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 中文對話中的同意使用：語用學與社會語言學分析
Agreement in Mandarin Chinese: a sociopragmatic analysis
作者 魏愷玟
Wei, Kai Wen
貢獻者 詹惠珍
魏愷玟
Wei, Kai Wen
關鍵詞 社會語言學
語用學
同意行為
性別差異
Sociolinguistics
Pragmatics
Agreement
Gender differences
日期 2011
上傳時間 30-Oct-2012 10:53:36 (UTC+8)
摘要 本論文分析中文使用者如何選擇同意行為中相關之同意類別、同意程度、和語用策略。此外，本研究也檢視性別對人們同意使用的影響力。本論文採用言談分析(conversational analysis)作為研究框架。除此之外，本研究以言語行為理論(speech act theory)，合作原則(Cooperative Principles)及禮貌原則理論(Politeness Principles)作為理論基礎。
本篇論文調查八個雙人面對面的日常會話，其中同性別的會話共四份（包含男生和男生的會話兩份，以及女生和女生的會話兩份），跨性別之間的會話共四份。在這八段會話當中，總共找到152筆語料。在分析的過程中，先將同意的語料做分類，進而分析同意的類別、程度、語用策略的使用、社會因素(性別)，以及這四者之間的互動。
研究結果顯示，（一）同意類別方面，人們使用同意核心（Head act alone）和同意修飾語（Supportive moves alone）的頻率皆高於同意核心和修飾語的併用；（二）六個同意支類別方面，同意表徵（Agreement marker）使用頻率顯著高於其他五個同意支類別；（三）同意的強度方面，無條件同意（Agreement without contingency）的使用率顯著高於有條件同意（Agreement with contingency）；（四）無條件同意的支類別方面，強化同意（Upgrading agreement）的使用率顯著高於持平同意（Preserving agreement）；（五）語用策略方面，篇章修辭策略（Textual rhetoric strategies）的使用率顯著高於人際修辭策略（Interpersonal rhetoric strategies）；（六）篇章修辭策略的支類別方面，強調策略（Emphasis）和闡述策略（Elaboration）是最常被使用的；（七）修飾語的支類別和篇章修辭策略的互動方面，研究結果發現一項語用策略分工：強調策略通常使用於受同意的命題內容（Agreed propositional content），而闡述策略通常使用於新增的命題內容（Extra propositional content）；（八）人際修辭策略方面，研究結果也發現一項語用策略分工：讓步策略（Concession）通常使用於同意核心，而支持策略（Supporting）通常使用於同意修飾語；（九）最後，研究結果顯示性別會影響人們的同意使用情形。特別是女性容易在同意類別、同意強度和語用策略的使用上，受到聽話者的性別的影響。
This thesis investigates people’s choice among categories of agreement construction, degrees of agreement, and pragmatic strategies in agreement. Also, the influence of gender is examined. Conversational analysis (CA) is taken as the framework of this thesis. Besides, speech act theory (Austin, 1962; Searle, 1975), Cooperative Principle (Grice, 1975), and Politeness Principles (Brown and Levinson, 1978, 1987; Leech, 1983) are theoretical foundations of this study.
8 face-to-face conversations, including 4 same-gender groups and 4 cross-gender groups, which yield 152 tokens of agreement, were investigated. Related data are classified and analyzed by categories of agreement, degrees of agreement, and pragmatic strategies in agreement, social factor—gender in this study, and the interaction among the four.
The results of quantitative analyses confirm the following findings. (1) For categories of agreement, people apply both head act alone and supportive move alone more frequently than head act with supportive moves. (2) For the six subcategories of agreement, agreement marker overrides the other five. (3) For degrees of agreement, agreement without contingency emerges much more frequently than agreement with contingency. (4) For the subtypes of agreement without contingency, upgrading agreement is used significantly more than preserving agreement. (5) For pragmatic strategies, textual rhetoric strategies are applied much more frequently than interpersonal rhetoric strategies. (6) In textual rhetoric strategies, emphasis and elaboration are adopted most of the time. (7) For the interaction of subtypes of supportive moves and textual rhetoric strategies, a division of pragmatic labor emerges: emphasis often occurs in agreed propositional content, while elaboration often occurs in extra propositional content. (8) For interpersonal rhetoric strategies, a division of pragmatic labor is also located: concession often appears in head act alone, whereas supporting often appears in supportive moves alone. Lastly, (9) Gender is an influential factor in the use of agreement. Women are the one who tend to be influenced by hearer’s gender in their choice of categories of agreement, degree of agreement, and pragmatic strategies in agreement.
參考文獻 Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Baym, N. K. (1996). Agreements and disagreements in a computer-mediated discussion. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 29(4): 315-345.

