Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/153507
|
| Title: | 高級程度漢語學習者使用書面語及口語謹慎語之研究-以韓國籍漢語學習者為研究對象
A Study on the Use of Hedges in Writing and Speaking Chinese: Advanced Korean Learners of the Chinese Language as Case Study |
| Authors: | 林逸欣
Lin, Yi-Hsin |
| Contributors: | 曹逢甫
張郇慧
林逸欣
Lin, Yi-Hsin |
| Keywords: | 謹慎語
書面語語體
口語語體
韓國籍漢語學習者
華語教學
hedges
written language
spoken language
Korean Chinese language learners
Teaching Chinese as a second language |
| Date: | 2024 |
| Issue Date: | 2024-09-04 15:48:34 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 從漢語學習者的角度觀察謹慎語表現形式的研究屈指可數，即使是高級程度的漢語學習者仍不了解謹慎語的運作。謹慎語是「意義隱含模稜兩可語意的詞語－其作用在使描述的事物更加模糊或沒那麼模糊。(Lakoff, 1973：471)」。本研究首先歸納出漢語謹慎語的功能為「迴避責任」、「合乎禮教(文化或社會場合約定俗成的標準)」、「維護面子，避免衝突（反駁）的發生」以及「表達說話者或作者小心謹慎的態度」。再從自建的語料庫中觀察高級程度韓國籍漢語學習者使用謹慎語書面語及口語的方式。書面語語料來源是漢語為二語或外語的韓國籍學習者的博碩士論文摘要。至於口語語料，一共收錄十五位韓國籍受訪者的訪問，由研究者以線上一對一的方式完成。研究對象的漢語都達到高級程度，而訪問問題主要是根據受訪者的專業和背景詢問。
研究結果顯示書面語和口語的謹慎語形式上都可分為兩大類，即詞彙和定式。兩種語體都有助動詞、副詞、動詞、名詞、形容詞、連接詞、量詞及疑問代詞。差別在於口語語料多了語氣詞。書面語語料定式分為條件句和其他，而口語語料定式可分成條件句、委婉否定句、表嘗試的定式、表猜測的定式、修辭性疑問句及其他。謹慎語於兩種語體中詞彙的總數皆多於定式的總數。書面語語料中的謹慎語是動詞總數最多，再依序為助動詞、副詞，而口語語料中的謹慎語是副詞的總數最多，其次為動詞及疑問代詞。而所有詞彙型謹慎語中，書面語最頻繁使用的謹慎語詞彙是「等」，口語是「比較」。
本研究的語料在詞彙上，大多語言形式的數據是口語多於書面語，但有時反之。究其原因是本研究書面語的擷取限制於人文領域的論文摘要中，所以在一些既定的書寫要求下，書面語謹慎語其數據反而多於口語。此外，本研究也發現作者在書面語中單音節謹慎語較多，而說話者傾向使用多音節謹慎語。至於定式上，無論是數量上或形式變化上，口語語料皆多於書面語語料。而且無論是口語或書面語語料，條件句皆為使用頻率最高的句型，因條件句常用於間接言語行為，以此來降低威脅聽話者面子的話語效力。
在功能方面上，首先「迴避責任」是兩種語體中最常使用的功能，因謹慎語主要是自我保護的機制。又，本研究發現謹慎語不僅保護作者/說話者及另一方的消極面子，還保護了作者/說話者的積極面子，甚至保護了論述中/話題中提及的第三方的消極面子。所以謹慎語不僅維護面子(禮貌)，更是展現禮貌的交際手段。
本研究也發現兩種語體皆收集到台灣國語謹慎語的使用方式，只是口語收錄的台灣國語語料種類較書面語多。除了語體，本研究試圖從受訪者背景(性別、年齡層或關係親疏)上，找出造成謹慎語使用頻率和情況不同的共性，但無顯著相關性。
謹慎語對於高級程度漢語學習者的難處在於：謹慎語的使用能使論述從主觀性變成客觀性，學習者易忽略，漢語教師須提醒學習者使用。同時，如何使用謹慎語須倚賴言語行為，瞭解謹慎語的語用功能即能減少語用失誤的發生，達到適切條件。但現今華語教學缺乏言語行為或語用功能的教學。
總而言之，書面語語料中，作者更多使用謹慎語於表現小心謹慎的態度，因書面語主要關注論述命題的正確性及真實性。至於口語語料中，人際互動中使用謹慎語，「面子」是主要的考量，因更注重人際間的和諧相處。書面語和口語雖呈現方式、關注點不同，但謹慎語皆是自我保護的機制、是禮貌禮教展現的手段。
There are only a handful of studies that observe the expression of hedges from Chinese language learners, and even advanced Chinese learners still do not understand the usage of hedges well.
