請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/59448
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 蔡宜妮(I-Ni Tsai) | |
dc.contributor.author | Hao-Rong Tso | en |
dc.contributor.author | 左浩蓉 | zh_TW |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-16T09:24:04Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2022-07-12 | |
dc.date.copyright | 2017-07-12 | |
dc.date.issued | 2017 | |
dc.date.submitted | 2017-06-20 | |
dc.identifier.citation | 參考文獻
Alderson, J. Charles, Caroline Clapharm & Dianne Wall. (1995). Language test construction and evaluation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Anderson, A., Bader, M., Bard, E., Boyle, E., Doherty, G. M., Garrod, S., Isard, S., Kowtko, J., McAllister, J., Miller, J., Sotillo, C., Thompson, H. S., Weinert, R. (1991). The HCRC map task corpus. Language and Speech, 34, 351-366. Aston, G. (1995). Say “Thank you”: Some pragmatic constraints in conversational closings. Applied Linguistics, 16(1), 57-87. Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Hartford, B. S. (1993). Refining the DCT: Comparing open questionnaires and dialogue completion tasks. In L. F. Bouton & Y. Kachru (Eds.), Pragmatics and language learning, 4, 143-165. Urbana, IL: Division of English as an International Language, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Beebe, L. M. & M. C. Cummings. (1996). Natural speech act data versus written questionnaire data: How data collection method affects speech act performance. In S. M. Gass & N. Joyce (Eds.), Speech Act Across Cultures: Challenges to Communication in a Second Language, 65-86. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Billmyer, K. & M. Varghese. (2000). Investigating instrument-based pragmatic variability: Effects of enhancing discourse completion tests. Applied Linguistics, 21/4, 517-552. Blum-Kulka, S. (1982). Learning to Say What You Mean in a Second Language: A Study of the Speech Act Performance of Learners of Hebrew as a Second Language. Applied Linguistics, 3, 29-59. Blum-Kulka, S. (1987). Indirectness and politeness in requests: Same or different? Journal of Pragmatics, 11, 145-160. Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G. (Eds.) (1989). Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Blum-Kulka, S., and J. House (1989) Investigating cross-cultural pragmatics: An introductory overview. In Blum-Kulka, S., House, J. & Kasper G. (Eds.), Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies, 1-34. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1978). Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. In E. N. Goody (Ed.), Questions and politeness: strategies in social interaction, 56-324. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical Bases of Communicative Approaches to Second Language Teaching and Testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1-47. Crookall, D., & Saunders, D. (1989). Communication and simulation. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Cohen, A. D., & Olshtain, E. (1981). Developing a measure of sociocultural competence: The case of apology. Language Learning, 31(1), 113-134. Denzin, N.K., & Lincoln, Y.S. (2005). Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In Denzin, N.K., & Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds.), The sage handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Eisenstein, M., & Bodman, J. W. (1993). Expressing gratitude in American English. In Kasper, G., & Blum-Kulka, S. (Eds.), Inter-language pragmatics, 64-81. New York: Oxford University Press. Ellis, R. (1994). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ervin-Tripp, S. (1976). Speech Acts and Social Learning. In Basso, K. H., & Selby, H. A. (Eds.), Meaning in Anthropology, 123-153. Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press. Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2010). Data collection methods in speech act performance: DCTs, role plays, and verbal reports. In E. Usó Juán and A. Martínez-Flor (eds), Speech act performance: Theoretical, Empirical, and methodological issues. John Benjamins Publishing. Filipi, A. (2014). Speakers’ orientations to directional terms in a map task. Discourse Studies, 16(3), 365-384. Garcia, C. (1989). Apologizing in English: Politeness strategies used by native and non-native speakers. Multilingua, 8(1), 3-20. Golato, A. (2003). Studying Compliment Responses: A comparison of DCTs and Recordings of Naturally Occurring Talk. Applied Linguistics, 24, 90-121. Holmes, J. (1991). Review of cross-cultural pragmatics: requests and apologies. Language in Society, 20, 119-126. Hudson, T., Detmer, E., & Brown, J. (1995). Developing prototypic measures of cross-cultural pragmatics. Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center, University of Hawaii, Honolulu. Hymes, D. H. (1972). On Communicative Competence. In Pride, J. B., & Holmes, J. (Eds.), Sociolinguistics, 269-293. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Jun Xu. (2014). Displaying status of recipiency through reactive tokens in Mandarin task-oriented interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 74, 33-51. Kasper, G., & Dahl, M. (1991). Research methods in interlanguage pragmatics. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 215-247. Kasper, G., & Blum-Kulka, S. (Ed.) (1993). Interlanguage Pragmatics, 64-81. New York: Oxford University Press. Kasper, G. (2000). Data collection in pragmatics research. In H. Spencer-Oatey (Ed.), Culturally speaking. Managing rapport through talk across cultures, 316-341. London and New York: Continuum. Kern, J. M. (1991). An evaluation of a novel role-play methodology: The standardized idiographic approach. Behavior Therapy, 22, 13-29. Labov, W. (1984). Field methods of the project on linguistic change and variation. In Baugh. J., & Scherzer, J. (Eds.), Language in use: Readings in sociolinguistics, 28-54. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall. Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman. Levinson, S. C. (1992). Primer for the field investigation of spatial description and conception. Pragmatics, 2(1), 5-47. Maccoby, E.E., & Maccoby, N. (1954). The interview: A tool of social science. In G. Lindzey (Ed.), Handbook of social psychology, 1, 449-487. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Olshtain, E. & Blum-Kulka, S. (1985). Crosscultural pragmatics and the testing of communicative competence. Language Testing, vol. 2, 1: 16-30. Harrison, M. R. (1974). Beyond Words: An Introduction to Nonverbal Communication. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Rintell, E., & Mitchell, C. J. (1989). Studying requests and apologies: An inquiry into methods. In S. Blum-Kulka, J. House, & G. Kasper (Eds.), Cross-cultural pragmatics, 248-272. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Rose, K. (1994). On validity of discourse completion tests in non-Western contexts. Applied Linguistics, 15(1), 1-14. Sasaki, M. (1998). Investigating EFL students’ production of speech acts: A comparison of production questionnaires and role plays. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 457-484. Scarcella, R. (1979). On speaking politely in a second language. In Yorio, C., Perkins, K., & Schachter, J. (Eds.), On TESOL ‘79: The learner in focus, 275-287. Washington, DC: TESOL. Scarcella, R., & Brunak J. (1981). On speaking politely in a second language. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 59-75. Scollon, R., Scollon, S. W., & Jones, R. H. (1995). International Communication: A Discourse Approach. Oxford: Blackwell. Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Searle, J. R. (1979). Expression and meaning: Studies in the theory of speech acts. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University. Song Mei Lee-Wong. (1994). Imperatives in requests: Direct or impolite Observations from Chinese. Pragmatics, 4:4, 491-515. Tanaka, N. (1988). Politeness: Some problems for Japanese speakers of English. JALT Journal, 9(2), 81-102. Trosborg, A. (1995). Interlanguage Pragmatics: Requests, Complaints and Apologies. Berlin, New York: Mouton Gruyter. Widjaja, C. (1997). A study of date refusal: Taiwanese females vs. American females. University of Hawai’i Working Papers in ESL, 15 (2), 1-43. Wolfson, N., & Manes, J. (1980). The compliment as a social strategy. Papers in Linguistics: International Journal of Human Communication, 13(3), 410-451. Yamashita, S. O. (1996). Six measures of JSL Pragmatics. Technical Report, 14. Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center, University of Hawaii at Manoa. Yuan, Y. (1996). Responding to compliments: a contrastive study of English pragmatics of advanced Chinese speakers of English. Proceedings of the Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, 20, 861-872. Yuan, Y. (2001). An inquiry into empirical pragmatics data-gathering methods: Written DCTs, oral DCTs, field notes, and natural conversations. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 271-292. 丁鳳(2002)。漢語請求言語行為中的性別差異。西安外國語學院學報,10(1),46-50。 方文禮(2003)。外語任務型教學法縱橫談。外語與外語教學,9,17-20。 王薈(2010)。漢語中請求行為的前序華語及其策略性。重慶理工大學學報,24(9),102-106。 何文婷、劉愛真(2009)。跨文化視角下英漢請求言語行為對比研究。內蒙古農業大學學報:社會科學版,11(6),394-396。 李軍(1998 a)。漢語使役性言語行為的話語構造及其功能(上)。語文建設,5,8-10。 李軍(1998 b)。漢語使役性言語行為的話語構造及其功能(下)。語文建設,6,17-19。 汪雲芳、車林花(2006)。英漢請求言語行為的對比研究。牡丹江教育學院學報,4,63-64。 孟榮新(2011)。英漢請求言語行為對比分析。當代教育與文化,5,47-50。 姜曉瑜(2010)。真實語境請求輔助行為語使用情況之英漢比較。中國科教創新導刊,13,79-79。 姜麗莉(2012)。英漢請求言語行為的跨文化對比研究。文學教育,12,65-66。 姚舜霞、邱天河(2003)。英漢請求言語行為策略類型對比初探。平頂山師專學報,18(3),73-76。 姚舜霞、邱天河(2003)。淺析英漢請求言語行為策略類型。河南科技大學學報:社會科學版,21(1),74-76。 凌來芳(2003)。中英請求言語行為策略選擇之比較。合肥工業大學學報:社會科學版,17(5),142-146。 原坤陽、康燦輝、李柏令(2012)。漢語請求言語行為策略傾向的再調查和再分析。河南科技學院學報,5,52-55。 張紹杰、王曉彤(1997)。請求言語行為的對比研究。現代外語,3,63-72。 張僖秦(2013)。華語請求行為之表現分析及教學應用-以華語電視劇之請求表現為例(碩士論文)。國立臺灣師範大學,臺北市。 高志懷、陳桂艷、張新水(2005)。請求語的語用研究。河北師範大學學報:哲學社會科學版,6,85-88。 高翔(2008)。虛擬環境下漢語請求行為的語用特點分析。文教資料,2,31-32。 畢繼萬(2001)。跨文化非語言交際。北京:外語教學與研究出版社。 梁婷(2012)。請求策略中常規間接請求策略的語用分析。貴陽學院學報:社會科學版,3,89-91。 劉寶權(2004)。跨文化交際能力與語言測試的接口研究(博士論文)。上海外國語大學,上海。 燕玉芝(2015)。中美大學生請求言語行為策略的跨文化研究。濟源職業技術學院學報,14(3),105-108。 韓彩鳳(2011)。漢語請求言語行為的前序鋪墊話語手段。廣州廣播電視大學學報,3,49-53。 關世杰(1995)。跨文化交流學。北京:北京大學出版社。 蘇文妙(2003)。文化價值觀與交際風格—英漢請求言語行為對比研究。西安外國語學院學報,11(1),27-30。 顧曰國(1992)。禮貌、語用與文化。外語教學與研究,4,10-17。 國立臺灣師範大學主編(2008 a),新版實用視聽華語(一)。臺北:正中書局。 國立臺灣師範大學主編(2008 b),新版實用視聽華語(二)。臺北:正中書局。 國立臺灣師範大學主編(2008 c),新版實用視聽華語(三)。臺北:正中書局。 國立臺灣師範大學主編(2008 d),新版實用視聽華語(四)。臺北:正中書局。 國立臺灣師範大學主編(2008 e),新版實用視聽華語(五)。臺北:正中書局。 國立臺灣師範大學國語教學中心(2008)。迷你廣播劇。臺北:正中書局。 | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/59448 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 請求言語行為是日常交際中最常見的言語行為之一,參照Blum-Kulka,
