1. NCCU Academic Hub
  2. Publications
  3. College of Foreign Languages and Literature
  4. Theses
  5. Item

Publications-Theses

Article View/Open

Publication Export

Google ScholarTM

NCCU Library

Citation Infomation

Related Publications in TAIR

題名 中文對話中的異議使用：語用學與社會語言學分析
Disagreement in mandarin Chinese: a sociopragmatic analysis
作者 劉容瑜
Liu, Jung Yu
貢獻者 詹惠珍
Chan, Hui Chen
劉容瑜
Liu, Jung Yu
關鍵詞 異議
言談分析
禮貌原則
合作原則
言語行為理論
Disagreement
Conversational Analysis
Politeness Principle
Cooperative Principle
Speech Act Theory
日期 2008
上傳時間 19-Sep-2009 13:03:52 (UTC+8)
摘要 人們常因為禮貌或其他因素避免對立的情況發生。然而，異議在我們日常溝通中又扮演了不可或缺的角色。之前，眾多對於異議及其相關語言活動的研究均未曾探究異議內容的本質(對於事實內容的異議或對於議題評估的異議)與異議的建構有何關係。此外，台灣鮮少研究社會因素對異議建構方式的影響。基於上述不足，本研究旨在探討何種異議(內容異議或評估異議)在日常生活中較常出現，不同異議類別的語言形式與語用策略為何，以及年齡是否會影響異議的數量多寡與建構方式。本研究採用言談分析(conversational analysis, CA)作為研究框架，並以言語行為理論(speech act theory),合作原則(Cooperative Principles)及禮貌理論(Politeness Principles)為理論基礎。
本研究以12份日常交談為語料，進行異議分析。在這12份語料中，8組對話者為同齡(4組年長者，4組年輕者)，4組對話者為跨齡。在分析過程中，先依異議的本質進行分類，進而分析討論異議中所使用的語言形式、語用策略、社會因素(年齡)，以及四者彼此之間的互動。
研究結果顯示，第一，人們使用評估異議的頻率為內容異議的兩倍之多。個人主觀式遠多於社會文化評估的異議。第二，就語言形式而言，在異議的建構中，否定句、預告詞及肯定句(依此順序)的使用頻率高於其他語言形式。然而，語言行式的選擇會隨異議的本質而有所改變。內容異議通常使用直接句型，如否定句與肯定句；評估異議則平均使用直接性的否定句與間接性的預告詞。第三，就語用策略而言，更正、解釋與質疑(依此順序)的使用頻率高於其他語用策略。語用策略的選擇亦隨異議本質的不同而有所改變。超過一半的內容異議使用更正策略，但在評估異議中，更正、解釋與質疑的使用頻率相當。第四，在評估異議中，在各個語用策略中，語言形式的種類比內容異議多。這個結果影射著評估異議對面子的威脅程度可能比內容異議來得嚴重。因此，在進行評估異議時，語言形式與語用策略的挑選用必須格外注意。第五，年齡與異議的建構有顯著的相關性。同齡組比跨齡組更容易產生異議。最後，在異議中，聽話者的角色比說話者的角色更具有影響力。
Although people try to avoid opposition for the sake of politeness or other reasons, disagreement, which may threaten interpersonal relationship and the success of communication, is inevitable in our daily life. Previous studies on disagreement (including dispute, argument, conflict, etc.) have not probe into the nature of the referential content—whether it is content-based (in this study, C-disagreement) or evaluation-based (in this study, E-disagreement), and the influences of social factors on disagreement have rarely been examined in Taiwan. Therefore, the purposes of this study are to see what type of disagreement are most likely to occur in daily conversations and to examine whether age is an influential factor on linguistic choices for in disagreement in Chinese society. This study uses the framework of conversational analysis (CA), and adopts speech act theory (Austin, 1962; Searle, 1975), Cooperative Principles (Grice, 1975) and Politeness Principles (Brown and Levinson’s, 1978, 1987; Leech, 1983) as the theoretical foundations.
12 conversations by speakers of 8 same-age groups (including 4 old groups and 4 young groups) and 4 cross-age groups were examined for disagreement. Related data are categorized, analyzed, and discussed by types of disagreement, linguistic markers, pragmatic strategies, social variable (in this study, age), and the interaction among the four.
The results of the data analyses show, first, people adopt nearly twice more E-disagreement than C-disagreement; moreover, E-disagreement based on personal judgment emerges more often than E-disagreement based on socio-cultural evaluation. Second, for linguistic markers, negation, pre-announcement marker, and affirmative (in this order) are adopted more in disagreement. However, preferences for linguistic markers change according to types of disagreement. In C-disagreement, direct syntactic markers, such as negation and affirmative, are used more frequently than the others; however, in E-disagreement, direct negation (syntactic) and indirect pre-announcement (lexical) are used with equal frequencies. Third, among pragmatic strategies, correction, account, and challenge (in this order) are adopted more frequently than the others. The usage of pragmatic strategies varies with types of disagreement. In C-disagreement, correction is highly adopted. But in E-disagreement, correction, account, and challenge are used with equal percentages. Fourth, the fact that more varieties of linguistic markers are used in each pragmatic strategy in E-disagreement than in C-disagreement may imply impoliteness, since face-threatening force is more serious in E-disagreement than in C-disagreement, which, in turn, indicates that more careful manipulation is needed in using E-disagreement. Fifth, age is influential in disagreement. More disagreements are found in the same-age groups than in the cross-age groups. Last, the hearer’s role is found to be more influential than the speaker’s role.
