請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/73520
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 | Shao-Hsin Tsai | en |
dc.contributor.author | 蔡劭欣 | zh_TW |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-17T07:39:40Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2019-02-28 | |
dc.date.copyright | 2019-02-20 | |
dc.date.issued | 2019 | |
dc.date.submitted | 2019-02-19 | |
dc.identifier.citation | 丁國雲, 胡睦苓, 鄧守信, & 陳淑美. (2016)。當代中文課程4 = A course in contemporary Chinese (初版). 台北市: 聯經出版事業股份有限公司.
朱國華, 黃桂英, 王文娟&葉德明.(2011). 遠東商務漢語一. 台北:遠東國際出版社. 朱國華, 黃桂英, 王文娟&葉德明.(2015). 遠東商務漢語二. 台北:遠東國際出版社. 朱國華, 黃桂英, 王文娟&葉德明.(2016). 遠東商務漢語三. 台北:遠東國際出版社. 呂京英. (2012). 從語用預設的角度看漢語語尾助詞「啊」. 新課程學習(學術教育),11,171 呂叔湘. (1983). 現代漢語八百詞 (一版.). 香港:商務. 呂叔湘. (1982). 中國文法要略. 北京:商務印書館. 何沐容, 洪芸琳, 鄧巧如, & 鄧守信. (2018). 當代中文課程5 = A course in contemporary Chinese (初版). 新北市: 聯經出版事業股份有限公司. 李冉. (2015). 只是的語義及篇章功能. (碩士論文), 上海師範大學. 李明懿. (2012). 華語學習者之定式篇章標記語使用研究-基於教學觀點之考察. (博士論文), 國立臺灣師範大學. 杜玫昭. (2014).商業華語教學 : 理論與實務 (一版). 臺北市: 新學林. 祁文娟&彭飛. (2011). 試論對外漢語教學中的元話語教學—以「我的意思是說」為例. 中國城市經濟,30, 223-224 邵敬敏. (1995). 吧字疑問句及其相關句類比較研究. 第四屆漢語教學討論會論文選. 松本幸夫(著); 郭欣怡(譯). (2015).問話絕技:問話能力,就是「解決問題」的能力. 台北: 方言文化. 林智怡. (1999). 中文對話中的異議現象. (碩士), 國立政治大學. 姚劍鵬. (2006). 自然言語中的語流暫停研究及其認知功用分析. 國外外語教學, 3, 6-13. 高增霞. (2000). 語氣詞吧的意義再探. 山東師大學報,1, 93-96. 夏玉瓊&崔義平. (2008). 異議表達的語用策略研究. 宜賓學院學報,11, 80-82. 孫冰&雷淑娟. (2005). 商務漢語金橋—中級會話. 北京:北京大學. 陶紅印. (2003). 從語音、語法和話語特征看「知道」格式在談話中的演化. 中國語文,4, 291-302. 董瑾. (2005). 漢語商務通口語中級教程. 北京:北京大學. 國立臺灣師範大學. (2016). 新版實用視聽華語 = Practical audio-visual Chinese (二版). 臺北縣新店市: 正中書局. 陳熹. (2006). 面向對外漢語的幾組語氣副詞的研究(碩士), 華中科技大學. 張文杰, (2018,11月21日), 以核養綠觀點:誰能讓能源轉型計畫真正實踐?.報導者. https://www.twreporter.org/a/opinion-green-nuclear-vote-2 張玲瑛. (2009). 現代漢語句末助詞「嗎、啊、吧、呢」的教學語法. 華語文教學研究,6(2), 99-127. 張泰平. (2000). 國際商務漢語教程. 北京:北京大學. 張婧.(2006). 本來和原來的意思比較. 語言文字應用,2. 張黎&陶曉紅. (2005). 商務漢語提高篇. 北京:北京大學. 張黎, 張靜賢&聶學慧(1999). 對外漢語本科系列教材—商務口語教程. 北京:北京語言大學. 靳洪剛. (2004). 語言定式教學法在中文習得和中文教學中的作用. Journal of the Chinese language Teachers Association,39(1), 45-62. 靳洪剛. (2005). 第二語言習得與語言形式為中心的結構教學. Journal of the Chinese language Teachers Association,40(2), 43-66. 熊子瑜&林茂灿. (2004). 啊的韻律特徵及其話語交際功能. 當代語言學6(2), 116 -127. Anita Pomeranz. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing assessment: Some features of preferred and dispreferred turn shaped. In Atkinson, J. M. & Heritage, J(Eds.), Structure of Social Action (pp.57-101). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Asmuß, B., & Svennevig, J. (2009). Meeting Talk: An Introduction. Journal of Business Communication, 46(1), 3–22. Atkinson, J. M. & Drew, P. (1979). Order in court. Palgrave Macmillan. Bales, R. (1950). Interaction process analysis : a method for the study of small groups. Chicago: The University of Chicago. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness : some universals in language usage . Cambridge [Cambridgeshire] : Cambridge University Press. In E. Goody (Ed.), Questions and Politeness: Strategies in Social Interaction (pp.56-310). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Barnes, R. (2007). Formulations and the facilitation of common agreement in meetings talk. Text & Talk - An Interdisciplinary Journal of Language, Discourse Communication Studies, 27(3), 273–296. https://doi.org/10.1515/TEXT.2007.011 Barske, T. (2009). Same Token, Different Actions: A Conversation Analytic Study of Social Roles, Embodied Actions, and ok in German Business Meetings. Journal of Business Communication, 46(1), 120–149. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021943608325748 Bargiela-Chiappini, F., & Harris, S. (1997). The languages of business : an international perspective. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Boden, D. (1994). The business of talk: Organizations in action. Cambridge: Polity Press. Danielle Duez,Silent and non-silent pauses in three speech styles , Language and speech Drew, P., & Heritage, J. (1992). Talk at work : interaction in institutional settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Egbert, M. M. (1997). Schisming: The collaborative transformation from a single conversation to multiple conversations. Research on Language & Social Ford, C. (2008). Women speaking up getting and using turns in workplace meetings. New York, N.Y.: Palgrave Macmillan. Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. Goffman, E. (1983). The Interaction Order: American Sociological Association, 1982 Presidential Address. American Sociological Review, 48(1), 1-18. Handford, Michael J.A. (2007). The genre of the business meeting: a corpus-based study (PhD thesis), University of Nottingham. Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge [Cambridgeshire] : Polity Press. Heritage, J. (1997) Conversation analysis and institutional talk: analysing data, In Qualitative research: Theory, method and practice (David Silverman, ed.), London, Sage Publications, 161-182. Heritage, J. (1998). Conversation analysis and institutional talk: Analyzing distinctive turn-taking systems, In Proceedings of the 6th International Congress of IADA (Cmejrková.S, Hoffmannová.J., Müllerová.O. & Svetlá.J, ed.), Tübingen, Niemyer, 3-17. Heritage, J. (2005). Conversation analysis and institutional talk. In Fitch, K., & Sanders, R., Handbook of Language and Social Interaction (pp. 103-146). Mawah, NJ, Erlbaum. Heritage, J. & Clayman, S. (2010a). Talk in action : interactions, identities, and institutions. Chichester, U.K.: Wiley-Blackwell. Heritage, J. (2010b). Conversation Analysis: Practices and methods, In Silverman, D(Ed.), Qualitative Sociology (3rd edition.) (pp.208-230). London: SAGE. Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In G. H. Lerner(Ed.), Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation (pp. 13-31).Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Liddicoat, A. (2007). An introduction to conversation analysis. London: Continuum. Muntigl, P., & Turnbull, W. (1998). Conversational structure and facework in arguing. Journal of Pragmatics, 29(3), 225-256. Ni-Eng Lim. (2009). Stance-taking with Wo Juede in conversational Chinese, In Xiao. Y (Ed.), Proceedings of the 21st North American Conference on Chinese Linguistics (NACCL‐21) (pp.323-340),(2). Rhode Island: Bryant University. O’Keeffe, A. (2006). Investigating Media Discourse. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203015704 O’ Keeffe, A., McCarthy, M.J.& Carter, R. J. (2007). Lessons from the analysis of chunks. From corpus to classroom: Language use and language teaching (pp.58-79). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511497650.004 Psathas, G. (1995). Conversation analysis : the study of talk-in-interaction. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: SAGE. Raclaw, J.& Ford, C. E. (2015). Meetings as interactional achievements: A conversation analytic perspective, In Allen, J. A., Lehmann-VIllenbrock, N., Rogelberg, S. G. (Eds.) The Cambridge Handbook of Meeting Science (pp.247-276), Cambridge: Cambrige University Press. Sack, H., Schegloff, E.A.&Jefferson, G (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50 (4), 696-735. Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G. & Sacks, H. (1977). The Preference for Self-Correction in the Organization of Repair in Conversation. Language, Linguistic Society of America,53(2), 361-382. Schegloff, E. A. (1997). Third turn repair. Amsterdam studies in the theory and history of linguistic science series 4, 31-40. Schegloff, E. A. (2000). When ‘others’ initiate repair. Applied Linguistics, 21(2), 205-243. Schwartzman, H. (1989). The meeting : gatherings in organizations and communities . New York: Plenum Press. Sidnell, J. (2009). Conversation analysis comparative perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Svennevig, J. (2012). Interaction in workplace meetings. Discourse Studies, 14(1), 3–10. Tang , Chi-Hsia,Self-Repair Devices in Classroom Monologue Discourse,2011年。 Concentric: Literary and Cultural Studies / 同心圓:文學與文化研究, 2011-01-01, 37卷1期 Wang, Y.F (1998). Dispreferred reponses in Mandarin Chinese conversation. Proceedings of the First Symposium on Discourse and Syntax in Chinese and Formosan Languanges. Wang, Y. F., Tsai, M. C., Schams, W. & Yang, C. M. (2013). Restrictiveness, exclusivity, adversativity, and mirativity: Mandarin Chinese zhishi as an affective diminutive marker in spoken discourse. Chinese Language and Discourse. 4(2), 181-228. Wang, H. (2007). The elements of the business Chinese curriculum: A pragmatic approach. In D.R. Yoshimi, & H. Wang (eds.), Selected papers from pragmatics in the CJK classroom: The state of the art (pp. 203-209). University of Hawai’I ar Mānoa. 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. (2008). Beyond Negation--The Roles of “Meiyou” and “Bushi” in Mandarin Conversation. Language Sciences, 30(6), 679–713. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2006.08.001 Wu, R. (2016). Doing conversation analysis in Mandarin Chinese: Basic methods. Chinese Language and Discourse, 7(2), 179–209. https://doi.org/10.1075/cld.7.2.01wu Wang, H. (2011). Chinese for Business Professionals: The Workplace Needs and Business Chinese Textbooks, Global Business Languages(16), 27-42. https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/gbl/vol16/iss1/5 Wang, Y. F., Goodman, D., Chen S. Y., & Hsiao, Y. H. (2011). Making claims and counterclaims through factuality: The examples of Mandarin Chinese qishi (‘actually’) and shishishang(‘in fact’) in spoken institutional settings. Discourse Studies 13(2): 235-262. Wray, A. (1999). Formulaic language in learners and native speakers. Language Teaching, 32(4), 213-231. doi:10.1017/S0261444800014154 | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/73520 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 根據前人需求分析(Wang, 2006, 2011; 李育娟,2011; 杜玫昭, 2014),華語學習者對於商務華語的需求確實存在,在會議中發表意見的能力亦在學習者的學習期望當中。但是華語學習者意見表達的型態除了母語影響外,亦受到教材引導的限制,以致表達方式較為受限,其中針對反對意見表達的練習更加缺乏。
本文蒐集私人小型公司內部會議269分鐘真實語料,依反對意見類型分為兩大分析主軸,包含語用策略七類及語言特徵十一類,並以Brown & Levinson(1978,1987)面子威脅理論為輔,排序反對意見策略之強度高低。觀察發現,即使語境為機構性較強的會議情境,因公司內部的會議參與者較為熟悉,語言表現仍然大部分接近日常會話。然而儘管內容形式皆與日常會話類似,經由語料分析,說話者使用的句式與策略仍然可見其機構性,除詞彙區別外,句子層級如弱化的反對策略使用,以及以解釋策略為主的表達方式,句型也與日常會話不同。本文分析發現,說話者表達反對意見時往往綜合使用多種策略與語言特徵,以產生反對強度的細微變化,加強或是弱化威脅面子行為,更發現當雙方皆以強度較高之策略對話導致話輪停滯時,經常有第三人加入,並以建議或者其他弱化的語用策略積極協調,使對話能順利進行。 由語料分析結果整理,各種策略與特徵搭配的組合,以及詞彙、句式皆有不同功能,代表不同強度,接著將其中的句型轉化為結構全式,透過定式結構教學設計三階段教學活動,並提供教學建議。教學活動包含基礎定式結構、策略綜合使用以及主題式活動練習,建議作為多課後的綜合性練習。本文旨在利用真實語料統計並轉化後使用於教學現場,針對反對意見表達行為提供機構性語言的參考。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | According to needs analysis of predecessors (Wang, 2006, 2011; Li, 2011; Du, 2014), Chinese language learners' demand for business Chinese does exist, and the ability to express opinions during the meeting is also among the learner's expectations. In addition to the influence of the mother tongue, the expressions of Chinese learners' opinions are also affected by the guidance of the textbooks, so that the expressions are more limited. The practice of expressing objective opinion is, even more, lacking in textbooks.
