Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://ah.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/94975| 題名: | 英語間接請求語的回應:台灣高中生外語語言行為研究 A Cross-cultural Study on EFL Responding to Indirect Requests |
作者: | 樊可瑜 Fan, Ko Yu |
貢獻者: | 余明忠 Yu ,Ming Chung 樊可瑜 Fan, Ko Yu |
關鍵詞: | 間接請求語的回應 語言行為 中界語 跨文化研究 responses to indirect requests speech acts interlanguage cross cultural studies |
日期: | 2008 | 上傳時間: | 9-五月-2016 | 摘要: | 本論文主要在探索間接請求語的回應策略，針對以英語為外語的台灣高中生做討論。共有120位受試者，分為3組，即以英語為母語的(Native American)高中生，以中文為母語的（Native Chinese）高中生，及以英語為外語的(Learning English as a Foreign Language)高中生。每組均有40位受試者，且男女數目相同。主要的實驗工具是「完成對話問卷」(DCT)，設計上有12個真實生活的情境，並以請求語的種類(傳統間接請求、非傳統間接請求)作為變因。所有回應策略被分成四類。策略(一)僅有是否、(S1 yes/ no alone)、策略(二)是否加上資訊或動作(S2 yes/ no plus information or action)、策略(三)資訊或動作(S3 information or action)及策略(四)其他(S4 others)。本研究量化方面以卡方檢定來辨別三組間是否有顯著差異，並輔以質性研究作為進一步的分析以求更全盤瞭解各策略的使用。\r\n結果發現，普遍來說，台灣高中生在語用能力上仍顯不足。第二點、三組受試者在回應間接請求語上有不同的表現。以英文為母語的受試者偏好使用策略(二)是否加上資訊或動作(S2 yes/ no plus information or action)，而以英語為外語的高中生和以中文為母語的高中生卻都較偏愛使用策略(三)資訊或動作(S3 information or action)。第三點、以英文為外語的高中生在英語的使用上雖然有受到外語文化的影響，但其母語(即中文)對於其第二語言的使用影響更深遠。此外，三組受試者對於不同形式(CID, NCID)的間接請求語，在回應上採用不同的策略。再者，本研究顯示社會文化在請求語及其回應上扮演著重要的角色，在某個文化中被接受的語言使用可能在另一個文化中是不恰當的。最後，根據本文的探討，提出一些在英語學習與教學及日後研究的應用與建議。 This study aims to explore and discuss the strategy use of EFL senior high school students in Taiwan when they respond to indirect requests. One hundred and twenty senior high school students participated in this study. They were divided into 3 groups--- native Americans (NA), native Chinese (NC), and EFL (English as a Foreign Language). There were 40 participants in each group, and the number of males and females were the same. The main instrument in this study was Discourse Completion Task (DCT), designed with 12 real life situations. One variable in the DCT was the different types of indirect requests--- Conventional Indirect (CID) and Non-conventional Indirect (NCID). \r\nThe participants’ responses were divided into four exclusive categories, namely, S1 (yes/ no alone), S2 (yes/ no plus information or action), S3 (information or action) and S4 (others). To provide the quantitative results, Chi-square was employed to test the presence of statistically significant difference existing across the three groups. In addition, qualitative analysis was conducted to fully understand the employment of each strategy. \r\nThe result showed that high school students in Taiwan generally had deficient pragmatic competence. Second, the three participant groups performed differently when responding to indirect requests. It was found that the NA group tended to select Yes/ no plus information or action (S2) whereas the NC and EFL groups preferred to employ Information or action (S3). Third, the performance of the EFL group heavily followed their L1’s cultural norms, although some of their behavior was influenced by the culture of their target language. In addition, participants among three groups tended to use different respondent strategies when encountering different indirect requests, namely, CID and NCID. Furthermore, this study also found that cultural norms play a crucial role in responses to requests. The influence of cultural norms should never be neglected because an acceptable behavior in one culture may be very inappropriate in another. At last, according to the findings, this study hoped to give some suggestions and implications for English learning and teaching as well as the future research. |
參考文獻: | REFERENCES\r\n\r\nAustin, J.L. (1962). How to do things with words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard \r\n\r\nAstington, J.W. (1998). Promises: Words or deeds? First Language, 8, 259-270.\r\nBachman, L. (1990). Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.\r\nBanerjee, J. & Carrell, P. L. (1988). Tuck in your shirt, you squid: Suggestions in ESL. Language learning, 38, 313-47.\r\nBarraja-Rohan, A.M. (2000). Teaching conversation and sociocultural norms with conversation analysis. In A.J. Liddicoat & C. Crozet (Eds.), Teaching languages, teaching cultures (pp. 65-77). Melbourne: Applied Linguistics Association of Australia. \r\nBrown, P. & Levison, S.C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press.\r\nBeebe, L. M. & Cummings, M. C. (1995). Natural speech act data versus written questionnaire data: How data collection method affects speech act performance. In S. M. Gass & J. Neu (Eds.), Speech acts across cultures (pp. 65-88). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.\r\nBeebe, L.M., Takahashi, T., & Uliss-Weltz, R. (1990). Pragmatic transfer in ESL Refusals. In R. Scarcella, E. Andersen & S. Krashen (Eds.). Developing communicative competence in a second language (pp. 55-73). Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle. \r\nBeebe, L. M. & Takahashi, T. (1989). Sociolingustic variation in face threatening speech acts. In M. Eisenstein (Ed.), The dynamic interlanguage, (pp. 199-218). New York: Plenum.\r\nBeebe, L. M., Takahashi, T. & Uliss-Weltz, R. (1990). Pragmatic transfer in ESL refusals. In R. Scarcella, E. S. Anderson & S. D. Krashen (Eds.), Developing communicative competence in a second language (pp. 55-75). Boston: Heinle and Heinle Publishers.\r\nBeebe, Leslie M. and M. C. Cummings. (1996). Natural speech act versus written questionnaire data: How data collection method affects speech act performance. In: J. Neu and S. M. Gass, eds., Speech Acts across Cultures: Challenges to Communication in a Second Language, 105-135. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.\r\nBergman, M. L. & Kasper, G. (1993). Perception and performance in native and nonnative apology. In G.. Kapser & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguge pragmatics (pp. 64-81). Oxford University Press.\r\nBlum-Kulka, S. (1982). Learning to say what you mean in a second language: A \r\n study of speech act performance of learners of Hebrew as a second language. \r\n Applied linguistics, 3, 29-59.\r\nBlum-Kulka, S. (1987). Indirectness and politeness in requests: Same or Different? Journal of Pragmatics, 11, 131-146.\r\nBlum-Kulka, S., House, J. & Kasper, G. (1989). Investigating Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: An Introductory Overview. In S. Blum-Kulka, J., House & G..Kasper (Eds.), Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies (pp.1-34).Norwood, NJ: Ablex\r\nBlum-Kulka, S. (1989). Playing it safe: The role of conventionality in indirectness. In\r\nS. Blum-Kulka, J. House-Edmondson, & G. Kasper (Eds.), Cross cultural\r\npragmatics: Requests and apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.\r\nBlum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G. (1989). Cross-cultural and situational\r\nvariation in requesting behavior. In S. Bulma-Kulka, J. House, and G. Kasper\r\n(Eds.), Cross-cultural pragmatics: requests and apologies, (pp. 123-173).\r\nNorwood, NJ: Ablex.\r\nBonikowska, M.P. (1998). The choice of opting out. Applied Linguistics, 9 (2), 169-181.\r\nBrown, P. & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.\r\nCanale, M. & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing, Applied Linguistics,1,1-47.\r\nChang, Y. Y. (2003).Responding to English Requests: A study on speech act of EFL junior high school students in Taiwan. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Taipei Teachers College, Taiwan.\r\nClyne, M., Ball, M., & Neil, D. (1991). Intercultural communication at work in Australia: Complaints and apologies in turns. Multilingua, 10, 251–273.\r\nChung, S. H. (2004). Polite Request Strategies Across Cultures: Chinese and American College Students. English Teaching & Learning, 28(3), 85-106.\r\nClark, H.H. (1979). Responding to indirect speech acts. Cognitive Psychology 11, 430-447. New York: Academic Press. \r\nClark, H. H., & Schunk, D. H. (1981). Politeness in requests: A rejoinder to Kemper\r\nand Thissen. Cognition, 9, 311-315.\r\nCohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational Psychological Measurement, 20, 37-46.\r\nCohen, A. D. (1996). Speech acts. In Sandra L. McKay & Nancy H. Hornberger,\r\nSociolinguistics and language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University\r\nPress.\r\nEisenstein M. & Bodman, J. (1986). \"I very appreciate\": Expressions of gratitude \r\nby native and non-native speakers of American English. Applied linguistics, 7, 167-79.\r\nFukushima, S. (1990). Offers and requests: Performance by Japanese learners of \r\n English. World Englishes, 9, 317-25.\r\nFukushima, S. 2000. Requests and Culture: Politeness in British English and Japanese. Bern: Peter Lang. \r\nGolato, A. (2003). Studying compliment responses: A comparison of DCTs and recordings of naturally occurring talk. Applied Linguistics 24(1), 90-121\r\nGu, Y. (1990). Politeness Phenomena in Modern Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 237-257. \r\nHong, W. (1996). An empirical study of Chinese request strategies. International Journal of the sociology of Language, 122, 127-138.