參考文獻 Atkinson, M. & Heritage, J. (1984). Preference organization. In Atkinson & Heritage (eds.), Structure of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 53-56). Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Beebe, L. M. & Takahashi, T. (1989). Sociolinguistic variation in face-threatening speech acts: chastisement and disagreement. In Eisenstein, M. R. (ed.), The dynamic interlanguage: Empirical studies in second language variation (pp. 199-218). New York: Plenum Press.
Bell, A. (1984) Language Style as Audience Design. In Coupland, N. and A. Jaworski (eds.) Sociolinguistics: a Reader and Coursebook (pp. 240-50). New York: St Mattin`s Press Inc.
Bernardi, B. (1985). Age class system. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Boggs, S.T. (1978). The development of verbal disputing in part-Hawaiian children. Language in Society, 7: 325-344.
Brenneis, D & Lein, L. (1977). You fruithead: a sociolinguistic approach to children’s dispute settlement. In Ervin-Tripp, S., & Mitchell-Kernan, C. (eds.), Child discourse (pp. 49-65). New York: Academic Press.
Brown, P. & Levinson, S.C. (1978/1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brown, R. & Gilman, A. (1960). The pronouns of power and solidarity. In Thomas Sebeok (ed.), Style in language (pp. 253-276). Cambridge Mass: The MIT Press.
Davis, S. (1991). Pragmatics: A reader. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
Eisenberg, A.R. & Garvey, C. (1981). Children’s use of verbal strategies in resolving conflicts. Discourse Processes, 4: 149-170.
Fraser, B. (1974). A partial analysis of vernacular performative verbs. In Shuy, R., & Bailey, C.-J. (eds.), Toward tomorrow’s linguistics (pp. 139-58). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Fraser, B. (1974). An examination of the performative analysis. Papers in Linguistics, 7: 1-40.
Goffman, E. (1967). Interactional ritual. New York: Anchor Books.
Goodwin, M. H. & Goodwin, C. (1987). Children’s arguing. In Philip, S. U., Steele, S. & Tanz, C. (eds.), Language, gender, and sex in comparative perspective (pp. 200-248). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Davis, S. (ed.), Pragmatics: A reader (pp. 305-315). Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
Grimshaw, A. D. (1990). Conflict talk: Sociolinguistic investigations of arguments in conversations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hodges, R. & Kress, G. (1993). Language as Ideology. New York: Routledge.
Honda, A. (1999). Managing conflict talk in Japanese public affairs talk shows. Ph.D. dissertation. Washington D.C.: Georgetown University.
Honda, A. (2002). Conflict management in Japanese public affairs talk shows. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(5): 573-608.
Jaszczolt, K. M. (2002). Semantics and pragmatics: Meaning in language and discourse. United Kingdom: Longman.
Kakava, C. (1993). Negotiation of disagreement by Greeks in conversations and classroom discourse. Ph.D. dissertation. Washington D.C.: Georgetown University.
Kakava, C. (2002). Opposition in modern Greek discourse: cultural and contextual constraints. Journal of Pragmatics, 34: 1537-1568.
Kotthoff, H. (1993). Disagreement and concession in dispute: On the context sensitivity of preference structures. Language in Society, 22: 193-216.
Kuo, S. (1992). Conflict and its management in Chinese verbal interactions: Casual conversations and parliamentary interpellations. Ph.D. dissertation. Washington D.C.: Georgetown University.
Lakoff, R. (1973). The logic of politeness: or minding your p’s and q’s. Proceedings of the Ninth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, pp. 292-305.
Lakoff, R. (1975). Language and Woman’s Place. New York: Harper and Row.
Lakoff, R. (1977). Politeness, pragmatics and performatives. In Rogers, A., Wall, B. & Murphy, J. P. (eds.), Proceedings of the Texas Conference on Performances, Presuppositions and Implicatures. Washington: Center for Applied Linguistics.
Lakoff, R. (1979). Stylistic strategies within a grammar of style. In Orasanu, J., Slater, M. & Adler. L. L. (eds.), Language, Sex, and gender (pp. 53-80). Annals of the New York Academy of Science 327.
Leech, G. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.
Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lii-shih, Y. E. (1994). What do “yes” and “no” really mean in Chinese? In Alatis, J. E. (ed.), Georgetown university round table on language and linguistics 1994 (pp. 128-149). Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
Lii-Shih, Y.-H. (1986). Conversational politeness and foreign language teaching. Taipei: The Crane Publishing Co., Ltd.
Lin, Z.-Y. (1999). Disagreement in mandarin Chinese disagreement. MA thesis. Taipei: National Chengchi University.
Muntigl, P. & Turnbull, W. (1998). Conversational structure and facework in arguing. Journal of Pragmatics, 29: 225-256.
Nasotsuka, R. & Sakamoto, N., et al. (1981). Mutual understanding of different cultures. Osaka: Taishukan.
Pan, Y. (1994). Politeness strategies in Chinese verbal interaction: A sociolinguistic analysis of spoken data in official, business and family settings. Ph.D. dissertation. Washington D.C.: Georgetown University.
Pomerantz, A. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessment: some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In Atkinson & Heritage (eds.), Structure of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 57-101). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rees-Miller, J. (1995). Linguistic features of disagreement in face-to-face encounters in university settings. Ph.D. dissertation. New York: State University of New York at Stony Brook.
Rees-Miller, J. (2000). Power, severity, and context in disagreement. Journal of Pragmatics, 32: 1087-1111.
Richard, J. C. & Sukwiwat, M. (1983). Language transfer and conventional competence. Applied Linguistics, 4.2: 113-125.
Sacks, H. (1973). The preference for agreement in natural conversation. Paper presented at the Linguistic Institute, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Sadock, J. (2004). Speech acts. In Horn, L. R. & Ward, G. (eds.), The handbook of pragmatics (pp. 53-73). Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishing.
Schiffrin, Deborah. (1984). Jewish argument as sociability. Language in Society, 13: 311-335.
Scott, S. (1998). Patterns of language use in adult face-to-face disagreements. Ph.D. dissertation. Arizona: Northern Arizona University.
Scott, S. (2002). Linguistic feature variation within disagreements: An empirical investigation. Text, 22(2): 301-28.
Searle, J. R. (1965). What is a speech act? In Davis, S. (ed.), Pragmatics: A reader (pp. 254-264). Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Searle, J. R. (1975). Indirect speech acts. In Davis, S. (ed.), Pragmatics: A reader (pp. 265-277). Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
Searle, J. R. (1976). The classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society, 5: 1-24.
Simmel, G. (1955). Conflict. In The web of group affiliation (Wolff, K. H. Trans.) (pp. 11–123). New York: Free Press. (German edition 1908)
Tannen, D. (1984). Conversational style: Analyzing talk among friends. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Tannen, D. (1994). Gender and discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tannen, D. (ed.). (1993). Gender and conversation interaction. New York: Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Vuchinich, S. (1988). The sequential organization of closing in verbal family conflict. In Grimshaw, A. D. (ed.), Conflict talk: Sociolinguistic investigations of arguments in conversations (pp. 118-138). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wang, Y. (1997). Dispreferred responses in mandarin chinese conversation. In Proceedings of the First Symposium on Discourse and Syntax in Chinese and Formosan Languages, 103-134. Taipei: NTU.
描述 碩士
國立政治大學
語言學研究所
95555004
97
資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0095555004
資料類型 thesis
dc.contributor.advisor 詹惠珍zh_TW
dc.contributor.advisor Chan, Hui Chenen_US
dc.contributor.author (Authors) 劉容瑜zh_TW
dc.contributor.author (Authors) Liu, Jung Yuen_US
dc.creator (作者) 劉容瑜zh_TW
dc.creator (作者) Liu, Jung Yuen_US
dc.date (日期) 2008en_US
dc.date.accessioned 19-Sep-2009 13:03:52 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.available 19-Sep-2009 13:03:52 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 19-Sep-2009 13:03:52 (UTC+8)-
dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0095555004en_US
dc.identifier.uri (URI) https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/37290-
