Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://ah.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/135976


Title: 華語社群媒體提出需求的語用策略——以《批踢踢》語料為例
Strategies of Making a Request in Mandarin-based Social Media: A Study Based on PTT Bulletin Board
Authors: 黃曼華
Huang, Man-Hua
Contributors: 鍾曉芳
Chung, Siaw-Fong
黃曼華
Huang, Man-Hua
Keywords: 提出需求
言語行為策略
嚴重性
模板
批踢踢語料
make a request
speech act strategy
severity
template
PTT texts
Date: 2021
Issue Date: 2021-07-01 19:39:58 (UTC+8)
Abstract: 日常生活中難免會遇到緊急或令人著急的事情,自己無法在短時間內解決的時候,不少人會在社群媒體上向大眾提出需求,索取特定資訊、物品、人力等。本論文研究人們遇到嚴重性不同的事件如何在社群媒體上向他人提出需求,以《批踢踢實業坊》上的發文作為語料,分出四類嚴重性低到高的事件:「資訊取得」、「日常需求」、「重大事件」、「危難事件」,研究旨在探討提出需求話語的內部結構變化與事件嚴重性的關聯。先運用言語行為理論(speech act)(Searle, 1969)分析策略,再結合「語步」(move)的概念(Swales, 1990; Biber, Conner & Upton, 2007),將功能相似且經常互相搭配的策略劃成一個語步,最後把每類事件的常用語步組合製作成提出需求模板。
「提出需求」言語行為由主體行為和輔助行為構成,研究結果顯示主體行為有不同功能,形成四種語步:提出需求、重申需求、要求聯繫和要求轉發;提出需求語步是整個言語行為的核心,四大類事件在此語步採取不同主體策略,資訊取得最常應用提問策略,而且常附帶引起他人重視的話語,日常需求運用宣告或探詢,重大事件和危難事件以指示策略為主。重申需求、要求聯繫和要求轉發語步,在危難事件最有可能全部涵蓋,另外三類事件大多只具備重申需求或要求聯繫語步。
輔助行為大多分布在三個語步:準備、說明、結尾。準備語步給予受話者心理準備,位於整個言語行為開頭,重大和危難事件常在準備語步聲明需求來源。兩到三個說明語步會穿插出現在主體行為之間:說明需求背景和重要資訊普遍出現於提出需求語步前後;有日常需求的發話者在要求聯繫之後說明報償形式和減少受話者負擔的方法;面臨重大事件的發話者最常在說明語步加入訴諸情感的話語試圖喚起他人同理心。結尾語步是最後一個語步,四類事件都在此傳達感謝。
本論文的貢獻在於以實際溝通語料為本,研究結果更貼近真實語言使用。特定策略和語步組合都能顯現出事件的嚴重性,可供輿情分析和機器學習應用。此外,本論文的提出需求模板有助於華語學習者面臨不同嚴重等級的事件時,更快速地選擇和組織策略。
Emergency or urgent matters inevitably happen in daily life. When people cannot deal with emergency or urgent matters in a short period of time, many would make a request to the public on social media in order to get information, goods, assistance, etc. This thesis focuses on how people make a request on social media when they encounter urgent matters. The aim is to explore the relationship between the inner structure of request and the severity of events. The research data based on posts on PTT Bulletin Board System, ranging from low to high severity, were divided into four four kinds of events: information obtained, daily needs, serious incidents, and emergency cases. Speech act theory (Searle, 1969) was applied to analyze request strategies. Moreover, the concept of ‘move’ was introduced into the analysis(Swales, 1990; Biber, Conner & Upton, 2007); adjacent strategies with similar function would form a move. Finally, four templates representing the common combination moves for each kind of events were proposed.
