學術產出-Theses
Article View/Open
Publication Export
-
題名 華語回應拒絕策略之探討：商務華語教學應用
Investigation on Chinese Responding Strategies to Refusals: Application in Business Chinese Teaching作者 高雅婷
Kao, Ya-Ting貢獻者 杜容玥
高雅婷
Kao, Ya-Ting關鍵詞 商務華語
請求行為
回應拒絕策略
禮貌策略
Business Chinese
request speech act
responding strategies to refusals
politeness strategies日期 2024 上傳時間 3-Jun-2024 11:42:26 (UTC+8) 摘要 本研究旨在探討工作場合中請求幫忙無法接受拒絕的情況下，華語母語者使用的回應拒絕策略，並分析社會變項對這些策略的影響，以及比較初次請求和再次請求的行為。同時，研究還探討了在威脅面子的情境下，華語母語者採用的禮貌補救策略類型。最後，研究對比了華語和英語回應拒絕策略、禮貌補救策略，並提出了教學建議。為了確保研究的效度，研究者選擇了年齡約30至55歲的商務人士作為語料研究對象，這些人擁有平均工作年資約20年，以確保語料的真實性和研究的可信度。 在職場上請求他人幫忙若遭遇拒絕時，為了確保工作順利進行，使用回應拒絕的策略。研究顯示，其中最常見的是應變策略，然而，根據不同的社會變項，華語母語者在回應拒絕時採取的策略有所不同。例如，面對主管時，他們更傾向於使用應變策略；而面對同等地位的同事時，則較常使用輿論策略；對於地位較低的助理，他們多採取要求策略。對於有義務的同事，則更多地採用輿論策略；而對於無義務的同事、和顧客，他們通常會採用應變策略。這種差異主要源於華人社會中深植的階級制度觀念。因此，當面對主管、客戶和無義務的同事時，華語母語者更傾向於使用積極禮貌策略，以確保工作順利進行。而對於地位相等的同事、地位較低的同事和有義務的同事，他們更願意直接表明自己的意圖，而不使用禮貌補救策略，因為在這些情境下，公開策略的溝通效率被視為更為重要。與此不同，英語母語者除了面對主管、地位相同的同事傾向於使用應答策略，其他社會變項皆多採用應變策略。這反映了個體主義文化中個體的平等和自主性，強調雙方的意見和需求可以共存，並表現出積極禮貌的協商態度。 另外，在商務情境中，通常在初次請求時採取直接策略專注自身需求，強調效率和溝通的明確性，但當面對拒絕後，再次請求時則更傾向於採取間接策略考慮對方利益，這反映了商務文化對關係維護的重視。
The study aims to investigate the response refusal strategies employed by Mandarin native speakers in workplace scenarios where requests for help cannot be declined, and to analyze the influence of social variables on these strategies, as well as compare the behaviors of initial requests and subsequent ones. Additionally, the study explores the types of politeness remedial strategies employed by Mandarin native speakers in situations threatening face. Finally, a comparison is made between Mandarin and English response refusal strategies and politeness remedial strategies, with teaching suggestions proposed. To ensure the validity of the research, the study selected business professionals aged approximately 30 to 55 years old as participants for linguistic research, with an average work experience of about 20 years, to ensure the authenticity of the data and the credibility of the research. In workplace scenarios where requests for help cannot be declined, response refusal strategies are employed to ensure the smooth progress of work. The most common strategy observed is the adaptive strategy; however, Mandarin native speakers employ different strategies in response to refusal based on various social variables. For instance, when facing supervisors, they tend to use adaptive strategies more often, while when facing peers of equal status, they are more inclined to use public opinion strategies. When dealing with lower-ranked assistants, they tend to adopt demand strategies. For obligated colleagues, public opinion are more prevalent. However, when dealing with non-obligated colleagues, and clients, they usually resort to adaptive strategies. This difference mainly stems from the deeply ingrained hierarchical concepts in Chinese society. Consequently, when facing supervisors, clients, and non-obligated colleagues, Mandarin native speakers are more inclined to use positive politeness strategies to ensure smooth work progress. Conversely, when dealing with peers of equal status, lower-ranked colleagues, and obligated colleagues, they prefer to directly express their intentions, as politeness remedial strategies are not used in these contexts, where the efficiency of bald on record strategy is deemed more important. In contrast, English native speakers, except when dealing with supervisors and peers of equal status, tend to use responsive