dc.description (描述) 碩士zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 語言學研究所zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 95555004zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 97zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) 人們常因為禮貌或其他因素避免對立的情況發生。然而，異議在我們日常溝通中又扮演了不可或缺的角色。之前，眾多對於異議及其相關語言活動的研究均未曾探究異議內容的本質(對於事實內容的異議或對於議題評估的異議)與異議的建構有何關係。此外，台灣鮮少研究社會因素對異議建構方式的影響。基於上述不足，本研究旨在探討何種異議(內容異議或評估異議)在日常生活中較常出現，不同異議類別的語言形式與語用策略為何，以及年齡是否會影響異議的數量多寡與建構方式。本研究採用言談分析(conversational analysis, CA)作為研究框架，並以言語行為理論(speech act theory),合作原則(Cooperative Principles)及禮貌理論(Politeness Principles)為理論基礎。
本研究以12份日常交談為語料，進行異議分析。在這12份語料中，8組對話者為同齡(4組年長者，4組年輕者)，4組對話者為跨齡。在分析過程中，先依異議的本質進行分類，進而分析討論異議中所使用的語言形式、語用策略、社會因素(年齡)，以及四者彼此之間的互動。
研究結果顯示，第一，人們使用評估異議的頻率為內容異議的兩倍之多。個人主觀式遠多於社會文化評估的異議。第二，就語言形式而言，在異議的建構中，否定句、預告詞及肯定句(依此順序)的使用頻率高於其他語言形式。然而，語言行式的選擇會隨異議的本質而有所改變。內容異議通常使用直接句型，如否定句與肯定句；評估異議則平均使用直接性的否定句與間接性的預告詞。第三，就語用策略而言，更正、解釋與質疑(依此順序)的使用頻率高於其他語用策略。語用策略的選擇亦隨異議本質的不同而有所改變。超過一半的內容異議使用更正策略，但在評估異議中，更正、解釋與質疑的使用頻率相當。第四，在評估異議中，在各個語用策略中，語言形式的種類比內容異議多。這個結果影射著評估異議對面子的威脅程度可能比內容異議來得嚴重。因此，在進行評估異議時，語言形式與語用策略的挑選用必須格外注意。第五，年齡與異議的建構有顯著的相關性。同齡組比跨齡組更容易產生異議。最後，在異議中，聽話者的角色比說話者的角色更具有影響力。		zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) Although people try to avoid opposition for the sake of politeness or other reasons, disagreement, which may threaten interpersonal relationship and the success of communication, is inevitable in our daily life. Previous studies on disagreement (including dispute, argument, conflict, etc.) have not probe into the nature of the referential content—whether it is content-based (in this study, C-disagreement) or evaluation-based (in this study, E-disagreement), and the influences of social factors on disagreement have rarely been examined in Taiwan. Therefore, the purposes of this study are to see what type of disagreement are most likely to occur in daily conversations and to examine whether age is an influential factor on linguistic choices for in disagreement in Chinese society. This study uses the framework of conversational analysis (CA), and adopts speech act theory (Austin, 1962; Searle, 1975), Cooperative Principles (Grice, 1975) and Politeness Principles (Brown and Levinson’s, 1978, 1987; Leech, 1983) as the theoretical foundations.
12 conversations by speakers of 8 same-age groups (including 4 old groups and 4 young groups) and 4 cross-age groups were examined for disagreement. Related data are categorized, analyzed, and discussed by types of disagreement, linguistic markers, pragmatic strategies, social variable (in this study, age), and the interaction among the four.
The results of the data analyses show, first, people adopt nearly twice more E-disagreement than C-disagreement; moreover, E-disagreement based on personal judgment emerges more often than E-disagreement based on socio-cultural evaluation. Second, for linguistic markers, negation, pre-announcement marker, and affirmative (in this order) are adopted more in disagreement. However, preferences for linguistic markers change according to types of disagreement. In C-disagreement, direct syntactic markers, such as negation and affirmative, are used more frequently than the others; however, in E-disagreement, direct negation (syntactic) and indirect pre-announcement (lexical) are used with equal frequencies. Third, among pragmatic strategies, correction, account, and challenge (in this order) are adopted more frequently than the others. The usage of pragmatic strategies varies with types of disagreement. In C-disagreement, correction is highly adopted. But in E-disagreement, correction, account, and challenge are used with equal percentages. Fourth, the fact that more varieties of linguistic markers are used in each pragmatic strategy in E-disagreement than in C-disagreement may imply impoliteness, since face-threatening force is more serious in E-disagreement than in C-disagreement, which, in turn, indicates that more careful manipulation is needed in using E-disagreement. Fifth, age is influential in disagreement. More disagreements are found in the same-age groups than in the cross-age groups. Last, the hearer’s role is found to be more influential than the speaker’s role.		en_US
dc.description.tableofcontents Acknowledgement …………………………………………………………………..iv
Chinese Abstract ………………………………………………………………….xvii
English Abstract …………………………………………………………………...xix