Hedges are " words whose meaning implicitly involves fuzziness - words whose job is to make things fuzzier or less fuzzy. (Lakoff, 1973: 471)" This study summarizes the functions of Chinese hedges as "avoiding responsibility", " conforming to etiquette (conventional standards in cultural or social situations)", "maintaining faces and avoiding the occurrence of conflicts (refutations)" and "expressing the cautious attitude of the speaker or author". My study observes the usage of hedges by advanced Korean Chinese learners from the self-constructed corpus. The sources of the corpus are the abstracts of doctoral and master's theses of Koreans whose Chinese is a second or foreign language. As for the collecting of spoken corpora, fifteen Korean interviewees were interviewed, which were compiled by the researcher from one-to-one online interviews. The research subjects have all reached the advanced level, and the interview questions are mainly based on the interviewees' majors and backgrounds.
The results show both written and spoken hedges can be divided into vocabulary and constructions. Both kinds have auxiliary verbs, adverbs, verbs, nouns, adjectives, conjunctions, quantifiers and interrogative pronouns. The difference is that the spoken kind has particles. The constructions of written language are divided into conditionals and others, while the constructions of spoken language can be subdivided into conditionals, euphemistic negative constructions, trial construction, guessing construction, rhetorical questions and others. The total number of parts-of-speech in both kinds is more than the total number of constructions. Written hedges have the largest number of verbs, followed by auxiliary verbs and adverbs, while the spoken kind has the largest number of adverbs, followed by verbs and interrogative pronouns. Among all word types of hedges, the most frequently used word of hedges in written language is "Deng" and in spoken language is "Bijiao".
In terms of vocabulary, the corpus of spoken language in this study is larger than that of the written language, but sometimes the reverse is true. The reason is that the collection of written language in this study is limited to the abstracts of papers in the humanities field. Therefore, under some established writing requirements, the data of hedges in written language is more than that of spoken language. In addition, this study also found that authors use more monosyllabic hedges in written language, while speakers tend to use polysyllabic hedges. As for the hedges of constructions, whether in terms of quantity or form changes, the corpus of spoken language is bigger than that of written language. Also, whether in spoken or written language, conditionals are the most frequently used construction, because conditionals are often used in indirect speech act to reduce illocutionary force that might threaten the listener's face.
In terms of functions, "avoiding responsibility" is the most commonly used in the two kinds, because hedges are self-protection mechanisms. In addition, this study found that hedges not only protect the negative face of the author/speaker and the other party, but also protect the positive face of the author/speaker, and even protect the negative face of the third party mentioned in the argument/topic. Therefore, hedges not only maintain face (politeness), but also serve as a means of communication to show politeness.
Taiwan Mandarin hedges from both kinds of language were collected, but hedges in spoken language were found more than the written one. In addition to language style, this study tried to find out the commonalities that lead to different frequency and circumstances of the use of hedges based on the background of the interviewees (gender, age, or relationship proximity), but no significant correlation was found.
The difficulty of hedges for advanced Chinese learners is that the use of hedges can change the subjectivity into objectivity, and is easy to forget. Chinese teachers must remind learners to use them. At the same time, how to use hedges depends on the speech act. Understanding the pragmatic function of speech acts can reduce the occurrence of pragmatic failures and achieve felicity conditions. However, current Chinese language teaching lacks the teaching of speech acts or any pragmatic functions.