House & Kasper(1989)的請求言語行為序列中可分為起始行為、中心行為和輔助行為三個部分。過去進行請求言語行為相關研究時,學者普遍傾向採用語篇補全測驗(Discourse completion tasks,簡稱為DCTs)方式進行問卷調查並採集語料。作答過程中受試者往往傾向以簡短、常識性質的形式應答,因此不易觀察到自然真實的言語表現情況;再者,通過書寫作答形式採集口語現象相關語料,其調查結果不一定能真實反映出受試者在實際的交際情境中慣用之言語行為表現。然而,蒐集真實的自然口語語料實屬不易,以田野調查法為例,需取得受試者的同意以進行長時間的近身觀察,方能採集到真實的口語語料。因此,本研究為蒐集接近真實且便於取得的華語請求言語行為口語語料,設計一套「任務型小組活動」,希望透過活動進行的過程能夠採集到較貼近日常生活且真實反映母語者在實際交際情境中的半自然語料。 本研究首先通過前人文獻整理,確立華語請求言語行為的定義和策略類型框架;此外,本研究所欲觀察的易影響請求策略選用的變因有四:包括交際雙方之間的社會距離、年齡輩份差距、性別差異以及請求本身的難易度級別。因此,透過任務型小組活動(Task-based Activity)進行口語語料蒐集時,研究者便事先設計36項不同的請求事項作為活動使用的任務籤,其中包含了「具體物品」、「具體事項」、「抽象事物」、「訊息索取」四種類別,又分成簡易、中等、困難等不同的難易度級別;而受試者篩選方面,四人為一組,每組組員之間皆存在社會距離之親疏、年齡輩份差距和性別等請求變因。讓組內的每位受試者輪流擔任任務執行者,並以隨機抽籤方式決定任務籤內容及達成該請求的對象,藉此觀察不同社會關係之間的交際雙方在提出不同難易度級別的請求時所選用的策略表現差異。 本研究以Blum-Kulka, House & Kasper(1989)的請求言語行為策略分類框架為基準參照,搭配本研究採集之語料中的策略表現,建立出一套本研究的華語請求策略分類進行語料分析。首先,研究者分別針對起始、中心和輔助行為三種序列結構,以前述四種請求變因作為分項進行數據整理與分析,觀察各項變因對說話者在提出請求時的策略選用影響,並彙整出整體語料中所傾向選用的請求策略。在起始行為方面,華語請求言語行為最常使用「稱呼語」作為起始行為策略,佔60.1%(172/286);中心行為方面,則傾向使用「規約性間接策略」作為中心行為策略,佔52.5%(189/360),其中又以「規約性間接策略」中的「準備性詢問」的選用頻率最高,佔49.2%(177/360);輔助行為方面,說話者傾向選用「說明原因」作為輔助行為策略,佔41.2%(91/221);「詢問前的試探」次之,佔38.5%(85/221);而「降低難度」的選用比例又次之,佔16.3%(36/221)。 根據本研究口語語料觀察,前述四種變因均會影響說話者對請求言語行為策略的選用,只是每個變因所影響的序列表現不盡一致,需將請求各序列進行細項對比,才能夠觀察得出語料中各請求變因在請求言語行為真正影響的部分。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | Request is one of the most common speech acts in daily communications and interactions. The nature of the speech act of request has the possibility of humiliating the participants of the interaction thus it imposes certain level of burden to the speaker, which is called face-threatening acts (FTA) by Brown and Levinson's politeness theory. Therefore, when Chinese learners try to use the speech act of request in the appropriate way, they should take the social relationships between both sides of communication, the context of speech, and the degree of difficulty for request into account in order to choose the proper request strategies. According to Blum-Kulka, House & Kasper (1989)’s research, the sequences of request can be classified into three parts, including head acts, and two optional parts—alerters and supportive moves. When studying “request”, previous studies generally tend to use the Discourse completion tasks (DCTs) to collect data. But it turns out that the subjects in DCTs tend to respond in a short, common sense form, so it’s not easy to observe the natural speech performance. On the other hand, whether it’s suitable to use the form of writing to collect oral data is doubtful. Therefore, he results of the survey of DCTs can’t be used to reflect the speech performance of speaker in the actual situation of natural communication. However, this study doesn't only talk about Chinese request in oral situations, but also focuses on how to collect natural oral data and which approach is the most proper way in this study.