Chapter 1: Introduction ……………………………………………………………..1
1.1. Linguistic Disagreement …………………………………………………………1
1.2. The Problem ……………………………………………………………………...2
1.3. Research Questions and Hypotheses ……………………………………………..3
1.4. Organization ……………………………………………………………………...4

Chapter 2: Literature Review ………………………………………………………5

2.1. Preference Organization ………………………………………………………….5
2.2. Speech Act: Direct vs. Indirect …………………………………………………...7
2.3. Politeness ………………………………………………………………………..11
2.4. Power…………………………………………………………………………….16
2.5. Previous Studies on Disagreement ……………………………………………...17
2.5.1. Definitions ……………………………………………………………….17
2.5.2. Linguistic Markers ………………………………………………………19
2.5.3. Pragmatic Strategies ……………………………………………………..21

Chapter 3: Methodology ………………………………………………………...…24

3.1. Data Collection ………………………………………………………………….24
3.2. Social Distribution of the Data ………………………………………………….25
3.3. Data Transcription ………………………………………………………………25
3.4. Procedure of Data Processing ……………………………………………….…..26
3.5. Classification of Disagreement …………………………………………………26
3.6. Pragmatic Strategies in Disagreement …………………………………………..29
3.6.1. Correction ………………………………………………………………..30
3.6.2. Account …………………………………………………………………..32
3.6.3. Challenge ………………………………………………………………...34
3.6.4. Defense …………………………………………………………………..37
3.6.5. Partial Disagreement …………………………………………………….39
3.6.6. Clarification ……………………………………………………………...41
3.6.7. Suggestion ……………………………………………………………….42
3.6.8. Confirmation …………………………………………………………….43
3.7. Linguistic Markers in Disagreement ……………………………………………44
3.7.1. Negation …………………………………………………………………44
3.7.2. Affirmative ………………………………………………………………45
3.7.3. Question …………………………………………………………..……..46
3.7.4. Pre-announcement Markers ……………………………………………...46
3.7.5. Degree Markers ………………………………………………………….49
3.7.6. Modals …………………………………………………………………...49
3.7.7. Intrinsic Nature of Linguistic Markers in Disagreement ……………….50
3.8. Summary on Pragmatic Strategies and Linguistic Markers in Disagreement …..51