All in all, in written language materials, authors use hedges more often to express their cautious attitude, because written language mainly focuses on the correctness and authenticity of the propositions. As for the spoken kind, when using hedges in interpersonal interactions, "face" is the main consideration, because more emphasis is placed on harmonious interpersonal relationships. Although written language and spoken language have different presentation methods and focuses, hedges are mechanisms of self-protection and a means of demonstrating politeness and etiquette. |
| Reference: | Austin, John Langshaw. 1962. How to Do Things with Words, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan, and Finegan, Edward. 1999.Longmsn Grammar of Spoken and Written English, Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
Biq, Yung-O. 1990. Question Words as Hedges in Conversational Chinese: A Q and R Exercise, Pragmatics and Learning Monograph, 1, 141-157.
Brown, Penelope and Levinson, Stephen C. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Caffi, Claudia. 1999. On mitigation, Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 881-909.
Chafe, Wallace and Tannen, Deborah. 1987. The Relation between Written and Spoken Language, Annual Review of Anthropology, 16, 383-407.
Chang, Miao-Hsia, Luo, Yu-Wen, and Hsu, Yueh-Kuei. 2012. Subjectivity and Objectivity in Chinese Academic Discourse: How Attribution Hedges Indicate Authorial Stance, Concentric： Studies in Linguistics, 38(2), 293-329.
Channell, Joanna. 1983. Vague Language: Some Vague Expressions in English. PhD thesis, University of York.
Channell, Joanna. 1994. Vague Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chu-Ren Huang and Shu-Kai Hsieh. 2010. Infrastructure for Cross-lingual Knowledge Representation ─ Towards Multilingualism in Linguistic Studies. Taiwan NSC-granted Research Project (NSC 96-2411-H-003-061-MY3)
Du Bois, John W., Schuetze-Coburn, Stephan, Paolino, Danae, and Cuming, Susanna, 1993. Outline of discourse transcription. In: Edwards, Jane A., Lampert, Martin D. (Eds.), Talking Data: Transcription and Coding Methods for Language Research, 45-89, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
Fraser, Bruce. 2010. Pragmatic Competence: The Case of Hedging. In Kaltenbo, G.; Mihatsch, W. & Schneider, S. (eds.), New Approaches to Hedging, 15-34, England: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Grice, Herbert Paul. 1975. Logic and Conversation. Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts, 41-58, New York: Academic Press.
Holmes, Janet. 1988. Doubt and Certainty in ESL Textbooks. Applied Linguistics, 9(1), 21-44.
Holmes, Janet. 1990. Hedges and boosters in women's and men's speech. Language & Communication, 10(3), 185-205.
Huebler, Axel. 1983. Understatements and Hedges in English. Amsterdam/Philadelphia：John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Hyland, Ken. 1995. The Arthur in the Text: Hedging Scientific Writing, Hong Kong Papers in Linguistics and Language Teaching, 8, 33-42.
Hyland, Ken. 1996a. Talking to the Academy: Forms of Hedging in Science Research Articles. Written Communication, 13(2), 251-281.
Hyland, Ken. 1996b. Writing Without Conviction? Hedging in Science Research Articles. Applied Linguistics, 17(4), 433-454.
Hyland, Ken. 1998. Hedging in Scientific Research Articles. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Kubler, C. Cornelius. 1985. The Influence of Southern Min on the Mandarin of Taiwan. Anthropological Linguistics, 27(2), 156-176.
Lakoff, George. 1973. Hedges: a study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts. Journal of Philosophical Logics, 2(4), 458-508.
Lakoff, Robin. 1973. Language and woman’s place. Language in Society, 2(1), 45-80.
Leech, Geoffrey. 1983. The Principle of Politeness. London: Longman.
Lin, Ming-chia & Liou, Hsien-chin. 2009. Hedging in the Discussion Sections of Research Articles in Applied Linguistics. Journal of Applied English, 2, 71-92.
Lyons, John. 1977. Semantics Vol. 2. University of Cambridge.
Myers, Paul Georg. 1989. The Pragmatics of Politeness in Scientific Articles. Applied Linguistics, 10(1), 1-35.
