Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://ah.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/57059
題名: 社會語言學在華語教學中的應用:以「稱謂語」為例
Application of sociolinguistics in teaching Mandarin Chinese address forms
作者: 曹嘉珍
Tsao, Chia Chen
貢獻者: 詹惠珍
Chan, Hui Chen
曹嘉珍
Tsao, Chia Chen
關鍵詞: 稱謂語
場合正式性
熟悉程度
階級
輩分
華語教學
Address Forms
Formality
Familiarity
Ranking
Generation
Teaching Mandarin Chinese
日期: 2012
上傳時間: 1-Mar-2013
摘要:   本研究旨在探究將語言功能教學納入華語教學中之可行性,並選取華語稱謂語作為研究之對象。為達成研究目的,本研究以問卷調查方式以及訪談做為研究工具,有效問卷共計24份,透過問卷調取語料及配合訪談,進一步分析華語母語者在不同情境下對於稱謂語的擇用是否有規律可循。問卷調查以場合正式性、熟悉程度、階級、輩分與性別五項社會因素為主,檢測此五項社會因素個別如何宰制其對華語稱謂語的擇用,當其交乘時又會如何相互牽制與競爭。\n  經過研究實施與資料分析,在35個稱謂語中,只有7種形式使用頻率較高,包括「(名字 你)」、「您」、「職稱({你,您})」、「姓氏+職稱({你,您})」、「(姓氏)職稱({你,您})」、「姓氏+先生({你,您})」、「全名+你」。在社會變相方面,發現性別對稱謂語的擇用不具顯著影響力。因此就場合正式性、熟悉程度、階級與輩分四項社會因素進行分析,歸結研究結果如下:(一)受試者在公開場合與私底下之首選均為併式「(名字 你)」。研究結果顯示場合正式性的高低對首選的指稱形式的選擇並無直接影響。換言之,場合正式性對於稱謂語不具識別性。(二)在很熟、不大熟與不認識三種情形下,「名字」或「你」使用頻率均很高,凸顯現在社會價值體系的走向仍偏向協和關係,且其已超越權勢的強度。因此,當需要標示社會差距時會使用「職稱」。換言之,熟悉程度對於稱謂語的擇用具影響力,並依此分列為兩大系統,以「名字」與「你」指稱熟悉度高的對象,以「職稱」指稱熟悉度低的對象。(三)指涉對象為上司時多選用有「職稱」者;指涉同事與下屬則偏向使用「(名字 你)」;「您」則少用於指涉下屬。另外,原先假設「階級」可分為上司、同事與下屬三種程度,然根據調查結果可重新切割為「上司」以及「非上司」(即同事與下屬)兩階即可。(四)在對象輩分高於自己的情況下傾向以「職稱」標示雙方社會距離,而在面對平輩或是晚輩時則不適用。選用「您」的情形在面對長輩或是平輩時較為頻繁,對晚輩則不使用。「名字」以及「你」的稱謂指涉則不分輩分高低,顯示這兩種語言形式基本上不受到輩分高低的控制。(五)綜合以上,發現四項社會因素個別對稱謂語之影響力的優先順序為:{熟悉程度,階級}>輩分>場合正式性;交乘考量時,對稱謂語之影響力的優先順序為:熟悉程度>階級>輩分>場合正式性。無論是對於單獨或複合的稱謂形式,熟悉程度與階級的宰制均較強,影響力皆較大;而輩分與場合正式性的宰制較弱,影響力不明顯,可見與聽話者之間的關係才是主宰稱謂語擇用的主因。\n  最後本研究根據上述研究結果,對華語教學提出相關建議,並提出語言功能教學在華語教學實務上的應用與設計,希望能夠培養學習者建立對語言功能的意識與認識以及語言結構的使用能力,提升華語學習者的學習成效,達成語碼形式的正確性與使用之適切性兼具的成功溝通。
參考文獻: 中文書目\n\n國立臺灣師範大學主編,2011。《新版實用視聽華語》。台北:正中書局\n\n李泉(主編),2006。《對外漢語課程、大綱與教學模式研究》。北京:商務印書館。\n\n趙元任,2002。《趙元任語言學論文集》。北京:商務印書館。\n\n葉德明,1999。《華語文教學規範與理論基礎-華語文為第二語言教學理論芻議》。台北:師大書苑。\n\n彭增安,1998。《語用•修辭•文化》。上海: 學林出版社。\n\n英文書目\n\nBates, E., and Benigni, L. 1975. Rules for address in Italy: A sociological survey. Language in Society 4(3):271-88.\n\nBloch, M. (ed). 1975. Political Language and Oratory in Traditional Society. London:Academic Press.\n\nBreen, M. 1985. Authenticity in the language classroom. Applied Linguistics, 6.1: 60-70.\n\nBrown, R., and Gilman, A.1962. The pronouns of power and solidarity. American Anthroplogist, 4(6):24-9.\n\nBrown, R., and Ford, M.1961. Address in American English. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 62:454-62.\n\nCanale, M. 1983. From communicative competence to communicative language pedagogy. In Richards, J. C. & Schmidt, R. W. (eds.), Language and Communication. London: Longman Books.\n\nCanale, M. and Swain, M. 1980. Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistic (1):1-47.\n\nChan, H. (詹惠珍). 2000. Anaphoric Choice in Social Context. Chinese Studies, 18:299-321.\n\nChao, Y. R. (趙元任). 1961. What is correct Chinese? Journal of the American Oriental Society, 81(3): 171-177.\n-----. 1959. The descriptive and normative problems of language. CLW, Taipei. 5(2): 4-8.\n\nChomsky, N. 1988. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. In Liu (ed.), Selective Readings of Modern Linguistics. Beijing: Mapping Press.\n\nErvin-Tripp, S. 1972. Sociolinguistics rules of address. In Pride, J. B. and Holmes, J.(eds.), Sociolinguistics. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 225-40.\n\nFasold, R. W. 1990. Sociolinguistics of Language. Oxford:Basil Blackwell, 1-38.\n\nFischer, J. 1972. The Stylistic Significance of Consonantal Sandhi in Trukese and Ponapean. In Directions in Sociolinguistics. Gumperz, J. and Hymes, D. (eds.), New York:Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 498-511.