strategies and adaptive strategies for other social variables. This reflects the equality and autonomy of individuals in individualistic cultures, emphasizing that both parties' opinions and needs can coexist, displaying positively polite negotiating attitude. Moreover, in business contexts, direct strategies are typically employed during initial requests, focusing on one's own needs, emphasizing efficiency and clear communication. However, when faced with refusal, there is a tendency to use indirect strategies during subsequent requests, considering the interests of the other party, which reflects the importance placed on relationship maintenance in business culture.參考文獻 中文 （按照筆畫順序） 白裕偉（2012）。拒絕客戶拒絕的推銷話術：電話行銷初期推動銷售與處理拒絕的對話分析研究。世新大學口語傳播學系，臺北市。 冉永平 （2006）。語用學：現象與分析。北京大學出版社。 李櫻 （2012）。語用研究與華語教學。正中書局股份有限公司。 安田陽子（2011）。「『嗎』疑問句」與「正反問句」之語義、語用、篇章功能及日語疑問句的對比分析。國立臺灣師範大學。華語文教學研究所。學術論文。 李家豪（2011）。華語說服語言語意、語用、語篇分析研究。國立臺灣師範大學。華語文教學研究所。學術論文。 何良慶（2016）。跨文化溝通教材設計研究-以拒絕和請求言語行為為主題。華語文教學研究所，國立臺灣師範大學。 高波（2015）。拒絕言語行為中禮貌原則的研究。現代交際， 2， 47–47. 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。 徐婧（2011）。禮貌原則在拒絕言语行為中的體現。文教資料， 14， 45–47 曲禹宣（2013）。現代漢語拒絕言語行為與策略及其教學探究。國立政治大學。華語文教學碩士學位學程。 程鳴（2008）。淺析漢語請求語的實施策略. 廣西民族大學學報。哲學社會科學版，149-150。 馬月蘭 (1998)。中美「拒絕」言語行為比較研究。青海師範大學學報。哲學社會科學版， 4， 82–88. 張紹傑、王曉彤. (1997)。「請求」言語行為的對比研究。現代外語， 3， 63–72. 黃雅英（2011）。應用教中學模式培養大學國際生華語文跨文化溝通能力之研究。課程與教學, 25(4), 63-94. 陳建平(2018)。商務語言學. 上海交通大學出版社有限公司。 陳麗宇、李欣欣（2012）。當代初級商務華語教材之文化研究。華語文教學研究，9:4，頁41-73。 彭喬渝（2019）。華語回應拒絕之語用策略分析及其教學應用。華語文教學研究所，國立臺灣師範大學。 張淑琴（2018）。商務華語教材編寫原則與內容分析研究-以「遠東商務漢語」與「通用商務漢語」為例。國立屏東大學華語文教學碩士研究所。 張絮茵（2011）。商業華語拒絕言語行爲之認知原型與框架。華語文教學研究， 8（1）， 75–98。 張絮茵(Chang. (2012). 商務漢語拒絕言語行為研究。 華語文教學研究，9， 73–98。 張紹傑、王曉彤（1997）。請求言語行為的對比研究。現代外語，3，63-72。 蔡宜妮（2014）。華語正反附加問句的會話分析：烹飪節目考察。語教新視野創刊號 2014.03。 蔡佳恩（2017）。華語說服言語行為之語用研究及教學建議。華語文教學研究所，國立臺灣師範大學。 劉巍（2010）。商務漢語教學與跨文化交際能力培養。高教研究，第4期， 197-199。 樓益齡（2004）。漢語主體意識與對外商務漢語教學 雲南師範大學學報。第2卷第1期，52-53。 謝佳玲（2015）。漢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。 謝佳玲（2010）。華語拒絕請求的策略分析：語體與語境的作用。臺灣華語教學研究，1，頁111-137。 謝佳玲（2006）。華語廣義與狹義情態詞的分析。華語文教學研究 3.1 1-25, 2006 謝佳玲（2006）。漢語情態詞的語意界定：語料庫為本的研究。中國語文研究，1，頁 45-63。 經濟部統計處。110年經濟部性別統計年報，頁12。 https://www.moea.gov.tw/Mns/dos/content/ContentLink.aspx?menu_id=28968 英文 （按照字母順序） Ang, R., & Kuo, E.C.（2002）. Effects of gender and individualism-collectivism on directness of refusal. South pacific Journal of psychology, 14, 76-80. Austin, John L.（1962）. How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bargiela-Chiappin, F. & Harris, S.(1997). The languages of business: An international perspective. Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press, 257 p. Bargiela-Chiappini, F. (Ed.). (2020). Languages of Business: An International Perspective. Edinburgh University Press. Bargiela-Chiappini, F., Chakorn, O. O., Chew Chye Lay, G., Jung, Y., Kong, K. C., Nair-Venugopal, S., & Tanaka, H. (2007). Eastern voices: enriching research on communication in business: a forum. Discourse & Communication, 1(2), 131-152. Blum-Kulka, S., Hous, J., & Kasper, G.(1989). Gross-cultural pragmatics: requests and apologies. Norword: NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation. Blum-Kulla, S., House, J., & Kasper, G.(1989). The CCSARP coding maual, Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies. Applied Linguistic, 5(3), 273-294. Blum- Kulka, S. 1987. Indirectness and Politeness in Request: Same or Differents [J]. Journal of Pragmatics 11(2): 131-146. Brown, P.,& Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge, UK:Cambridge University Press. Byram. (1997). Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence / Michael Byram. Multilingual Matters. Byram, M. (2020). Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence ‐revisited (2nd ed.). Multilingual Matters. pp.135-145,192-229. Carli, L. L. (2001). Gender and social influence. Journal of Social issues, 57(4), 725-741. Chang. (2009). How to say no: an analysis of cross-cultural difference and pragmatic transfer. Language Sciences (Oxford), 31(4), 477–493. Charles. (1996). Business negotiations: Interdependence between discourse and the business relationship. English for Specific Purposes (New York, N.Y.) , 15 (1), 19–36. Cialdini, R. B., Wosinska,W., Barrett,D.W., Butner, J., & Gornik-Durose, M. (1999). Compliance with a request in two cultures: The differential influence of social proof and commitment/consistency on collectivists and individualists. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(10), 1242-1253. Cohen, L., & Kassis-Henderson, J. (2012). Language use in establishing rapport and building relations : implications for international teams and management education. Revue Management & Avenir, (55), 185-207. Daniushina, Y. V. (2010). Business linguistics and business discourse. Calidoscpio, 8(3), 241-247. Freedman, J. L., & Fraser, S. C. (1966). Compliance without pressure:The foot-in-the-door technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-chology,4, 195-202. Goffman. (2003). On Face-Work: An Analysis of Ritual Elements in Social Interaction. Reflections (Cambridge, Mass.), 4(3), 7–13. Hinner. (2009). Culture’s influence on business as illustrated by German business culture. China Media Research, 5(2), 45-54. Holmes, J. & Wilson, N. (2017). An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. (5th ed. ). New York: Routledge. Johnson, D. I., Roloff, M. E.,& Riffee,M. A. (2004). Responses to refusals of requests: Face threat and persistence, persuasion and forgiving statements. Communication Quarterly, 52(4), 347-356. Koch, Erika J. (2020). Remembering that “Everybody Hurts”: The Role of Self-Compassion in Responses to Rejection. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 42(3), 167–175. Lakoff, R. T. (1973). The logic of Politeness; Or, Minding Your P’s and Q’s. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. New York, NY: Longman. Marwell, G., & Schmitt, D. R. (1967). Dimensions of compliance-gaining behavior: An empirical analysis. Sociometry, 30, 350-364. Neuliep, J.W. & Hazleton, V. (1985). A cross-cultural comparison of Japanese and American persuasive strategy selection. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 9(4), 389–404. Ruben, B.D. (1989). The study of cross-cultural competence: Traditions and contemporary issues. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 13(3), 229-240. Schenck-Hamlin, Wiseman, R. L., & Georgacarakos, G. N. (1982). A model of properties of compliance-gaining strategies. Communication Quarterly, 30(2), 92-100. Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Searle, J. R. (1975). Indirect speech acts. Cole P., JL Morgan (prir.) Syntax and Semantics. Speech Acts. Spencer-Oatey, H. (2000). Culturally speaking : managing rapport through talk across cultures / edited by Helen Spencer-Oatey. Continuum. Spencer-Oatey. (2008), Culturally Speaking, Culture, Communication and Politeness Theory, Continuum International Publishing Group, London. Su, Y. (2020). Yes or no: Ostensible versus genuine refusals in Mandarin invitational and offering discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 162, 1-16. Thomas, J. (1983). Cross Culture Pragmatic Failure. Applied Linguistics. 