As for the speech act of making a request, it is composed of ‘head act’ and ‘supportive move’. The result showed that ‘head acts’ form four moves: making a request, reaffirming the request, requesting to contact, and requesting to forward. The move of making a request was the core of the speech act, but there were different preferred strategies used for the four kinds of event. To obtain information, asking a question was the commonest. The word ji2 ‘urgent’ was often used after the question as a strategy to make the request be taken more seriously. To ask for daily needs, seeking assistance and query were often applied. When a serious incident or an emergency case happened, addressers prefered to make a request in the imperative. Furthermore, there was a higher possibility for an emergency case to include the move of reaffirming the request, requesting to contact and requesting to forward. The other three kinds of events only had the move of reaffirming the request or requesting to contact.
The majority of ‘supportive moves’ could be divided into three moves: preparing, explaining, and ending. Preparing move was used to help the addressee psychologically prepared, usually at the beginning of a request. If there was a serious incident or an emergency case, addressers would tell the source of the request at preparing move. Two to three explaining moves interspersed with head acts. It was common to explain background and important information before or after making a request. For daily needs, after requesting for contact, the addressers would explain how to requite addressees or how to reduce the addressees’ burden. When a serious incident happened, the addressers often made the addressees to be more empathetic on purpose at the explaining move. At the end of the speech act, all the events had appreciation words as the ending move.
This thesis was based on real communication data. Therefore, the result is closer to real language use. The specific strategies and the combination of moves not only reveal the severity of events, but also can be applied to the analysis of public opinions and machine learning. Moreover, when facing with events of different levels of severity, the templates of this thesis can help CFL learners (Chinses as a foreign language) select and organize strategies more quickly and properly.
Reference: 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。
冉永平(2012)。緩和語的和諧取向及其人際語用功能。當代外語研究,11,4-10。
何兆熊(主編)(2002)。新編語用學概要。上海外語教育出版社。
何自然、冉永平(2009)。新編語用學概論。北京大學出版社。
汪晶、武建國(2012)。招聘廣告語篇的體裁分析。華南理工大學學報,14(3),80-85。
周文萱(2013)。商務英語寫作教材研究(未出版之博士論文)。上海外國語大學。
林慈玟(2018)。華語演講評審的語用策略和技巧與語步分析—以《我是演說家》為例(未出版之碩士論文)。國立高雄師範大學。
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。
張紹杰、王曉彤(1997)。請求言語行為的對比研究。現代外語,3,64-72。
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(未出版之碩士論文)。國立臺灣師範大學。
黃曼華、鍾曉芳(2019)。華語社群媒體的迫切請求之言語行為分析—以批踢踢語料為例。第十七屆高校國際漢語教學研討會暨2019年英國漢語教學研究會年會,英國蘭卡斯特大學。
楊雅筑(2017)。基於語料庫方法辨析漢語動補結構「用X」及「弄X」之使用情況(未出版之碩士論文)。國立政治大學。
劉純睿(2014)。批踢踢語料庫之建置與應用(未出版之碩士論文)。國立臺灣大學。
謝佳玲(2016)。華語與英語跨文化對比:網路社會之語用策略研究。文鶴出版有限公司。
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford University Press.
Alcón-Soler, E., Safont Jordà, P. & Flor, A. (2005). Towards a typology of modifiers for the speech act of requesting: A socio-pragmatic approach. RaeL: Revista Electrónica de Lingüística Aplicada, 4(1), 1-35. https://bit.ly/3witj59
Bhatia, V. K. (1993). Analysing genre: Language use in professional settings. Routledge.
Blum-Kulka, S. & Olshtain, E. (1984). Requests and apologies: A cross-cultural study of speech act realization patterns (CCSARP). Applied Linguistics, 5(3), 196-213.
Blum-Kulka, S. (1987). Indirect and politeness in requests: Same or different? Journal of Pragmatics, 11, 131-146.
Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G. (Eds.). (1989). Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies. Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Brown, P. & Levinson, S. C. (1988). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press.