Before the data collection for this study, there is a definition of the speech act of request, the strategic frameworks of Chinese request based on previous research results. Furthermore, the comparison and assessment of different kinds of previous research methods is also included. In addition, there are four research variants be set up, which are the differences of social distance, age, gender and the degree of difficulty. According to the research needs, this study decides to use “task-based activity” to collect the semi-natural oral data of request. To set up the four research variants above, these variables are added to the subject's conditional setting for the task-based activity in this study. As a result, there is the analysis and discussion of data collection reveals that conventionally indirect strategy is the most frequent strategy of head acts in Chinese request, which accounts for 52.5%(189/360), and social factors would decide on the choice of an appropriate form of request strategies. In terms of alerters, “address form” is the most frequent strategy in Chinese request which accounts for 60.1%(172/286), and it’s also relatively complex and indicating mutual social relationships in certain language environment. Lastly, in terms of supportive acts, the frequency of “Cause explanation” is quite high, which accounts for 41.2%(91/221). | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-16T09:24:04Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-106-R02146008-1.pdf: 14228652 bytes, checksum: cd74e4bc6931220c326190b1da2d95a0 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2017 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | 目錄
口試委員會審定書…………………………………………………I 中文摘要…………………………………………………II 英文摘要…………………………………………………IV 目錄…………………………………………………VI 表目次…………………………………………………IX 圖目次…………………………………………………XI 第一章 緒論…………………………………………………1 第一節 研究背景…………………………………………………1 第二節 研究範圍與方向…………………………………………………3 第三節 研究目的與問題…………………………………………………6 第四節 研究架構與流程…………………………………………………7 第五節 名詞釋義…………………………………………………9 第二章 文獻回顧…………………………………………………11 第一節 請求言語行為與策略表現…………………………………………………11 一、 言語行為中的請求言語行為…………………………………………………11 二、 請求言語行為的策略表現…………………………………………………22 三、 華語請求言語行為的策略表現…………………………………………………31 第二節 華語請求言語行為研究方法、脈絡與結果…………………………………………………36 一、 語篇補全測驗(Discourse completion tasks)………………………………37 二、 直接觀察(Direct Observation)…………………………………………………51 三、 理論框架分析(Theoretical Analysis)……………………………………………60 四、 訪談(Interviewing)…………………………………………………65 第三節 小結…………………………………………………66 第三章 研究方法…………………………………………………69 第一節 研究方法的選擇…………………………………………………69 一、 各研究方法的優勢與限制…………………………………………………71 二、 以任務型小組活動為主的語料採集法…………………………………………………81 第二節 任務型小組活動的前置作業…………………………………………………83 一、 任務型小組活動目標…………………………………………………84 二、 任務型小組活動設計…………………………………………………84 三、 任務型小組活動流程步驟…………………………………………………95 四、 本任務型小組活動整體內容設計…………………………………………………98 第三節 研究對象…………………………………………………104 第四節 語料蒐集與分析…………………………………………………105 一、 語料取材原則…………………………………………………105 二、 語料分析與處理方法…………………………………………………106 第五節 小結…………………………………………………108 第四章 任務型小組活動之請求語料分析結果…………………………………………………111 第一節 華語請求言語行為策略分類…………………………………………………112 一、 本研究的請求言語行為策略類型與判定標準示例…………………………113 二、 本研究的請求言語行為策略選用比例計算方式………………………………135 第二節 社會關係變因對華語請求策略影響之觀察…………………………………………138 一、 社會距離與請求難易度級別…………………………………………………140 二、 年齡輩份差距與請求難易度級別…………………………………………………164 三、 性別差異與請求難易度級別…………………………………………………187 第三節 語料整體結果與分析討論…………………………………………………203 一、 起始行為策略整體運用與表現…………………………………………………205 二、 中心行為策略整體運用與表現…………………………………………………206 三、 輔助行為策略整體運用與表現…………………………………………………209 四、 請求事項難易度級別的影響…………………………………………………211 第四節 小結…………………………………………………218 第五章 結論…………………………………………………221 第一節 研究結論 …………………………………………………221 一、 選用「任務型小組活動」作為華語請求口語語料採集法之原因與優劣…………………………………………………221 二、 本研究與前人研究所採用的研究方法之異同………………………………………223 三、 本研究與前人對華語請求策略研究結論之異同…………………………………228 第二節 研究貢獻與應用…………………………………………………234 第三節 研究限制與未來展望…………………………………………………236 參考文獻…………………………………………………238 附錄一 語料轉寫稿節錄…………………………………………………248 | |
dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
dc.title | 華語口語請求言語行為-以「任務型小組活動」採集法為例 | zh_TW |
dc.title | The Speech Act of Requesting in Spoken Chinese: An Approach Based on Task-oriented Interactions | en |
dc.type | Thesis | |
dc.date.schoolyear | 105-2 | |
dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 蘇席瑤(Hsi-Yao Su),李明懿(Ming-Yi Li) | |
dc.subject.keyword | 華語請求言語行為,請求策略,任務型活動,口語語料,半自然語料, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | Speech acts of request,Chinese Request,Request Strategies,Task-based activity,Spoken data,Semi-natural data, | en |
dc.relation.page | 257 | |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU201701003 | |
dc.rights.note | 有償授權 | |
dc.date.accepted | 2017-06-20 | |
dc.contributor.author-college | 文學院 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.author-dept | 華語教學碩士學位學程 | zh_TW |
顯示於系所單位: | 華語教學碩士學位學程 |
文件中的檔案:
檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
---|---|---|---|
ntu-106-1.pdf 目前未授權公開取用 | 13.9 MB | Adobe PDF |
系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。