Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/37290
|
| Title: | 中文對話中的異議使用：語用學與社會語言學分析
Disagreement in mandarin Chinese: a sociopragmatic analysis |
| Authors: | 劉容瑜
Liu, Jung Yu |
| Contributors: | 詹惠珍
Chan, Hui Chen
劉容瑜
Liu, Jung Yu |
| Keywords: | 異議
言談分析
禮貌原則
合作原則
言語行為理論
Disagreement
Conversational Analysis
Politeness Principle
Cooperative Principle
Speech Act Theory |
| Date: | 2008 |
| Issue Date: | 2009-09-19 13:03:52 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 人們常因為禮貌或其他因素避免對立的情況發生。然而，異議在我們日常溝通中又扮演了不可或缺的角色。之前，眾多對於異議及其相關語言活動的研究均未曾探究異議內容的本質(對於事實內容的異議或對於議題評估的異議)與異議的建構有何關係。此外，台灣鮮少研究社會因素對異議建構方式的影響。基於上述不足，本研究旨在探討何種異議(內容異議或評估異議)在日常生活中較常出現，不同異議類別的語言形式與語用策略為何，以及年齡是否會影響異議的數量多寡與建構方式。本研究採用言談分析(conversational analysis, CA)作為研究框架，並以言語行為理論(speech act theory),合作原則(Cooperative Principles)及禮貌理論(Politeness Principles)為理論基礎。
本研究以12份日常交談為語料，進行異議分析。在這12份語料中，8組對話者為同齡(4組年長者，4組年輕者)，4組對話者為跨齡。在分析過程中，先依異議的本質進行分類，進而分析討論異議中所使用的語言形式、語用策略、社會因素(年齡)，以及四者彼此之間的互動。
研究結果顯示，第一，人們使用評估異議的頻率為內容異議的兩倍之多。個人主觀式遠多於社會文化評估的異議。第二，就語言形式而言，在異議的建構中，否定句、預告詞及肯定句(依此順序)的使用頻率高於其他語言形式。然而，語言行式的選擇會隨異議的本質而有所改變。內容異議通常使用直接句型，如否定句與肯定句；評估異議則平均使用直接性的否定句與間接性的預告詞。第三，就語用策略而言，更正、解釋與質疑(依此順序)的使用頻率高於其他語用策略。語用策略的選擇亦隨異議本質的不同而有所改變。超過一半的內容異議使用更正策略，但在評估異議中，更正、解釋與質疑的使用頻率相當。第四，在評估異議中，在各個語用策略中，語言形式的種類比內容異議多。這個結果影射著評估異議對面子的威脅程度可能比內容異議來得嚴重。因此，在進行評估異議時，語言形式與語用策略的挑選用必須格外注意。第五，年齡與異議的建構有顯著的相關性。同齡組比跨齡組更容易產生異議。最後，在異議中，聽話者的角色比說話者的角色更具有影響力。
Although people try to avoid opposition for the sake of politeness or other reasons, disagreement, which may threaten interpersonal relationship and the success of communication, is inevitable in our daily life. Previous studies on disagreement (including dispute, argument, conflict, etc.) have not probe into the nature of the referential content—whether it is content-based (in this study, C-disagreement) or evaluation-based (in this study, E-disagreement), and the influences of social factors on disagreement have rarely been examined in Taiwan. Therefore, the purposes of this study are to see what type of disagreement are most likely to occur in daily conversations and to examine whether age is an influential factor on linguistic choices for in disagreement in Chinese society. This study uses the framework of conversational analysis (CA), and adopts speech act theory (Austin, 1962; Searle, 1975), Cooperative Principles (Grice, 1975) and Politeness Principles (Brown and Levinson’s, 1978, 1987; Leech, 1983) as the theoretical foundations.
12 conversations by speakers of 8 same-age groups (including 4 old groups and 4 young groups) and 4 cross-age groups were examined for disagreement. Related data are categorized, analyzed, and discussed by types of disagreement, linguistic markers, pragmatic strategies, social variable (in this study, age), and the interaction among the four.