Myers, Paul Georg. 1997. Hedging Strategies in Written Academic Discourse: Strengthening the Argument by Weakening the Claim. In Markkanen, Raija & Schroeder, Hartmut (eds.), Hedging and Discourse: Approaches to the Analysis of a Pragmatic Phenomenon in Academic Texts, 21-41, Berlin: Walter De Gruyter.
Pan, Weiwei. 2012. An Analysis of Vagueness in English News from Grice’s Cooperative Principles. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2(12), 2530-2534.
Prince, Ellen F., Frader Joel, and Bosk, Charles. 1982. On hedging in physician-physician discourse. In Di Pietro, Robert J. (ed.), Linguistics and the professions, 83-97. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Searle, John.1969. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Searle, John.1975. Indirect Speech Acts. In Peter Cole and Jerry Morgan(eds.), Syntax and Semantics Vol. 3, Speech Acts, 59-82. New York: Academic Press.
Tang, Jingwei. 2013. Pragmatic Functions of Hedges and Politeness Principles. International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature, 2(4), 155-160.
Thomas, Jenny. 1983. Cross-Culture Pragmatic Failure. Applied Linguistics, 4(2),91-112.
Varttala, Teppo. 2001. Hedging in Scientifically Oriented Discourse Exploring Variation According to Discipline and Intended Audience. PhD thesis, University of Tampere.
Wishnoff, Jennifer. 2000. Hedging Your Bets: L2 Learners’ Acquisition of Pragmatic Devices in Academic Writing and Computer-Mediated Discourse. Second Language Studies, 19(1), 119-149.
Yoon, Yeonhee. 2010. An analysis of selected Korean hedges in spoken discourse: Sociopragmatic and pragmalinguistic perspectives. PhD thesis, University of Hawai'i at Manoa.
Yoon, Yeonhee. 2016. Korean Hedges in Spoken Discourse: Sociopragmatic and Pragmalinguistic Perspectives. Seoul: Korea University Press.
Zadeh, Lotfi. Aliasker. 1965. Fuzzy Sets. Information and Control, 8(3), 338-353.
黃宣範譯，Li , Charles N., & Sandra A. Thompson著（2005）。漢語語法。臺北：文鶴出版有限公司。
何永清（2004）。現代漢語副詞分類的探究。應用語文學報，6，71-92。
何自然（1985）。模糊限制語與言語交際。上海外國語學院學報，39（5），27-31。
何志娟（2018）。華語學習者口語言談中規避語的使用分析與教學建議。國立臺灣大學華語教學碩士學位學程碩士論文。
呂叔湘主編（1999）。現代漢語八百詞(增訂本)。北京：商務印書館。
宋增文（2015）。“如果句”與 “如果說”句式比較。牡丹江大學學報，24(7)，34-37。
李采倫（1998）。漢語的附加問句。國立政治大學語言學研究所碩士論文。
李姿靜（1998）。學術期刊論文中謹慎語之探究。國立清華大學語言學研究所碩士論文。
李美麟（2010）。以英文為外語學習者口語中之規避語初探。遠東學報，27(2)，101-115。