Blum-Kulka, S. & House, J., et al. (1989). Cross-cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. Norwood: Ablex.

Brown, R. & Gilman, A. (1960). The pronouns of power and solidarity. In Thomas Sebeok (ed.) Style in language. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press (pp. 253-276).

Brown, P. & Levionson, S.C. (1978/1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Chui, K. W. & Lai, H. L. (2009). The NCCU Corpus of Spoken Chinese: Mandarin, Hakka, and Southern Min. Taiwan Journal of Linguistics 6.2:119-144.

Coates, J. (1989). Gossip revisited: language in all-female groups. In Coates, J. and Deborah, C. (ed.), Women in their speech communities. London: Longman, pp. 94-121.

Dahl, R. A. (1957). The Concept of Power. Behavioral Science 2: 201-215.

Eckert, P. (1990). Cooperative competition in adolescent ‘girl talk’. Discourse Processes 13: 91-122.

Edelsky, C. (1981). Who’s got the floor? Language in Society 10: 383-421.

Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face to face behavior. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Davis, S. (ed.), Pragmatics: A reader (pp. 305-315). Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.

Guiller, J. & Durndell, A. (2006). ‘I totally agree with you’: gender interactions in educational online discussion groups. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 22: 368-381.

Hayano, K. (2007). Repetitional agreement and anaphorical agreement: negotiation of affiliation and disaffiliation in Japanese conversation. MA thesis. Los Angeles: University of California.

Horn, L. (1984). Toward a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference: Q-based and R-based implicature. In Schiffrin,D. (ed.), Meaning, form, and use in context: linguistic application (pp. 11-42). Washington, D. C.: Georgetown University Press.
Hornero, A. M. & Hornero, A. M., et al. (2008). Preference structure in agreeing and disagreeing responses. In Hornero, A. M., Luzón & Murillo, S. (eds.), Corpus linguistics: Applications for the study of English (pp. 113-123). Switzerland: Peter Lang.

James, D. & Drakich, J. (1993). Understanding gender differences in amount of talk: A critical review of research. In D. Tannen (ed.), Gender and conversational interaction (pp. 281-312). New York: Oxford.

Kalcik, S. (1975). ‘…like Ann’s gynaecologist or the time I was almost raped’ – personal narratives in women’s rape groups. Journal of American Folklore 88: 3-11.

Kotthoff, H. (1993). Disagreement and concession in disputes: On the context sensitivity of preference structures. Language in Society, 22, 193-216.

Kuo, S. H. (1994). Agreement and disagreement strategies in a radio conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 27(2): 95-121.

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).

Leech, G. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.

Leet-Pellegrini, H. M. (1980). Conversational dominance as a function of gender and expertise. In Howard Giles, Peter Robinson and Philip Smith (eds) Language: Social Psychological Perspectives. Oxford: Pergamon Press (pp. 97-104).

Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Liu, J. -Y. (2009). Disagreement in Mandarin Chinese: a sociopragmatic analysis. MA thesis. Taipei: National Chengchi University.

Mori, J. (1999). Negotiating agreement and disagreement in Japanese: Connective
expressions and turn construction. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Mulkay, M. (1985). Agreement and disagreement in conversations and letters. Text 5: 201-227.