\r\nHouse, J. (2000). Understanding misunderstanding: A pragmatic-discourse approach to anaysing mismanaged rapport in talk across cultures. In H. Spencer-Oatey (Ed.), Culturally speaking - Managing rapport through talk across cultures (pp. 146-164). London: Continuum. \r\nHsu,Y. & Chen, S. (2001). A pilot study on young Chinese EFL learners’ request strategies. In Proceedings of the nineteenth conference on English teaching and learning in the Republic of China. Taipei: Crane.\r\nHsu, Y. G. (2003). The Development of Taiwanese EFL Children’s Speech Act Performance: Social Variables and Request Strategies. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Taipei Teacher’s College, Taiwan.\r\nHymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. In Pride, J.B & Holmes, J. (Eds.),\r\n Sociolinguistics. Harmondsworth, Middx: Penguin.\r\nJohnston, B., Kasper, G., & Ross, S. (1998). The effect of rejoinders in production questionnaires. Applied Linguistics, 19, 157-182. \r\nKasper, G. & Dahl, M. (1991). Research methods in interlanguage pragmatics. SSLA, 13, 215-47.\r\nKasper, G. (1997). Linguistic etiquette. In F. Coulmas (Ed.), The handbook of sociolinguistics (pp. 374-385). United Kingdom: Blackwell Publishers. \r\nKinjo, H. (1987). Oral refusals of invitations and requests in English and Japanese. Journal of Asian Culture, 6, 83-106.\r\nKrathwohl, R.D.(1993). Methods of educational and social science research. New York, NY: Longman.\r\nLakoff, G. & Mark, J. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. \r\nLakoff, Robin. 1973. The logic of politeness, or minding your p’s and q’s. Chicago Linguistics Society 9, 292–305.\r\nLakoff, R. (1977).What you can do with words: Politeness, pragmatics and\r\nperformatives. In A. Rogers, B. Wall, & J. Murphy (Eds.), Proceedings of the\r\nTexas conference on performatives, presuppositions, and implicatures (pp.\r\n79-105). Arlington: Center of Applied Linguistics.\r\nLakoff, R. T. (2001). Nine ways of looking at apologies: The necessity for\r\ninterdisciplinary theory and method in discourse analysis. In D. Schiffrin,\r\nD.Tannen, & H. E. Hamilton (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis,\r\n(pp.199-214), Malden: Blackwell Publishing.\r\nLeech, G. N. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. London and New York: Longman.\r\nLei, C. H. (2001). Social Variables and Chinese Adolescents` Directives: The Development of the Speech Acts in Junior High, Senior High and College Students. Unpublished master thesis, National Tsinghua University, Taiwan.\r\nLi, J. J. (1989). Major Social Variables and Their Realization Patterns of Request in Mandarin Chinese. Unpublished master thesis, National Taiwan Normal University, Taiwan.\r\nLiao, C. C. (1997). A comparison of request speech act in American English and Taiwanese Mandarin. Journal of Feng Chia University, 31, 1-38.\r\nLycan, W.G. (1984). Logical form in natural language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.\r\nMao, L, M. (1994). Beyond politeness theory: ‘Face’ revisited and renewed. Journal of Pragmatics, 21, 451-486.\r\nMiller, J.L. & Eimas, P.D. (1995). Speech perception: From signal o word. Annual Review of Psychology, 46, 467–492.\r\nOlshtain E. & Weinbach, L. (1987). Complaints: A study of speech act behavior \r\namong native and non-native speakers of Hebrew. In J. Verschueren & M. \r\nBertucelli-Papi (Eds.), The pragmatic Perspective (pp.195-208). Amsterdam: Benjamins. \r\nOlshtain E. & Weinbach, L. (1993). Interlanguage features of the speech act of \r\n complaining. In G. Kasper and S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage \r\n pragmatics (pp.108-22). New York: Oxford University Press.\r\nPang, L. M. (2005).A Cross-cultural Study on the Refusal Behavior of the Junior High School Students in Taiwan. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Chengchi University, Taiwan.\r\nPaulston, C. B. (1974). Linguistic and communicative competence. TESOL Quarterly,\r\n8, 347-362.\r\nPaulston, C.B. (1990). Linguistic and communicative competence. Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data.