Chapter 4: Data Analysis ………………………………………………….……….52

4.1. Disagreement in General ………………………………………………………..52
4.1.1. Disagreement and Its Subtypes ………………………………………….52
4.1.1.1. Findings Related to C-disagreement ……………………………..53
4.1.1.2. Findings Related to E-disagreement ……………………………...54
4.1.2. Summary of 4.1. …………………………………………………………56
4.2. Linguistic Markers in Disagreement ……………………………………………56
4.2.1. General Disagreement by Linguistic Markers …………………………...56
4.2.2. Intersection of Types of Disagreement and Types of Linguistic Forms …59
4.2.2.1. C-disagreement by Linguistic Markers …………………………..59
4.2.2.2. E-disagreement by Linguistic Markers …………………………..60
4.2.3. Subtypes of C-disagreement by Linguistic Markers …………………….62
4.2.4. Subtypes of E-disagreement by Linguistic Markers …………………….63
4.2.5. Summary of 4.2. …………………………………………………………66
4.3. Pragmatic Strategies in Disagreement …………………………………………..66
4.3.1. General Disagreement by Pragmatic Strategies …………………………67
4.3.2. Intersection of Types of Disagreement and Types of Pragmatic
Strategies ………………………………………………………………...69
4.3.2.1. C-disagreement by Pragmatic Strategies …………………………69
4.3.2.2. E-disagreement by Pragmatic Strategies …………………………70
4.3.3. Subtypes of C-disagreement by Pragmatic Strategies …………………...72
4.3.4. Subtypes of E-disagreement by Pragmatic Strategies …………………...73
4.3.5. Summary of 4.3. …………………………………………………………76
4.4. Interaction between Linguistic Markers and Pragmatic Strategies in
Disagreement ……………………………………………………………………77
4.4.1. General Disagreement by Linguistic Markers and Pragmatic Strategies ..77
4.4.2. C-disagreement by Linguistic Markers and Pragmatic Strategies ………83
4.4.3. E-disagreement by Linguistic Markers and Pragmatic Strategies ………87
4.4.4. Summary of 4.4. …………………………………………………………91
4.5. Subcategorization of Linguistic Markers by Types of Disagreement and Pragmatic Strategies ……………………………………………………………..91
4.5.1. Subtypes of Pre-announcement Markers in Disagreement ……………...91
4.5.1.1. Intersection of Types of Disagreement and Subtypes of Pre-announcement Marker ………………............................……93
4.5.1.1.1. C-disagreement by Subtypes of Pre-announcement Markers ...............................................................................93
4.5.1.1.2. E-disagreement by Subtypes of Pre-announcement Markers ...............................................................................94
4.5.1.2. Subtypes of Pre-announcement Marker in C-disagreement ...……95
4.5.1.3. Subtypes of Pre-announcement Marker in E-disagreement ...……96
4.5.2. Interaction between Subtypes of Pre-announcement Markers and Pragmatic Strategies ………………………………………......................98
4.5.2.1. General Disagreement by Subtypes of Pre-announcement Markers and Pragmatic Strategies …………………………………......…..98
4.5.2.2. C-disagreement by Subtypes of Pre-announcement Markers and Pragmatic Strategies ………………………………………….....101
4.5.2.3. E-disagreement by Subtypes of Pre-announcement Markers and Pragmatic Strategies ………………………………………….....103
4.6. Age in Disagreement …………………………………………………………..106
4.6.1. General Disagreement by Age ………………………………………….106
4.6.1.1. General Disagreement by Speaker’s Age ……………………….107
4.6.1.2. General Disagreement by Hearer’s Age ………………………...108
4.6.1.3. General Disagreement by Speaker’s and Hearer’s Age ………...108
4.6.2. C-disagreement by Age ………………………………………………...110
4.6.2.1. C-disagreement by Speaker’s Age ……………………………....111
4.6.2.2. C-disagreement by Hearer’s Age ………………………………..112
4.6.2.3. C-disagreement by Speaker’s and Hearer’s Age ………………..112
4.6.3. E-disagreement by Age ………………………………………………...113
4.6.3.1. E-disagreement by Speaker’s Age ………………………………114
4.6.3.2. E-disagreement by Hearer’s Age ………………………………..114
4.6.3.3. E-disagreement by Speaker’s and Hearer’s Age ………………..114
4.6.4. Linguistic Markers by Age ……………………………………………..115