Pomerantz, A. (1975). Second assessments: A study of some features of agreement/disagreement. Unpublished Ph. D. Dissertation. University of California, Irvine.

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.

Rattai, D. (2003). Agreement and disagreement strategies in Russian news interviews: a linguistic perspective. MA thesis. Edmonton: University of Alberta.

Sacks, H. (1973). The preference for agreement in natural conversation. Paper presented at the Linguistic Institute, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Sacks, H. (1987). On the preferences for agreement and contiguity in sequences in conversation. In G. Button & J. R. E. Lee (eds.), Talk and Social Organization (pp. 54-69). Clevedon, UK.: Multilingual Matters.

Schegloff, E. A. & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica, 7.4, 289-327.

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.

Tannen, D. (1975). Communication mix and mixup or how linguistics can ruin a marriage. San Jose State Occasional Papers in Linguistics.

Tannen, D. (1979). What’s in a Frame? Surface evidence for underlying expectations. In Freedle, R. (ed.), Discourse processes, Vol. 2. New Directions. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex.

Tannen, D. (1986). That’s not what I meant!: How conversational style makes or breaks your relations with others. New York: William Morrow. Paperback: Ballantine.

Tannen, D. (1990). You just don’t understand: Women and men in conversation. New York: William Morrow. Paperback: Ballantine.

Tannen, D. (1994). Gender and discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Tsui, A. (1994). English conversation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Woods, M. (1997). Discourses of power and rurality. Political Geography 16: 453-478.

Yang, Y. T. (2010). Strategies in the disagreement speech act used by learners in Taiwan: a sociolinguistic analysis. Ph. D. dissertation. Kaohsiung: National Kaohsiung Normal University.