\n\nFishman, J. 1972. Sociolinguistics:A Brief Introduction. Rowley, Mass.:Newbury House.\n\nGilmore, A. 2007. Authentic materials and authenticity in foreign language learning. Language Teaching, 40: 97-118.\n\nGrice, H. P. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. and Morgan, J. L. (eds.), Syntax and semantics, Vol.3: Speech acts. New York: Academic Press, 22-40.\n\nGu, Y. (顧曰國). 1990. Politeness phenomena in modern Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics, 14: 237-257.\n\nGuariento, W., and Morley, J. 2001. Text and Task Authenticity in the EFL Classroom. ELT Journal:English Language Teachers Journal, 55(4): 347-354.\n\nHymes, D. 1972. On communicative competence. In Pride, J. B. and Holmes, J. (eds.), Sociolinguistics. London: Penguin.\n\nHolmes, J. 2001. An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. London:Longman.\n\nJudith, I. T. 2001 . Formality and Informality in Communicative Events. Linguistic Anthropology. Blackwell, 189-207\n\nKuo, Sai-hua. (郭賽華). 2002. From solidarity to antagonism: The uses of the second person singular pronoun in Chinese political discourse. Text 22(1): 29-55.\n-----. 2004. The use of address forms in Chinese political discourse: Analyzing the 1998 Taipei mayoral debates. Tsing Hua Journal of Chinese Studies, New Series 33(1): 153-172.\n\nLabov, W. 1972. Some Principles of Linguistic Methodology. Language in Society 1:97-120.\n\nLambert, W. and Tucker, R. G. 1976. Tu, vous, usted: A Social- Psychological Study of Address Patterns. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.\n\nLeech, G. N. 1983. Principles of pragmatics. New York: Longman.\n\nLeeds-Hurwitz, W. 1980. The use and analysis of uncommon forms of address: a business example. Working Papers in Sociolinguistics, 80. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.\n\nLyons, J. 1968. Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.\n\nMacDonald, R. M., Badger, R., and Dasli, M. 2006. Authenticity, Culture and Language Learning. Language and Intercultural Communication, 6(3&4): 250-261.\n\nPaulston, Christina Bratt. 1975. Language and social class: pronouns of address in Swedish. Working Papers in Sociolinguistics, 29. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.\n\nRecanati, F. 1987. Meaning and Force: the pragmatics of performative utterances. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.\n\nRubin, J. 1968. Bilingual Usage in Paraguay. In Joshua Fishman, ed. Readings in the Sociology of Language. The Hague:Moutin, 512-30.\n\nSavingnons, S. J. 1983. Communicative Competence: Theory and classroom practice.London: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company. \n\nSlobin, D., Miller, S., and Porter, L. 1968. Forms of address and social relations in a business organization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8(3):289-93.\n\nTannen, D. 1986. That’s Not What I Meant. New York:Ballantine Books.\n\nTaylor, P. H. 1994. Inauthentic Authenticity or Authentic Inauthenticity?TESL-EJ, 1(2): 1-9.\n\nWiddowson, H. G. 1984. Explorations in Applied Linguistics. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
描述: 碩士
國立政治大學
華語文教學碩士學位學程
98161015
101
資料來源: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0098161015
資料類型: thesis
Appears in Collections:學位論文

Files in This Item:
File SizeFormat
101501.pdf2.63 MBAdobe PDF2View/Open
Show full item record

Google ScholarTM

Check


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.