This present study collected 269 minutes of natural speech corpus from the private small-scale company's internal meeting. It is divided into two major analytical categories according to the type of objection, including 7 pragmatic strategies and 11 linguistic features. Supplemented by Brown & Levinson (1978, 1987), the Face-threating act (FTA) theory is used to rank the strength of the opposition strategy. It has been observed that even if the meeting context has obvious institutionality, the participants in the company are more familiar, therefore, the language performance is still mostly close to the ordinary conversation. However, although the content and form are similar to the ordinary conversation, the analyzed data proves that the institutionality still could be seen within sentence structure and strategy used by the speakers. In addition to the lexical difference, the use of the opposing strategy in the sentence hierarchy, such as weakened strategies, and the interpretation composed by explanatory strategy are the proves of difference between original conversation and institutional talk. The present study found that when the speaker expresses the objection, they often use a variety of strategies and linguistic features to generate subtle changes in the strength of the opposition, strengthen or weaken the face-threatening act. Furthermore, we found that when both sides speak with a higher-strength strategy or the turn becomes stagnant, a third person often joins and actively coordinates with suggestions or other weakened pragmatic strategies to make the dialogue go smoothly. From the results of data analysis, the combination of various strategies and features, as well as vocabulary and sentence patterns have different functions, and represent different strengths. The present study used these results to design three-stage teaching activities based on the formulaic speech pedagogy, at the same time to provid teaching advice. The teaching activities include basic form-focused structures, comprehensive use of strategies, and thematic activities. It is recommended as a comprehensive exercise after multiple lessons. The purpose of present study is to practice the results derived from natural speech corpus in the teaching field, and provide an institutional language reference for objection expressions. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-17T07:39:40Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-108-R03146004-1.pdf: 8632159 bytes, checksum: 8c3bc719edf439cf4ed17814e48e5669 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2019 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | 摘要 III
Abstract IV 圖目錄 VII 表目錄 VIII 第一章 緒論 9 第一節 研究動機及目的 9 第二節 研究背景 10 第三節 研究問題 14 第四節 研究架構 14 第二章 文獻回顧 15 第一節 會話分析理論 15 第二節 機構語言 18 第三節 商務會議的語言特色 25 第四節 意見表達與反對 30 第五節 定式結構與教學 35 第三章 研究方法 39 第一節 研究方法論 39 第二節 語料採集與轉寫 41 第三節 語料分析概念 43 第四章 會議中的反對意見 53 第一節 會議的語言架構 53 第二節 語言特徵(Linguistic Feature) 54 第五章 語用策略的使用 77 第一節 語用策略(Pragmatic Strategy) 77 第二節 綜合語用策略 89 第三節 第三人協調 94 第六章 定式結構的教學應用 95 第一節 結構整理與基礎應用 98 第二節 綜合使用練習 103 第三節 主題式練習 106 第七章 結論 114 附錄一 116 參考文獻 119 | |
dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
dc.title | 反對意見表達協商與教學應用—
以華語非正式會議為例 | zh_TW |
dc.title | Disagreement and negotiation in Chinese informal meetings: An analysis and its teaching implications | en |
dc.type | Thesis | |
dc.date.schoolyear | 107-1 | |
dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 呂佳蓉(Chia-Rung Lu),盧欣宜(Hsin-Yi Lu) | |
dc.subject.keyword | 會話分析,反對意見,定式教學,語用策略,會議, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | Conversation Analysis,Objection,Formulaic Speech Pedagogy,Pragmatic Strategy,Meeting, | en |
dc.relation.page | 125 | |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU201900622 | |
dc.rights.note | 有償授權 | |
dc.date.accepted | 2019-02-19 | |
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-108-1.pdf 目前未授權公開取用 | 8.43 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。