4(2), 91-112. Tseng, M. (1996). An examination of Chinese invitational discourse: How Chinese accept an invitation. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences, 26(2), 341-356. Van Ek, J. A. (1993). Objectives for foreign language learning (Vol. 2). Council of Europe. Wang,Yu-Fang. (1999). The Art of Chinese Refusals: What is meant is more than what can be said. Paper presented at the 8th IACL（International Association of Chinese Linguistics) Annual Conference , Melbourne University , Australia. 描述 碩士
國立政治大學
華語文教學碩博士學位學程
111161006資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0111161006 資料類型 thesis dc.contributor.advisor 杜容玥 zh_TW dc.contributor.author (Authors) 高雅婷 zh_TW dc.contributor.author (Authors) Kao, Ya-Ting en_US dc.creator (作者) 高雅婷 zh_TW dc.creator (作者) Kao, Ya-Ting en_US dc.date (日期) 2024 en_US dc.date.accessioned 3-Jun-2024 11:42:26 (UTC+8) - dc.date.available 3-Jun-2024 11:42:26 (UTC+8) - dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 3-Jun-2024 11:42:26 (UTC+8) - dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0111161006 en_US dc.identifier.uri (URI) https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/151502 - dc.description (描述) 碩士 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 華語文教學碩博士學位學程 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 111161006 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) 本研究旨在探討工作場合中請求幫忙無法接受拒絕的情況下，華語母語者使用的回應拒絕策略，並分析社會變項對這些策略的影響，以及比較初次請求和再次請求的行為。同時，研究還探討了在威脅面子的情境下，華語母語者採用的禮貌補救策略類型。最後，研究對比了華語和英語回應拒絕策略、禮貌補救策略，並提出了教學建議。為了確保研究的效度，研究者選擇了年齡約30至55歲的商務人士作為語料研究對象，這些人擁有平均工作年資約20年，以確保語料的真實性和研究的可信度。 在職場上請求他人幫忙若遭遇拒絕時，為了確保工作順利進行，使用回應拒絕的策略。研究顯示，其中最常見的是應變策略，然而，根據不同的社會變項，華語母語者在回應拒絕時採取的策略有所不同。例如，面對主管時，他們更傾向於使用應變策略；而面對同等地位的同事時，則較常使用輿論策略；對於地位較低的助理，他們多採取要求策略。對於有義務的同事，則更多地採用輿論策略；而對於無義務的同事、和顧客，他們通常會採用應變策略。這種差異主要源於華人社會中深植的階級制度觀念。因此，當面對主管、客戶和無義務的同事時，華語母語者更傾向於使用積極禮貌策略，以確保工作順利進行。而對於地位相等的同事、地位較低的同事和有義務的同事，他們更願意直接表明自己的意圖，而不使用禮貌補救策略，因為在這些情境下，公開策略的溝通效率被視為更為重要。與此不同，英語母語者除了面對主管、地位相同的同事傾向於使用應答策略，其他社會變項皆多採用應變策略。這反映了個體主義文化中個體的平等和自主性，強調雙方的意見和需求可以共存，並表現出積極禮貌的協商態度。 另外，在商務情境中，通常在初次請求時採取直接策略專注自身需求，強調效率和溝通的明確性，但當面對拒絕後，再次請求時則更傾向於採取間接策略考慮對方利益，這反映了商務文化對關係維護的重視。 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) The study aims to investigate the response refusal strategies employed by Mandarin native speakers in workplace scenarios where requests for help cannot be declined, and to analyze the influence of social variables on these strategies, as well as compare the behaviors of initial requests and subsequent ones. Additionally, the study explores the types of politeness remedial strategies employed by Mandarin native speakers in situations threatening face. Finally, a comparison is made between Mandarin and English response refusal strategies and politeness remedial strategies, with teaching suggestions proposed. To ensure the validity of the research, the study selected business professionals aged approximately 30 to 55 years old as participants for linguistic research, with an average work experience of about 20 years, to ensure the authenticity of the data and the credibility of the research. In workplace scenarios where requests for help cannot be declined, response refusal strategies are employed to ensure the smooth progress of work. The most common strategy observed is the adaptive