4.6.4.1. Linguistic Markers in General Disagreement by Age …………..116
4.6.4.1.1. Linguistic Markers in General Disagreement by Speaker’s Age ………………………………………………………118
4.6.4.1.2. Linguistic Markers in General Disagreement by Hearer’s Age ………………………………………………………119
4.6.4.1.3. Linguistic Markers in General Disagreement by Speaker’s and Hearer’s Age ………………………………………...120
4.6.4.2. Linguistic Markers in C-disagreement by Age …………………123
4.6.4.2.1. Linguistic Markers in C-disagreement by Speaker’s Age 125
4.6.4.2.2. Linguistic Markers in C-disagreement by Hearer’s Age ...126
4.6.4.2.3. Linguistic Markers in C-disagreement by Speaker’s and Hearer’s Age ……………………………………………..126
4.6.4.3. Linguistic Markers in E-disagreement by Age ………………….128
4.6.4.3.1. Linguistic Markers in E-disagreement by Speaker’s Age 130
4.6.4.3.2. Linguistic Markers in E-disagreement by Hearer’s Age ...130
4.6.4.3.3. Linguistic Markers in E-disagreement by Speaker’s and Hearer’s Age ……………………………………………..131
4.6.5. Pragmatic Strategies by Age …………………………………………....133
4.6.5.1. Pragmatic Strategies in General Disagreement by Age …………133
4.6.5.1.1. Pragmatic Strategies in General Disagreement by Speaker’s Age ………………………………………………………135
4.6.5.1.2. Pragmatic Strategies in General Disagreement by Hearer’s Age ………………………………………………………136
4.6.5.1.3. Pragmatic Strategies in General Disagreement by Speaker’s and Hearer’s Age ………………………………………...137
4.6.5.2. Pragmatic Strategies in C-disagreement by Age ………………..139
4.6.5.2.1. Pragmatic Strategies in C-disagreement by Speaker’s
Age ………………………………………………………141
4.6.5.2.2. Pragmatic Strategies in C-disagreement by Hearer’s Age 142
4.6.5.2.3. Pragmatic Strategies in C-disagreement by Speaker’s and Hearer’s Age ……………………………………………..142
4.6.5.3. Pragmatic Strategies in E-disagreement by Age ………………..144
4.6.5.3.1. Pragmatic Strategies in E-disagreement by Speaker’s
Age ………………………………………………………146
4.6.5.3.2. Pragmatic Strategies in E-disagreement by Hearer’s
Age ....................................................................................147

4.6.5.3.3. Pragmatic Strategies in E-disagreement by Speaker’s and Hearer’s Age ……………………………………………..147
4.6.6. Interaction between Linguistic Markers and Pragmatic Strategies by
Age ……………………………………………………………………..149
4.6.6.1. Interaction between Linguistic Markers and Pragmatic Strategies in General Disagreement by Age …………………………………...149
4.6.6.1.1. Interaction between Linguistic Markers and Pragmatic Strategies in General Disagreement by Speaker’s Age ….150
4.6.6.1.2. Interaction between Linguistic Markers and Pragmatic Strategies in General Disagreement by Hearer’s Age …...153
4.6.6.1.3. Interaction between Linguistic Markers and Pragmatic Strategies in General Disagreement by Speaker’s and Hearer’s Age ……………………………………………..155
4.6.6.2. Interaction between Linguistic Markers and Pragmatic Strategies in C-Disagreement by Age …………………………………………160
4.6.6.2.1. Interaction between Linguistic Markers and Pragmatic Strategies in C-Disagreement by Speaker’s Age ………...160
4.6.6.2.2. Interaction between Linguistic Markers and Pragmatic Strategies in C-Disagreement by Hearer’s Age ………….163
4.6.6.2.3. Interaction between Linguistic Markers and Pragmatic Strategies in C-Disagreement by Speaker’s and Hearer’s
Age ………………………………………………………166
4.6.6.3. Interaction between Linguistic Markers and Pragmatic Strategies in E-Disagreement by Age …………………………………………170
4.6.6.3.1. Interaction between Linguistic Markers and Pragmatic Strategies in E-Disagreement by Speaker’s Age ………...170
4.6.6.3.2. Interaction between Linguistic Markers and Pragmatic Strategies in E-Disagreement by Hearer’s Age ………….173
4.6.6.3.3. Interaction between Linguistic Markers and Pragmatic Strategies in E-Disagreement by Speaker’s and Hearer’s
Age ………………………………………………………176
4.6.7. Summary of 4.5. ………………………………………………………..181