Byon, A.S. (2004). Sociopragmatic analysis of Korean requests: Pedagogical settings. Journal of Pragmatics, 36(9), 1673-1704. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2004.05.003
Chen, L. (2018). A bi-directional study of request strategies in Chinese and English [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. National Taiwan Normal University. https://hdl.handle.net/11296/3mx48w
Chen, R., He, L., & Hu, C. (2013). Chinese requests: In comparison to American and Japanese requests and with reference to the “East-West divide”. Journal of Pragmatics, 55, 140-161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.05.012
Dong, X. (2008). Chinese requests in academic settings. In Chan, Marjorie, K.M., & Kang, H (Eds.), Proceedings of the 20th North American Conference on Chinese Linguistics (NACCL-20): Vol. 2. Pragmatics and discourse analysis (pp. 975-988). NACCL Proceedings Online. https://bit.ly/3rBGf2I
Flores Salgado, E. (2011). The pragmatics of requests and apologies: Developmental patterns of Mexican students. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays in face to face behavior. Aldine Publishing Company.
Han, X. (2013). A contrastive study of Chinese and British English request strategies based on open role-play. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 4 (5), 1098-1105. https://doi.org/10.4304/jltr.4.5.1098-1105
Hancher, M. (1979). The classification of cooperative illocutionary acts. Language in Society, 8, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500005911
Jakobson, R. (1960). Linguistics and poetics. In T. A. Sebeok (Ed.), Style in Language (pp. 350-377). MIT Press. http://hdl.handle.net/11858/00-001M-0000-002B-B151-D
Li, W. & Jiang, W. (2019). Requests made by Australian learners of Chinese as a foreign language. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 10(1), 23-34. https://doi.org/ 10.17507/jltr.1001.03
Li, S. (2019). Contextual variations of mitigations in Chinese requests. In Y. Xiao, & L. Tsung (Eds), Current Studies in Chinese Language and Discourse (pp.57-79). John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Pascual, D. (2018). Analysing digital communication: Discursive features, rhetorical structure and the use of English as a lingua franca in travel blog posts. Journal of English Studies, 16, 255-279. https://doi.org/10.18172/jes.3556
Rue, Yong-Ju & Zhang, Grace Qiao. (2008). Request strategies: A comparative study in Mandarin Chinese and Korean. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Schneider, K. P., Barron, A. (Eds.). (2014). Pragmatics of Discourse. De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi-org.autorpa.lib.nccu.edu.tw/10.1515/9783110214406
Searle, J. R. (1965). What is a speech act? In Max Black (Ed.), Philosophy in America (pp. 221-239). Cornell University Press.
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts. Cambridge University Press.
Searle, J. R. (1976). A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society, 5(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500006837
Searle, J. R. (1979). Expression and meaning: Studies in the theory of speech acts. Cambridge University Press.
Strauss, S., & Feiz, P. (2013). Discourse analysis: Putting our worlds into words. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203121559
Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge University Press.
Swales, J. M. (2004) Research genres: Explorations and application. Cambridge University Press.
Trosborg, A. (1995). Interlanguage pragmatics: Requests, complaints and apologies. Mouton de Gruyter.
Wang, S. (2014). Request strategies in contemporary Chinese teledramas: a corpus-based study. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 37(1), 107-127.
Wang, Y., Katza, A. & Chen, C. (2003). Thinking as saying: Shuo (‘say’) in Taiwan Mandarin conversation and BBS talk. Language Sciences, 25, 457–488.
Yazdanfar, S. & Bonyadi, A. (2016). Request strategies in everyday interactions of Persian and English speakers. SAGE Open. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244016679473
Yu, M. (1999). Universalistic and culture-specific perspectives on variation in the acquisition of pragmatic competence in a second language. Pragmatics, 9(2), 281-312. https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.9.2.04yu
Description: 碩士
國立政治大學
華語文教學碩博士學位學程
106161010
Source URI: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0106161010
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 SizeFormat
101001.pdf4586KbAdobe PDF0View/Open


All items in 學術集成 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


社群 sharing