strategy; however, Mandarin native speakers employ different strategies in response to refusal based on various social variables. For instance, when facing supervisors, they tend to use adaptive strategies more often, while when facing peers of equal status, they are more inclined to use public opinion strategies. When dealing with lower-ranked assistants, they tend to adopt demand strategies. For obligated colleagues, public opinion are more prevalent. However, when dealing with non-obligated colleagues, and clients, they usually resort to adaptive strategies. This difference mainly stems from the deeply ingrained hierarchical concepts in Chinese society. Consequently, when facing supervisors, clients, and non-obligated colleagues, Mandarin native speakers are more inclined to use positive politeness strategies to ensure smooth work progress. Conversely, when dealing with peers of equal status, lower-ranked colleagues, and obligated colleagues, they prefer to directly express their intentions, as politeness remedial strategies are not used in these contexts, where the efficiency of bald on record strategy is deemed more important. In contrast, English native speakers, except when dealing with supervisors and peers of equal status, tend to use responsive strategies and adaptive strategies for other social variables. This reflects the equality and autonomy of individuals in individualistic cultures, emphasizing that both parties' opinions and needs can coexist, displaying positively polite negotiating attitude. Moreover, in business contexts, direct strategies are typically employed during initial requests, focusing on one's own needs, emphasizing efficiency and clear communication. However, when faced with refusal, there is a tendency to use indirect strategies during subsequent requests, considering the interests of the other party, which reflects the importance placed on relationship maintenance in business culture. en_US dc.description.tableofcontents 第一章 緒論 7 第一節 研究背景與動機 7 第二節 研究目的與問題 8 第三節 研究範圍與名詞釋義 10 第二章 文獻探討 11 第一節 言語行為理論 11 第二節 請求言語行為 17 第三節 拒絕與回應拒絕言語行為 20 第四節 語言與文化 29 第五節 請求行為的語言形式特徵 32 第六節 商務華語的跨文化教學研究 33 第七節 小結 37 第三章 研究設計與方法 38 第一節 研究方法 38 第二節 研究架構與流程 38 第三節 研究對象 40 第四節 語料分析 42 第五節 小結 46 第四章 研究結果 47 第一節 華語商務情境「回應拒絕」分析 47 第二節 英語商務情境「回應拒絕」分析 58 第三節 華語商務情境中回應拒絕策略的語言形式特徵 71 第五章 研究討論 75 第一節 商務情境回應拒絕策略和日常生活策略的比較 75 第二節 華語與英語商務情境回應拒絕策略對比 78 第三節 華人社會文化意涵 86 第六章 結論與建議 94 第一節 研究結論 94 第二節 教學建議 97 第三節 研究限制 101 參考書目及文獻 103 附錄一 google 表單華語 DCT 題目 109 附錄二 google 表單英語 DCT 題目 117 附錄三 回應拒絕教案 125 zh_TW dc.format.extent 6090658 bytes - dc.format.mimetype application/pdf - dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0111161006 en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) 商務華語 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 請求行為 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 回應拒絕策略 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 禮貌策略 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) Business Chinese en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) request speech act en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) responding strategies to refusals en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) politeness strategies en_US dc.title (題名) 華語回應拒絕策略之探討：商務華語教學應用 zh_TW dc.title (題名) Investigation on Chinese Responding Strategies to Refusals: Application in Business Chinese Teaching en_US dc.type (資料類型) thesis en_US dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 中文 （按照筆畫順序） 白裕偉（2012）。