study of invitations in Palestinian Arabic and American English (Doctoral dissertation, Universidad Complutense de Madrid). Farnia, M., & Wu, X. (2012). An intercultural communication study of Chinese and Malaysian university students` refusal to invitation. International Journal of English Linguistics, 2(1), 162. Flowerdew, J., & Miller, L. (2005). Second language listening: Theory and practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Ganter, E. (2016). Accepting the representative invitation. In Reluctant Representatives: Blackfella bureaucrats speak in Australia’s north (pp. 53-88). Australia: ANU Press. Retrieved April 1, 2020, from www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1rqc9f9.8 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, 217-239. Han, Y. S. (1995). A pragmatic analysis of the BA particle in Mandarin Chinese. J. Chin. Linguist, 23(2), 99-127. He, D., & Zhang, Q. (2010). Native speaker norms and China English: From the perspective of learners and teachers in China. TESOL Quarterly, 769-789. Heritage, J. (2015). Well-prefaced turns in English conversation: a conversation analytic perspective. Journal of Pragmatics, 88, 88-104. Holtgraves, T. (2005). The production and perception of implicit performatives. Journal of Pragmatics, 37(12), 2024-2043. House, J., & Kasper, G. (1981). Politeness markers in English and German. In F. Coulmas (Ed.), Conversational routine: Explorations in standardized communication situations and prepatterned speech (pp. 157-185). New York, NY: Mouton. Hsu, Y. P. (2010). Evaluating a set of junior high school English textbooks with criteria developed on the basis of CLT principles. (Unpublished master’s thesis). Ming Chuan University, Taoyuan, Taiwan. Retrieved from https://reurl.cc/bDxgl Huang, L. W. (黃良微) (2003). Vocational high school teachers’ perceptions and use of the English textbooks in southern Taiwan. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Kaohsiung Normal University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan. Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/11296/efjyc6 Hurn, B. J., & Tomalin, B. (2013). The Effect of Culture on International Negotiations. In Cross-Cultural Communication (pp. 162-190). Palgrave Macmillan, London. Hurn, B. J., & Tomalin, B. (2013). Teaching Cross-Cultural Communication. In Cross-Cultural Communication (pp. 274-293). Palgrave Macmillan, London. Hutchinson, T., & Torres, E. (1994). The textbook as agent of change. ELT Journal, 48(4), 315-328. Hymes, D. H. (1972). On communicative competence. In J. B. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds.), Sociolinguistics (pp. 269-293). London: Penguin. Isaacs, E. A., & Clark, H. H. (1990). Ostensible invitations. Language in society, 19(4), 493-509. Jawad, R. T., & Habeeb, R. T. (2013). Strategies of accepting invitations and offers in Arabic and English: A cross-cultural study. Journal of Tikrit University for the Humanities, 20(12), 509-543. Jenkins, J. (2009). English as a lingua franca: Interpretations and attitudes. World Englishes, 28(2), 200-207. Kádár, D. Z. (2007). Terms of (im) politeness: A study of communicational properties of traditional Chinese (im) polite terms of address (Vol.2). Eötvös Loránd University Press. Kádár, D. Z. (2008). Power and (im)politeness in traditional Chinese criminal investigations. In: Sun, H., Kádár, D. (Eds.), It’s the dragon’s turn: Chinese institutional discourses. Peter Lang, Berne, 127-179. Kasper, G. (1992). Pragmatic transfer. Second Language Research, 8, 203-231. Kasper, G. (1995). Developmental issues in interlanguage pragmatics. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 149-169. Kinjo, H. (1987). Oral refusals of invitations and requests in English and Japanese (Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles). Kirkbride, P. S., Tang, S. F., & Westwood, R. I. (1991). Chinese conflict preferences and negotiating behaviour: Cultural and psychological influences. Organization studies, 12(3), 365-386. Ku, C. H. (古青翔) (2015). An analysis of learning materials for speech acts in English textbooks for vocational high schools. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Taipei University of Technology, Taipei, Taiwan. Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/11296/u9s8jm Kuo, S. H. (1992). Formulaic opposition markers in Chinese conflict talk. Georgetown University Round Table on Language and Linguistics (pp. 388-402). Kwon, J. (2004). Expressing refusals in Korean and in American English. Multilingual, 23, 339-364. Lafayette, R., & Strasheim, L. (1981). Foreign language curricula and materials for the twenty-first century. In Proceedings of the National conference on Professional Priorities (pp. 29-34). Hastings-on-Hudson, NY: American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. Lai, S. Y. (賴思羽) (2017). An analysis of speech act behavior in senior high school English textbooks in Taiwan. Unpublished ETMA’s thesis, National Chengchi University, Taipei, Taiwan. Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/11296/7kcy7j Lakoff, R. T. (1973). The logic of politeness: Minding your p`s and q`s. Papers from the Ninth Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, 292-305.  Lawrence, W. P. W. (2011). Textbook evaluation: A framework for evaluating the fitness of the Hong Kong New Secondary School (NSS) curriculum. Unpublished master’s thesis. University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong. Retrieved from http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/Thesis/Thesis-Wong.pdf Le Huy Lam. (2000). Đàm thoại tiếng Anh trong mọi tình huống. Ca Mau City: Ca Mau Publisher. Lee, C. C., Lin, C. H., & Wang, W. C. (2011). Thinking of the textbook in the ESL/EFL classroom. English Language Teaching, 4(2), 91-96. Retrieved from http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/elt/article/viewFile/10773/7830 Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. New York, NY: Longman. Li, C. N., & Thompson, S. A. (1981). Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar. University of California Press, Berkeley. Li, C. N., & Thompson, S. A. (1989). Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar (Vol. 3). University of California Press, Berkeley. Li, H. C. (李筱晴) (2003). Predicative evaluation, use, and retrospective evaluation of an EFL textbook by junior high school teachers. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan. Li, Y. C. (李玉琪) (2003). Effects of the ‘focus on form’ approach on EFL learning in an immersion program in Taiwan. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Tsing Hua University, Hsinchu, Taiwan. Liao, C. C. (廖靖綺) (1999). The study of textbook and teaching methods usage by secondary school English teachers. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan. Lin, C. Y. (林嘉瑜) (2005). Teaching speech acts in high school: An analysis of English textbooks. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Tsing Hua University, Hsinchu, Taiwan. Littlejohn, A. (1998). The analysis of language teaching materials: Inside the Trojan Horse. In B. Tomlinson, (Ed.), Materials development in language teaching (pp.190-216). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Liu, S. (2004). Pragmatic strategies and power relations in disagreement: Chinese culture in higher education. Universal-Publishers. Lu, E. (2006). The semantic and pragmatic account of the Chinese word hao. Journal of Suihua University, 2. Lu, S. (1980) (2004). Xiandai hanyu babai ci [800 words in Modern Chinese]. Beijing: Shangwu. Luu Quy Khuong. (2007). An investigation into spoken direct invitations in English and Vietnamese. Retrieved April 11, 2012 from http://www.khsdh.udn.vn/zipfiles/so23/23khuong_luu-20quy_loi_moi_truc_tiep.doc. Lyuh, I. (1992). The art of refusal: comparison of Korean and American cultures. Unpublished manuscript. Indiana. Maíz-Arévalo, C. (2014). Exing disagreement in English as a lingua franca: Whose pragmatic rules?. Intercultural Pragmatics, 11(2), 199-224. Makri-Tsilipakou, M. (1991). Agreement/Disagreement: Affiliative vs. Disaffiliative Display in Cross-Sex Conversations (Unpublished PhD Thesis). Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. Matsuda, A. (2003). Incorporating world Englishes in teaching English as an international language. TESOL Quarterly, 37(4), 719-729. Meurant, R. C. (2010). EFL/ESL textbook selection in Korea and East Asia-relevant issues and literature review. Communications in Computer and Information Science, 75, 89-102. Retrieved from https://reurl.cc/lgXrQ Miracle, W. C. (1991). Discourse markers in Mandarin Chinese (Doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University). Müller, S. (2004). ‘Well you know that type of person’: functions of well in the speech of American and German students. Journal of pragmatics, 36(6), 1157-1182. Nelson, G. L., Carson, J. Al-Batal, M. & El-Bakary, W. (2002). Cross-cultural pragmatics: Strategy use in Egyptian Arabic and American English refusals. Applied Linguistics, 23, 163-189. Noordin, N., & Samad, A. A. (2005). Examining the importance of EST and ESL textbook and materials: Objectives, content and form. English for Specific Purposes World, 4(9). Retrieved from http://www.esp-world.info/articles_9/textbooks.html Odlin, T. (2003). Cross-linguistic influence. In C. Doughty & M. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 436-486). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. Olshtain, E., & Weinbach, L. (1993). Interlanguage features of the speech act of complaining. In Blum-Kulka & Kasper (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics (pp. 108-122). New York: Oxford University Press. Pomerantz, A. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/ dispreferred turn shapes. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis, (pp. 57-101). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rees-Miller, J. (2000). Power, severity, and context in disagreement. Journal of pragmatics, 32(8), 1087-1111. Richards, J. (1983). Listening comprehension: Approach, design, procedure. TESOL Quarterly, 17, 219-239. Richards, J. (2001). Curriculum development in language teaching. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Robinett, B. (1978). Teaching English to speakers of other languages: Substance and technique. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Routarine, S., & Tainio, L. (2018). Sequence and turn design of invitations in Finnish telephone calls. Journal of Pragmatics,125, 149-163. Sacks, H. (1987). On the preferences for agreement and contiguity in sequences in conversation. In: Button, G., Lee, J.R.E. (Eds.), Talk and Social Organization. Multilingual Matters, Clevendon, England, 54-69. Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on Conversation, 2. Blackwell, Oxford. Sato, S. (2008). Use of “please” in American and New Zealand English. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(7), 1249-1278. Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse markers (No. 5). Cambridge University Press. Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Searle, J. R. (1979). Expression and meaning: Studies in the theory of speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sheldon, L. E. (1988). Evaluating ELT textbooks and materials. ELT Journal, 42(4), 237-246. Skierso, A. (1991). Textbook selection and evaluation. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (pp. 432-453). Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle. Spencer, O. (2000). Rapport management: A framework for analysis. In H. Spencer-Oatey (Ed.), Culturally speaking: Managing rapport through talk across cultures (pp. 11-46). London and New York: Continuum. Spencer, O. (2008). Face (im) politeness and rapport. In: Spencer-Oatey, Helen (Ed.), Culturally speaking: Culture, communication and politeness theory (pp.11-47). London: Continuum. Spencer, O. (2009). Face, identity and interactional goals. In: Bargiela-Chiappini, Francesca, Haugh, Michael (Eds.), Face, communication and social interaction. Equinox, London, 137-154. Strasheim, L. A. (1981). Language Is the Medium, Culture Is the Message: Globalizing Foreign Languages. Taguchi, N. (2007). Task difficulty in oral speech act production. Applied linguistics, 28(1), 113-135. Takahashi, T., & Beebe, L. M. (1987). The development of pragmatic competence by Japanese learners of English. JALT Journal, 8, 131-155. Takahashi, T., & Beebe, L. M. (1993). Cross-linguistic influence in the speech act of correction. In G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage Pragmatics (pp.138-157). London: Oxford University Press. Tanaka, H. (2016). Lexico-grammatical structures of agreements with assessments in English conversation: From a Japanese perspective. Journal of Pragmatics, 100, 8-24. Tang, C. H., & Zhang, G. Q. (2009). A contrastive study of compliment responses among Australian English and Mandarin Chinese speakers. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(2), 325-345. Taylor, B. (1975). The use of overgeneralization and transfer learning strategies by elementary and intermediate students in ESL. Language Learning, 25, 73-107. Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 91-109. Tillitt, B., & Bruder, N. B. (1999). Speaking naturally. USA: Cambridge University Press. Tran Yen Bao Tran. (2009). Direct invitations and indirect acceptance structures in English and Vietnamese. Retrieved April 20, 2012, from http://khoaanh.net/_upload/CA2009/Direct_invitation-indirect_acceptance%20Tran%20Yen%20Bao%20Tran%204A.pdf. Triandis, H.C. (1988). Collectivism vs. individualism: A reconceptualization of a basic concept in cross-cultural social psychology. In: Verma, G.K., Bagley, C. (Eds.), Cross-cultural Studies of Personality, Attitudes and Cognition. Macmillan, London. Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism & Collectivism. Westview Press, UK.  