李櫻（2012）。語用研究與華語教學。新北市：正中書局股份有限公司。
沈家煊（2001）。語言的“主觀性”和“主觀化”。外語教學與研究(外國語文雙月刊)，33(4)，268-275。
林婉華（2014）。規避詞在台灣醫學言談與期刊論文中的比較。國立臺灣師範大學英語學系博士論文。
林逸欣（2018）。德國學生使用中文規避詞（Hedges）的情況。「2018年國際漢語教學研討會」發表之論文，美國加州大學聖塔芭芭拉分校。
邱妙津（2000）。稱代詞「人家」的語義及語用研究。國立台灣師範大學華語文教學研究所碩士論文。
孫建榮（1986)。模糊限制語的語用功能─取消性。外語教學，2，1-9。
張紹杰、王曉彤 （1997)。“請求”言語行為的對比研究。現代外語，3(總第77期)，63-72。
張薇（2011）。南京方言程度副詞“蠻”。語文學刊，11，39-40。
莊依齡（2014）。以語料庫的方法探討不同性別對於「結論」的助推語及規避語的使用比較。國立臺灣科技大學應用外語系碩士論文。
郭乃瑜（2014）。學術謹慎語在應用語言學上的使用研究。國立臺灣師範大學英語學系碩士論文。
陳依婷（2008）。中文口語言談中規避詞的使用。國立台灣大學文學院語言學研究所碩士論文。
陳林華、李福印（1994)。交際中的模糊限制語。上海外國語大學學報，5(總第93期)，55-59。
陳品均（2020）。正式言談中的規避語使用研究：以2019年臺灣總統選舉辯論會發言為語料。國立政治大學語言學研究所碩士論文。
陳意德（2000）。言語交際中的模糊限制語及其語用功能。湘潭師範學院學報，21（4），135-137。
陳懷萱（2004）。漢語反問句的形式與意義分析。國立台灣師範大學華語文教學研究所碩士論文。
曾心怡（2003）。當今台灣國語之句法結構。國立台灣師範大學華語文教學研究所碩士論文。
黃伯榮、廖旭東（2017）。現代漢語(增訂六版)。北京: 高等教育出版社。
黃錦如、陳樺（2001）。模糊限制語的語用功能及對外語教學的啟示。北京第二外國語學院學報，6(總第106期)，9-13。
楊珮霖（2009）。中文祈使句。國立政治大學語言學研究所碩士論文。
楊憶慈（2007)。臺灣國語「會」的用法。遠東通識學報，1，109-122。
劉月華、潘文娛、故韡（2004)。實用現代漢語語法。台北:師大書苑。
蔡維天（2004）。談“有人”“有的人”和“有些人”。漢語學報，2(總第8期)，16-25。
蔣寧（2006）。語氣副詞“可能”和“也許”句法、語義及語用分析。語言應用研究，3，62-63。
鄭玉敏（2011）。華語「你知道」的言談與用功能探析－以語料庫為本。國立高雄師範大學華語文教學研究所碩士論文。
鄭旭銘（2018）。漢碩專業韓國留學生學術寫作語言特徵研究。廈門大學碩士學位論文。
謝佳玲（2006）。漢語情態詞的語意界定:語料庫為本的研究。中國語文研究，21，45-63。
簡慧玲（2002）。臺灣醫學專業人員對英文醫學期刊中謹慎語之理解程度及態度。國立高雄第一科技大學應用英語所碩士論文。
羅予彣（2010）。中文學術論文中規避詞的使用。國立台灣師範大學英語學系碩士論文。
譚雅（2013）。以語料庫的方法探討英語教學期刊使用「規避語」之研究。國立臺灣科技大學應用外語系碩士論文。
蘇席瑤（2012）。語言與性別研究：文獻回顧。師大學報：語言與文學類，57(1)，129-149。
이금희(2021）。한국어 학술논문에 나타난 헤지(Hedge) 표현의 담화 전략에 따른 유형 분류 연구。泮橋語文研究, 57，45-71。
網路資源：
教育部重編國語辭典修訂本。http://www.sinica.edu.tw/~tdbproj/dict/。
劍橋英漢詞典。https://dictionary.cambridge.org/zht/%E8%A9%9E%E5%85%B8/%E8%8B%B1%E8%AA%9E-%E6%BC%A2%E8%AA%9E-%E7%B9%81%E9%AB%94/。
國家華語測驗推動工作委員會。https://www.sc-top.org.tw/。
《重訂標點符號手冊》修訂版。https://language.moe.gov.tw/001/upload/files/site_content/m0001/hau/c2.htm。
中文詞彙網路。https://lope.linguistics.ntu.edu.tw/cwn2/query/。
漢典。https://www.zdic.net/。
教材：
鄧守信主編（2015）。當代中文課程。臺北：聯經出版公司。 |
| Description: | 博士
國立政治大學
華語文教學碩博士學位學程
106160501 |
| Source URI: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0106160501 |
| Data Type: | thesis |
| Appears in Collections: | [華語文教學博／碩士學位學程] 學位論文
|
Files in This Item:
| File |
Description |
Size | Format | |
|---|
| 050101.pdf | | 4921Kb | Adobe PDF | 2 | View/Open |
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