拒絕客戶拒絕的推銷話術：電話行銷初期推動銷售與處理拒絕的對話分析研究。世新大學口語傳播學系，臺北市。 冉永平 （2006）。語用學：現象與分析。北京大學出版社。 李櫻 （2012）。語用研究與華語教學。正中書局股份有限公司。 安田陽子（2011）。「『嗎』疑問句」與「正反問句」之語義、語用、篇章功能及日語疑問句的對比分析。國立臺灣師範大學。華語文教學研究所。學術論文。 李家豪（2011）。華語說服語言語意、語用、語篇分析研究。國立臺灣師範大學。華語文教學研究所。學術論文。 何良慶（2016）。跨文化溝通教材設計研究-以拒絕和請求言語行為為主題。華語文教學研究所，國立臺灣師範大學。 高波（2015）。拒絕言語行為中禮貌原則的研究。現代交際， 2， 47–47. 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。 徐婧（2011）。禮貌原則在拒絕言语行為中的體現。文教資料， 14， 45–47 曲禹宣（2013）。現代漢語拒絕言語行為與策略及其教學探究。國立政治大學。華語文教學碩士學位學程。 程鳴（2008）。淺析漢語請求語的實施策略. 廣西民族大學學報。哲學社會科學版，149-150。 馬月蘭 (1998)。中美「拒絕」言語行為比較研究。青海師範大學學報。哲學社會科學版， 4， 82–88. 張紹傑、王曉彤. (1997)。「請求」言語行為的對比研究。現代外語， 3， 63–72. 黃雅英（2011）。應用教中學模式培養大學國際生華語文跨文化溝通能力之研究。課程與教學, 25(4), 63-94. 陳建平(2018)。商務語言學. 上海交通大學出版社有限公司。 陳麗宇、李欣欣（2012）。當代初級商務華語教材之文化研究。華語文教學研究，9:4，頁41-73。 彭喬渝（2019）。華語回應拒絕之語用策略分析及其教學應用。華語文教學研究所，國立臺灣師範大學。 張淑琴（2018）。商務華語教材編寫原則與內容分析研究-以「遠東商務漢語」與「通用商務漢語」為例。國立屏東大學華語文教學碩士研究所。 張絮茵（2011）。商業華語拒絕言語行爲之認知原型與框架。華語文教學研究， 8（1）， 75–98。 張絮茵(Chang. (2012). 商務漢語拒絕言語行為研究。 華語文教學研究，9， 73–98。 張紹傑、王曉彤（1997）。請求言語行為的對比研究。現代外語，3，63-72。 蔡宜妮（2014）。華語正反附加問句的會話分析：烹飪節目考察。語教新視野創刊號 2014.03。 蔡佳恩（2017）。華語說服言語行為之語用研究及教學建議。華語文教學研究所，國立臺灣師範大學。 劉巍（2010）。商務漢語教學與跨文化交際能力培養。高教研究，第4期， 197-199。 樓益齡（2004）。漢語主體意識與對外商務漢語教學 雲南師範大學學報。第2卷第1期，52-53。 謝佳玲（2015）。漢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。 謝佳玲（2010）。華語拒絕請求的策略分析：語體與語境的作用。臺灣華語教學研究，1，頁111-137。 謝佳玲（2006）。華語廣義與狹義情態詞的分析。華語文教學研究 3.1 1-25, 2006 謝佳玲（2006）。漢語情態詞的語意界定：語料庫為本的研究。中國語文研究，1，頁 45-63。 經濟部統計處。110年經濟部性別統計年報，頁12。 https://www.moea.gov.tw/Mns/dos/content/ContentLink.aspx?menu_id=28968 英文 （按照字母順序） Ang, R., & Kuo, E.C.（2002）. Effects of gender and individualism-collectivism on directness of refusal. South pacific Journal of psychology, 14, 76-80. Austin, John L.（1962）. How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bargiela-Chiappin, F. & Harris, S.(1997). The languages of business: An international perspective. Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press, 257 p. Bargiela-Chiappini, F. (Ed.). (2020). Languages of Business: An International Perspective. Edinburgh University Press. Bargiela-Chiappini, F., Chakorn, O. O., Chew Chye Lay, G., Jung, Y., Kong, K. C., Nair-Venugopal, S., & Tanaka, H. (2007). Eastern voices: enriching research on communication in business: a forum. Discourse & Communication, 1(2), 131-152. Blum-Kulka, S., Hous, J., & Kasper, G.(1989). Gross-cultural pragmatics: requests and apologies. Norword: NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation. Blum-Kulla, S., House, J., & Kasper, G.(1989). The CCSARP coding maual, Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies. Applied Linguistic, 5(3), 273-294. Blum- Kulka, S. 1987. Indirectness and Politeness in Request: Same or Differents [J]. Journal of Pragmatics 11(2): 131-146. Brown, P.,& Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge, UK:Cambridge University Press. Byram. (1997). Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence / Michael Byram. Multilingual Matters. Byram, M. (2020). Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence ‐revisited (2nd ed.). Multilingual Matters. pp.135-145,192-229. Carli, L. L. (2001). Gender and social influence. Journal of Social issues, 57(4), 725-741. Chang. (2009). How to say no: an analysis of cross-cultural difference and pragmatic transfer. Language Sciences (Oxford), 31(4), 477–493. Charles. (1996). Business negotiations: Interdependence between discourse and the business relationship. English for Specific Purposes (New York, N.Y.) , 15 (1), 19–36. Cialdini, R. B., Wosinska,W., Barrett,D.W., Butner, J., & Gornik-Durose, M. (1999). Compliance with a request in two cultures: The differential influence of social proof and commitment/consistency on collectivists and individualists. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(10), 1242-1253. Cohen, L., & Kassis-Henderson, J. (2012). Language use in establishing rapport and building relations : implications for international teams and management education. Revue Management & Avenir, (55), 185-207. Daniushina, Y. V. (2010). Business linguistics and business discourse. Calidoscpio, 8(3), 241-247. Freedman, J. L., & Fraser, S. C. (1966). Compliance without pressure:The foot-in-the-door technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-chology,4, 195-202. Goffman. (2003). On Face-Work: An Analysis of Ritual Elements in Social Interaction. Reflections (Cambridge, Mass.), 4(3), 7–13. Hinner. (2009). Culture’s influence on business as illustrated by German business culture. China Media Research, 5(2), 45-54. Holmes, J. & Wilson, N. (2017). An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. (5th ed. ). New York: Routledge. Johnson, D. I., Roloff, M. E.,& Riffee,M. A. (2004). Responses to refusals of requests: Face threat and persistence, persuasion and forgiving statements. Communication Quarterly, 52(4), 347-356. Koch, Erika J. (2020). Remembering that “Everybody Hurts”: The Role of Self-Compassion in Responses to Rejection. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 42(3), 167–175. Lakoff, R. T. (1973). The logic of Politeness; Or, Minding Your P’s and Q’s. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. New York, NY: Longman. Marwell, G., & Schmitt, D. R. (1967). Dimensions of compliance-gaining behavior: An empirical analysis. Sociometry, 30, 350-364. Neuliep, J.W. & Hazleton, V. (1985). A cross-cultural comparison of Japanese and American persuasive strategy selection. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 9(4), 389–404. Ruben, B.D. (1989). The study of cross-cultural competence: Traditions and contemporary issues. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 13(3), 229-240. Schenck-Hamlin, Wiseman, R. L., & Georgacarakos, G. N. (1982). A model of properties of compliance-gaining strategies. Communication Quarterly, 30(2), 92-100. Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Searle, J. R. (1975). Indirect speech acts. Cole P., JL Morgan (prir.) Syntax and Semantics. Speech Acts. Spencer-Oatey, H. (2000). Culturally speaking : managing rapport through talk across cultures / edited by Helen Spencer-Oatey. Continuum. Spencer-Oatey. (2008), Culturally Speaking, Culture, Communication and Politeness Theory, Continuum International Publishing Group, London. Su, Y. (2020). Yes or no: Ostensible versus genuine refusals in Mandarin invitational and offering discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 162, 1-16. Thomas, J. (1983). Cross Culture Pragmatic Failure. Applied Linguistics. 4(2), 91-112. Tseng, M. (1996). An examination of Chinese invitational discourse: How Chinese accept an invitation. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences, 26(2), 341-356. Van Ek, J. A. (1993). Objectives for foreign language learning (Vol. 2). Council of Europe. Wang,Yu-Fang. (1999). The Art of Chinese Refusals: What is meant is more than what can be said. Paper presented at the 8th IACL（International Association of Chinese Linguistics) Annual Conference , Melbourne University , Australia. zh_TW