Trong, N. V. (2012). A comparative study on invitations in English and Vietnamese in terms of cross-cultural perspective. BA thesis, Ministry of Education and Training Dong Thap University, Vietnam. Tsai, H. C. (2001). The discourse function of the “dui” receipt in Mandarin conversation. Unpublished MA Thesis. Tseng, T. L. (2007). A study on the selective use of high school English textbook materials. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan. Tucker, C. A. (1975). Evaluating beginning textbooks. English Teaching Forum, 13, 355-361. Ur, P. (1984). Teaching listening comprehension. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Ur, P. (1996). A course in language teaching. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Vuchinich, S. (1987). Starting and stopping spontaneous family conflicts. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 49, 591-601. Wang, Y. F. (2008). Beyond negation—the roles of meiyou and bushi in Mandarin conversation. Language Sciences, 30(6), 679-713. Wang, Y. F., & Tsai, P. H. (2005). Hao in spoken Chinese discourse: Relevance and coherence. Language Sciences, 27(2), 215-243. Wang, Y. F., & Tsai, P. H. (2007). Textual and contextual contrast connection: A study of Chinese contrastive markers across different text types. Journal of Pragmatics, 39(10), 1775-1815. Wang, Y. F., Tsai, P. H., Goodman, D., & Lin, M. Y. (2010). Agreement, acknowledgment, and alignment: The discourse-pragmatic functions of hao and dui in Taiwan Mandarin conversation. Discourse studies, 12(2), 241-267. Wesche, M. B. (1994). Input and interaction in second language acquisition. Input and interaction in language acquisition, 219-249. White, R. (1993). Saying please: Pragmalinguistic failure in English interaction. ELT Journal, 47(3), 193-202. Williams, D. (1983). Developing criteria for textbook evaluation. ELT Journal, 37(3), 251-255. Wu, S. T. (吳思葶) (2002). An evaluation of the current set of junior high school English textbooks. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Chengchi University, Taipei, Taiwan. Xian, L. X. (2007). A pragmatic analysis of the marker hao. Journal of Xichang College, 19(3), 1-5. Yeh, K., & Huang, C. C. (2016). Mandarin-speaking children`s use of the discourse markers hao ‘okay’and dui ‘right’in peer interaction. Language Sciences, 57, 1-20. Yu, G., & Wu, Y. (2018). Inviting in Mandarin: anticipating the likelihood of the success of an invitation. Journal of Pragmatics,125, 130-148. Yu, K. L. (2004). The functions and usage of dui in Mandarin spoken discourse. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Tsing Hua University, Taiwan. Yu, M. (2010). Cross-cultural and L2 studies on naturally occurring disagreement responses. Basic Research Journals. Retrived April 26, 2020, from http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/55612. Yu, M. (2013). Cultural influences on the responses to indirect complaints, Journal of Humanities College of Liberal Arts National Chung Hsing University, 50, 25-62. Yuen, E. (1992). Conflict-handling processes. In: Westwood, R. (Ed.), Organisational Behaviour: southeast Asian perspectives (pp. 362-379). Longman Asia. Limited, Hong Kong. Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Zhu, W., & Boxer, D. (2013). Strong disagreement in Mandarin and ELFP: Aggressive or politic? Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict, 1(2), 194-224.
描述:	碩士國立政治大學英國語文學系 103551016
資料來源:	http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0103551016
資料類型:	thesis
DOI:	10.6814/NCCU202001247
顯示於類別:	[英國語文學系] 學位論文

文件中的檔案:

檔案	描述	大小	格式	瀏覽次數
101601.pdf		1463Kb	Adobe PDF2	0	檢視/開啟

在政大典藏中所有的資料項目都受到原著作權保護.

社群 sharing

著作權政策宣告 Copyright Announcement

1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏，無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用，惟仍請適度，合理使用本網站之內容，以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用，則請先取得著作權人之授權。
The digital content of this website is part of National Chengchi University Institutional Repository. It provides free access to academic research and public education for non-commercial use. Please utilize it in a proper and reasonable manner and respect the rights of copyright owners. For commercial use, please obtain authorization from the copyright owner in advance.

2.本網站之製作，已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益，如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者，請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw)，維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
NCCU Institutional Repository is made to protect the interests of copyright owners. If you believe that any material on the website infringes copyright, please contact our staff(nccur@nccu.edu.tw). We will remove the work from the repository and investigate your claim.

DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004 MIT & Hewlett-Packard / Enhanced by NTU Library IR team Copyright © - 回饋