Chapter 5: Conclusion ……………………………………………………………184

5.1. General Findings ………………………………………………………………184
5.2. Limitations and Suggestions …………………………………………………..186
5.3. Applications ……………………………………………………………………187
Bibliography ………………………………………………………………………189

Appendices ………………………………………………………………………...194		zh_TW
dc.format.extent 121394 bytes-
dc.format.extent 63718 bytes-
dc.format.extent 65644 bytes-
dc.format.extent 159446 bytes-
dc.format.extent 93070 bytes-
dc.format.extent 90259 bytes-
dc.format.extent 80008 bytes-
dc.format.extent 82149 bytes-
dc.format.extent 141628 bytes-
dc.format.extent 82413 bytes-
dc.format.extent 73762 bytes-
dc.format.extent 126753 bytes-
dc.format.extent 283816 bytes-
dc.format.extent 510336 bytes-
dc.format.extent 76565 bytes-
dc.format.extent 78237 bytes-
dc.format.extent 167446 bytes-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.language.iso en_US-
dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0095555004en_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 異議zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 言談分析zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 禮貌原則zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 合作原則zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 言語行為理論zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Disagreementen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Conversational Analysisen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Politeness Principleen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Cooperative Principleen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Speech Act Theoryen_US
dc.title (題名) 中文對話中的異議使用：語用學與社會語言學分析zh_TW
dc.title (題名) Disagreement in mandarin Chinese: a sociopragmatic analysisen_US
dc.type (資料類型) thesisen
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Atkinson, M. & Heritage, J. (1984). Preference organization. In Atkinson & Heritage (eds.), Structure of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 53-56). Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Beebe, L. M. & Takahashi, T. (1989). Sociolinguistic variation in face-threatening speech acts: chastisement and disagreement. In Eisenstein, M. R. (ed.), The dynamic interlanguage: Empirical studies in second language variation (pp. 199-218). New York: Plenum Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Bell, A. (1984) Language Style as Audience Design. In Coupland, N. and A. Jaworski (eds.) Sociolinguistics: a Reader and Coursebook (pp. 240-50). New York: St Mattin`s Press Inc.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Bernardi, B. (1985). Age class system. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Boggs, S.T. (1978). The development of verbal disputing in part-Hawaiian children. Language in Society, 7: 325-344.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Brenneis, D & Lein, L. (1977). You fruithead: a sociolinguistic approach to children’s dispute settlement. In Ervin-Tripp, S., & Mitchell-Kernan, C. (eds.), Child discourse (pp. 49-65). New York: Academic Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Brown, P. & Levinson, S.C. (1978/1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Brown, R. & Gilman, A. (1960). The pronouns of power and solidarity. In Thomas Sebeok (ed.), Style in language (pp. 253-276). Cambridge Mass: The MIT Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Davis, S. (1991). Pragmatics: A reader. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Eisenberg, A.R. & Garvey, C. (1981). Children’s use of verbal strategies in resolving conflicts. Discourse Processes, 4: 149-170.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Fraser, B. (1974). A partial analysis of vernacular performative verbs. In Shuy, R., & Bailey, C.-J. (eds.), Toward tomorrow’s linguistics (pp. 139-58). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Fraser, B. (1974). An examination of the performative analysis. Papers in Linguistics, 7: 1-40.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Goffman, E. (1967). Interactional ritual. New York: Anchor Books.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Goodwin, M. H. & Goodwin, C. (1987). Children’s arguing. In Philip, S. U., Steele, S. & Tanz, C. (eds.), Language, gender, and sex in comparative perspective (pp. 200-248). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Davis, S. (ed.), Pragmatics: A reader (pp. 305-315). Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Grimshaw, A. D. (1990). Conflict talk: Sociolinguistic investigations of arguments in conversations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Hodges, R. & Kress, G. (1993). Language as Ideology. New York: Routledge.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Honda, A. (1999). Managing conflict talk in Japanese public affairs talk shows. Ph.D. dissertation. Washington D.C.: Georgetown University.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Honda, A. (2002). Conflict management in Japanese public affairs talk shows. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(5): 573-608.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Jaszczolt, K. M. (2002). Semantics and pragmatics: Meaning in language and discourse. United Kingdom: Longman.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Kakava, C. (1993). Negotiation of disagreement by Greeks in conversations and classroom discourse. Ph.D. dissertation. Washington D.C.: Georgetown University.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Kakava, C. (2002). Opposition in modern Greek discourse: cultural and contextual constraints. Journal of Pragmatics, 34: 1537-1568.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Kotthoff, H. (1993). Disagreement and concession in dispute: On the context sensitivity of preference structures. Language in Society, 22: 193-216.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Kuo, S. (1992). Conflict and its management in Chinese verbal interactions: Casual conversations and parliamentary interpellations. Ph.D. dissertation. Washington D.C.: Georgetown University.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Lakoff, R. (1973). The logic of politeness: or minding your p’s and q’s. Proceedings of the Ninth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, pp. 292-305.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Lakoff, R. (1975). Language and Woman’s Place. New York: Harper and Row.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Lakoff, R. (1977). Politeness, pragmatics and performatives. In Rogers, A., Wall, B. & Murphy, J. P. (eds.), Proceedings of the Texas Conference on Performances, Presuppositions and Implicatures. Washington: Center for Applied Linguistics.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Lakoff, R. (1979). Stylistic strategies within a grammar of style. In Orasanu, J., Slater, M. & Adler. L. L. (eds.), Language, Sex, and gender (pp. 53-80). Annals of the New York Academy of Science 327.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Leech, G. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Lii-shih, Y. E. (1994). What do “yes” and “no” really mean in Chinese? In Alatis, J. E. (ed.), Georgetown university round table on language and linguistics 1994 (pp. 128-149). Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Lii-Shih, Y.-H. (1986). Conversational politeness and foreign language teaching. Taipei: The Crane Publishing Co., Ltd.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Lin, Z.-Y. (1999). Disagreement in mandarin Chinese disagreement. MA thesis. Taipei: National Chengchi University.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Muntigl, P. & Turnbull, W. (1998). Conversational structure and facework in arguing. Journal of Pragmatics, 29: 225-256.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Nasotsuka, R. & Sakamoto, N., et al. (1981). Mutual understanding of different cultures. Osaka: Taishukan.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Pan, Y. (1994). Politeness strategies in Chinese verbal interaction: A sociolinguistic analysis of spoken data in official, business and family settings. Ph.D. dissertation. Washington D.C.: Georgetown University.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Pomerantz, A. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessment: some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In Atkinson & Heritage (eds.), Structure of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 57-101). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Rees-Miller, J. (1995). Linguistic features of disagreement in face-to-face encounters in university settings. Ph.D. dissertation. New York: State University of New York at Stony Brook.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Rees-Miller, J. (2000). Power, severity, and context in disagreement. Journal of Pragmatics, 32: 1087-1111.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Richard, J. C. & Sukwiwat, M. (1983). Language transfer and conventional competence. Applied Linguistics, 4.2: 113-125.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Sacks, H. (1973). The preference for agreement in natural conversation. Paper presented at the Linguistic Institute, Ann Arbor, Michigan.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Sadock, J. (2004). Speech acts. In Horn, L. R. & Ward, G. (eds.), The handbook of pragmatics (pp. 53-73). Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishing.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Schiffrin, Deborah. (1984). Jewish argument as sociability. Language in Society, 13: 311-335.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Scott, S. (1998). Patterns of language use in adult face-to-face disagreements. Ph.D. dissertation. Arizona: Northern Arizona University.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Scott, S. (2002). Linguistic feature variation within disagreements: An empirical investigation. Text, 22(2): 301-28.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Searle, J. R. (1965). What is a speech act? In Davis, S. (ed.), Pragmatics: A reader (pp. 254-264). Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Searle, J. R. (1975). Indirect speech acts. In Davis, S. (ed.), Pragmatics: A reader (pp. 265-277). Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Searle, J. R. (1976). The classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society, 5: 1-24.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Simmel, G. (1955). Conflict. In The web of group affiliation (Wolff, K. H. Trans.) (pp. 11–123). New York: Free Press. (German edition 1908)zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Tannen, D. (1984). Conversational style: Analyzing talk among friends. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Tannen, D. (1994). Gender and discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Tannen, D. (ed.). (1993). Gender and conversation interaction. New York: Oxford: Oxford University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Vuchinich, S. (1988). The sequential organization of closing in verbal family conflict. In Grimshaw, A. D. (ed.), Conflict talk: Sociolinguistic investigations of arguments in conversations (pp. 118-138). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.zh_TW
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Wang, Y. (1997). Dispreferred responses in mandarin chinese conversation. In Proceedings of the First Symposium on Discourse and Syntax in Chinese and Formosan Languages, 103-134. Taipei: NTU.zh_TW