\r\nPeng, C. (2000). Teaching speech acts in Taiwan’s’ EFL classroom: Analysis of teaching materials. Unpublished master thesis. National Tsinghua University, Taiwan. \r\nRintell, E. M. &. Mitchell, C. J. (1989). Studying requests and apologies: An \r\ninquiry into method. In S. Blum-Kulka, J. House & G. Kasper (Eds.), Cross- \r\n cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies (pp. 248-72). New Jersey: Ablex \r\n Publishing Co.\r\nScollon, Ron and Suzanne Scollon. (2001). Intercultural communication: A discourse\r\napproach. Second Edition. Oxford: Blackwell.\r\nSearle, J. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. London: Cambridge University Press.\r\nSearle, J. (1975). Indirect speech acts. In Cole, P. & Morgan, J.(Ed.), Syntax and \r\n Semantics 3: Speech acts. New York: Academic Press.\r\nSnow, C.E. (1996). Learning how to say what one means: A longitudinal study of children’s speech act use. MA: Blackwell Publishers.\r\nSperber D. and D. Wilson. (1986). Relevance: communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.\r\nSu, I. R. (2004). Bi-directional transfer in EFL users’ requesting behavior. English Teaching and Learning, 29(2), 79-98.\r\nTakahashi, T. & Beebe, L. M. 1993. Cross-linguistic influence in the speech act of \r\n correction. In G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics (pp. 138-62). Oxford University Press. \r\nTakahashi, T. & Beebe, L.(1987). The development of pragmatic competence by \r\nJapanese learners of English. JALT Journal 8, 131-55. 1993 \r\nThomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4, pp. 91-112.\r\nThomas, J. (1995). Meaning in interaction: An introduction to pragmatics. Essex: Longman Group Limited. \r\nWalters, J. (1980). The perception of politeness in English and Spanish, Language Learning, 277-294.\r\nWatts, R. J. (1992). Linguistic politeness and politic verbal behavior: Reconsidering claims of university. In R. J. Watts, S. Ide, K. Ehlich (Eds.), Politeness in Language: Studies in its History, Theory and Practice (pp. 43-69). New York: Mounton de Gruyter.\r\nWijst, P. (1995). The perceptions of politeness in Dutch and French indirect requests, Text, 15(4), 477-501.\r\nWolfson, N. (1983). An empirically based analysis of complimenting in American English. In N. Wolfson & E. Judd (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language acquisition (pp.82-95). Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House Publishers.\r\nWolfson N., Marmor, T. & Jones, S. (1989). Problems in the comparison of speech acts across cultures. In S. Blum-Kulka, J. House & G. Kasper (Eds.), Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies (pp. 174-196). Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation.\r\nYule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. In H.G. Widdowson (Ed.), Oxford introductions to language study . Oxford University Press\r\nYu, M. C. (1999a). Universalistic and culture-specific perspectives on variation in the \r\n acquisition of pragmatic competence in a second language. Pragmatics, 9, \r\n 281-312. \r\nYu, M. C. (1999b). Universalistic and culture-specific perspectives on variation in the acquisition of pragmatic competence in a second language. Pragmatics, 9 (2), 281-312.\r\nYu, M. C. (1999c). Cross-cultural and interlanguage pragmatics: Developing \r\n communicative competence in a second language. Unpublished doctoral \r\n dissertation. Harvard University. \r\nZhang, Y. (1995a). Indirectness in Chinese Requesting. In Pragmatics of Chinese as native and target language. Honolulu, Hawaii: Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center.\r\nZhang, Y. (1995b). Strategies in Chinese requesting. In G. Kasper (Ed.), Pragmatics of Chinese as Native and Target Language (pp. 24-68). Second language Teaching and Curriculum Center, Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press.\r\nZegarac, V., & Pennington, M.C. (2000). Pragmatic transfer in intercultural communication. In H. Spencer-Oatey (Ed.), Culturally speaking - Managing rapport through talk across cultures (pp. 165-190). London: Continuum. | 描述: | 碩士 國立政治大學 英語教學碩士在職專班 94951017 |
資料來源: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0094951017 | 資料類型: | thesis |
| Appears in Collections: | 學位論文 |
Files in This Item:
| File | Size | Format | |
|---|---|---|---|
| index.html | 115 B | HTML2 | View/Open |
Google ScholarTM
Check
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.