The results of the data analyses show, first, people adopt nearly twice more E-disagreement than C-disagreement; moreover, E-disagreement based on personal judgment emerges more often than E-disagreement based on socio-cultural evaluation. Second, for linguistic markers, negation, pre-announcement marker, and affirmative (in this order) are adopted more in disagreement. However, preferences for linguistic markers change according to types of disagreement. In C-disagreement, direct syntactic markers, such as negation and affirmative, are used more frequently than the others; however, in E-disagreement, direct negation (syntactic) and indirect pre-announcement (lexical) are used with equal frequencies. Third, among pragmatic strategies, correction, account, and challenge (in this order) are adopted more frequently than the others. The usage of pragmatic strategies varies with types of disagreement. In C-disagreement, correction is highly adopted. But in E-disagreement, correction, account, and challenge are used with equal percentages. Fourth, the fact that more varieties of linguistic markers are used in each pragmatic strategy in E-disagreement than in C-disagreement may imply impoliteness, since face-threatening force is more serious in E-disagreement than in C-disagreement, which, in turn, indicates that more careful manipulation is needed in using E-disagreement. Fifth, age is influential in disagreement. More disagreements are found in the same-age groups than in the cross-age groups. Last, the hearer’s role is found to be more influential than the speaker’s role. |
| Reference: | Atkinson, M. & Heritage, J. (1984). Preference organization. In Atkinson & Heritage (eds.), Structure of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 53-56). Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Beebe, L. M. & Takahashi, T. (1989). Sociolinguistic variation in face-threatening speech acts: chastisement and disagreement. In Eisenstein, M. R. (ed.), The dynamic interlanguage: Empirical studies in second language variation (pp. 199-218). New York: Plenum Press.
Bell, A. (1984) Language Style as Audience Design. In Coupland, N. and A. Jaworski (eds.) Sociolinguistics: a Reader and Coursebook (pp. 240-50). New York: St Mattin`s Press Inc.
Bernardi, B. (1985). Age class system. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Boggs, S.T. (1978). The development of verbal disputing in part-Hawaiian children. Language in Society, 7: 325-344.
Brenneis, D & Lein, L. (1977). You fruithead: a sociolinguistic approach to children’s dispute settlement. In Ervin-Tripp, S., & Mitchell-Kernan, C. (eds.), Child discourse (pp. 49-65). New York: Academic Press.
Brown, P. & Levinson, S.C. (1978/1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brown, R. & Gilman, A. (1960). The pronouns of power and solidarity. In Thomas Sebeok (ed.), Style in language (pp. 253-276). Cambridge Mass: The MIT Press.
Davis, S. (1991). Pragmatics: A reader. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
Eisenberg, A.R. & Garvey, C. (1981). Children’s use of verbal strategies in resolving conflicts. Discourse Processes, 4: 149-170.
Fraser, B. (1974). A partial analysis of vernacular performative verbs. In Shuy, R., & Bailey, C.-J. (eds.), Toward tomorrow’s linguistics (pp. 139-58). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Fraser, B. (1974). An examination of the performative analysis. Papers in Linguistics, 7: 1-40.
Goffman, E. (1967). Interactional ritual. New York: Anchor Books.
Goodwin, M. H. & Goodwin, C. (1987). Children’s arguing. In Philip, S. U., Steele, S. & Tanz, C. (eds.), Language, gender, and sex in comparative perspective (pp. 200-248). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Davis, S. (ed.), Pragmatics: A reader (pp. 305-315). Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
Grimshaw, A. D. (1990). Conflict talk: Sociolinguistic investigations of arguments in conversations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hodges, R. & Kress, G. (1993). Language as Ideology. New York: Routledge.
Honda, A. (1999). Managing conflict talk in Japanese public affairs talk shows. Ph.D. dissertation. Washington D.C.: Georgetown University.
Honda, A. (2002). Conflict management in Japanese public affairs talk shows. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(5): 573-608.
Jaszczolt, K. M. (2002). Semantics and pragmatics: Meaning in language and discourse. United Kingdom: Longman.
Kakava, C. (1993). Negotiation of disagreement by Greeks in conversations and classroom discourse. Ph.D. dissertation. Washington D.C.: Georgetown University.
Kakava, C. (2002). Opposition in modern Greek discourse: cultural and contextual constraints. Journal of Pragmatics, 34: 1537-1568.
Kotthoff, H. (1993). Disagreement and concession in dispute: On the context sensitivity of preference structures. Language in Society, 22: 193-216.
Kuo, S. (1992). Conflict and its management in Chinese verbal interactions: Casual conversations and parliamentary interpellations. Ph.D. dissertation. Washington D.C.: Georgetown University.
Lakoff, R. (1973). The logic of politeness: or minding your p’s and q’s. Proceedings of the Ninth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, pp. 292-305.
Lakoff, R. (1975). Language and Woman’s Place. New York: Harper and Row.
Lakoff, R. (1977). Politeness, pragmatics and performatives. In Rogers, A., Wall, B. & Murphy, J. P. (eds.), Proceedings of the Texas Conference on Performances, Presuppositions and Implicatures. Washington: Center for Applied Linguistics.
Lakoff, R. (1979). Stylistic strategies within a grammar of style. In Orasanu, J., Slater, M. & Adler. L. L. (eds.), Language, Sex, and gender (pp. 53-80). Annals of the New York Academy of Science 327.
Leech, G. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.
Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lii-shih, Y. E. (1994). What do “yes” and “no” really mean in Chinese? In Alatis, J. E. (ed.), Georgetown university round table on language and linguistics 1994 (pp. 128-149). Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
Lii-Shih, Y.-H. (1986). Conversational politeness and foreign language teaching. Taipei: The Crane Publishing Co., Ltd.
Lin, Z.-Y. (1999). Disagreement in mandarin Chinese disagreement. MA thesis. Taipei: National Chengchi University.
Muntigl, P. & Turnbull, W. (1998). Conversational structure and facework in arguing. Journal of Pragmatics, 29: 225-256.
Nasotsuka, R. & Sakamoto, N., et al. (1981). Mutual understanding of different cultures. Osaka: Taishukan.
Pan, Y. (1994). Politeness strategies in Chinese verbal interaction: A sociolinguistic analysis of spoken data in official, business and family settings. Ph.D. dissertation. Washington D.C.: Georgetown University.
Pomerantz, A. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessment: some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In Atkinson & Heritage (eds.), Structure of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 57-101). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rees-Miller, J. (1995). Linguistic features of disagreement in face-to-face encounters in university settings. Ph.D. dissertation. New York: State University of New York at Stony Brook.
Rees-Miller, J. (2000). Power, severity, and context in disagreement. Journal of Pragmatics, 32: 1087-1111.
Richard, J. C. & Sukwiwat, M. (1983). Language transfer and conventional competence. Applied Linguistics, 4.2: 113-125.
Sacks, H. (1973). The preference for agreement in natural conversation. Paper presented at the Linguistic Institute, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Sadock, J. (2004). Speech acts. In Horn, L. R. & Ward, G. (eds.), The handbook of pragmatics (pp. 53-73). Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishing.
Schiffrin, Deborah. (1984). Jewish argument as sociability. Language in Society, 13: 311-335.
Scott, S. (1998). Patterns of language use in adult face-to-face disagreements. Ph.D. dissertation. Arizona: Northern Arizona University.
Scott, S. (2002). Linguistic feature variation within disagreements: An empirical investigation. Text, 22(2): 301-28.
Searle, J. R. (1965). What is a speech act? In Davis, S. (ed.), Pragmatics: A reader (pp. 254-264). Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Searle, J. R. (1975). Indirect speech acts. In Davis, S. (ed.), Pragmatics: A reader (pp. 265-277). Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
Searle, J. R. (1976). The classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society, 5: 1-24.
Simmel, G. (1955). Conflict. In The web of group affiliation (Wolff, K. H. Trans.) (pp. 11–123). New York: Free Press. (German edition 1908)
Tannen, D. (1984). Conversational style: Analyzing talk among friends. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Tannen, D. (1994). Gender and discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tannen, D. (ed.). (1993). Gender and conversation interaction. New York: Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Vuchinich, S. (1988). The sequential organization of closing in verbal family conflict. In Grimshaw, A. D. (ed.), Conflict talk: Sociolinguistic investigations of arguments in conversations (pp. 118-138). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wang, Y. (1997). Dispreferred responses in mandarin chinese conversation. In Proceedings of the First Symposium on Discourse and Syntax in Chinese and Formosan Languages, 103-134. Taipei: NTU. |
| Description: | 碩士
國立政治大學
語言學研究所
95555004
97 |
| Source URI: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0095555004 |
| Data Type: | thesis |
| Appears in Collections: | [語言學研究所] 學位論文
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