高麗君、李珮甄、王萸芳，2006，中文會話中表同意和不同意之語言特徵及其教學應用。發表於第八屆世界華語文教學研討會。
描述 碩士
國立政治大學
語言學研究所
97555002
100
資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0097555002
資料類型 thesis
dc.contributor.advisor 詹惠珍zh_TW
dc.contributor.author (Authors) 魏愷玟zh_TW
dc.contributor.author (Authors) Wei, Kai Wenen_US
dc.creator (作者) 魏愷玟zh_TW
dc.creator (作者) Wei, Kai Wenen_US
dc.date (日期) 2011en_US
dc.date.accessioned 30-Oct-2012 10:53:36 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.available 30-Oct-2012 10:53:36 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 30-Oct-2012 10:53:36 (UTC+8)-
dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0097555002en_US
dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/54371-
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) 97555002zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 100zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) 本論文分析中文使用者如何選擇同意行為中相關之同意類別、同意程度、和語用策略。此外，本研究也檢視性別對人們同意使用的影響力。本論文採用言談分析(conversational analysis)作為研究框架。除此之外，本研究以言語行為理論(speech act theory)，合作原則(Cooperative Principles)及禮貌原則理論(Politeness Principles)作為理論基礎。
本篇論文調查八個雙人面對面的日常會話，其中同性別的會話共四份（包含男生和男生的會話兩份，以及女生和女生的會話兩份），跨性別之間的會話共四份。在這八段會話當中，總共找到152筆語料。在分析的過程中，先將同意的語料做分類，進而分析同意的類別、程度、語用策略的使用、社會因素(性別)，以及這四者之間的互動。
研究結果顯示，（一）同意類別方面，人們使用同意核心（Head act alone）和同意修飾語（Supportive moves alone）的頻率皆高於同意核心和修飾語的併用；（二）六個同意支類別方面，同意表徵（Agreement marker）使用頻率顯著高於其他五個同意支類別；（三）同意的強度方面，無條件同意（Agreement without contingency）的使用率顯著高於有條件同意（Agreement with contingency）；（四）無條件同意的支類別方面，強化同意（Upgrading agreement）的使用率顯著高於持平同意（Preserving agreement）；（五）語用策略方面，篇章修辭策略（Textual rhetoric strategies）的使用率顯著高於人際修辭策略（Interpersonal rhetoric strategies）；（六）篇章修辭策略的支類別方面，強調策略（Emphasis）和闡述策略（Elaboration）是最常被使用的；（七）修飾語的支類別和篇章修辭策略的互動方面，研究結果發現一項語用策略分工：強調策略通常使用於受同意的命題內容（Agreed propositional content），而闡述策略通常使用於新增的命題內容（Extra propositional content）；（八）人際修辭策略方面，研究結果也發現一項語用策略分工：讓步策略（Concession）通常使用於同意核心，而支持策略（Supporting）通常使用於同意修飾語；（九）最後，研究結果顯示性別會影響人們的同意使用情形。特別是女性容易在同意類別、同意強度和語用策略的使用上，受到聽話者的性別的影響。		zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) This thesis investigates people’s choice among categories of agreement construction, degrees of agreement, and pragmatic strategies in agreement. Also, the influence of gender is examined. Conversational analysis (CA) is taken as the framework of this thesis. Besides, speech act theory (Austin, 1962; Searle, 1975), Cooperative Principle (Grice, 1975), and Politeness Principles (Brown and Levinson, 1978, 1987; Leech, 1983) are theoretical foundations of this study.
8 face-to-face conversations, including 4 same-gender groups and 4 cross-gender groups, which yield 152 tokens of agreement, were investigated. Related data are classified and analyzed by categories of agreement, degrees of agreement, and pragmatic strategies in agreement, social factor—gender in this study, and the interaction among the four.
The results of quantitative analyses confirm the following findings. (1) For categories of agreement, people apply both head act alone and supportive move alone more frequently than head act with supportive moves. (2) For the six subcategories of agreement, agreement marker overrides the other five. (3) For degrees of agreement, agreement without contingency emerges much more frequently than agreement with contingency. (4) For the subtypes of agreement without contingency, upgrading agreement is used significantly more than preserving agreement. (5) For pragmatic strategies, textual rhetoric strategies are applied much more frequently than interpersonal rhetoric strategies. (6) In textual rhetoric strategies, emphasis and elaboration are adopted most of the time. (7) For the interaction of subtypes of supportive moves and textual rhetoric strategies, a division of pragmatic labor emerges: emphasis often occurs in agreed propositional content, while elaboration often occurs in extra propositional content. (8) For interpersonal rhetoric strategies, a division of pragmatic labor is also located: concession often appears in head act alone, whereas supporting often appears in supportive moves alone. Lastly, (9) Gender is an influential factor in the use of agreement. Women are the one who tend to be influenced by hearer’s gender in their choice of categories of agreement, degree of agreement, and pragmatic strategies in agreement.		en_US
dc.description.tableofcontents Acknowledgements..............iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS..............v
LIST OF TABLES..............xii
LIST OF FIGURES..............xv
LIST OF ABBRIVIATIONS..............xvi
Chinese Abstract..............xviii
English Abstract..........................xx

Chapter 1 Introduction..............1

1.1. Background of the Study..............1
1.2. The Problem..............1
1.3. Research Questions and Hypotheses..............2
1.4. Organization of This Thesis..............3

Chapter 2 Literature Review..............5

2.1. Speech Act Theory..............5
2.2. The Cooperative Principle..............6
2.3. Politeness Principles..............8
2.3.1. Politeness Principle by Lakoff (1973)..............9
2.3.2. Politeness Principle by Brown and Levinson (1978)..9
2.3.3. Politeness Principle by Leech (1983)..............11
2.4. Conversational Structure: Adjacency Pairs.........12
2.5. Agreement as a Speech Act..............14
2.5.1. Definitions of Agreement..............14
2.5.2. Speech Act Analysis of Agreement..............15
2.5.3. Pragmatic Strategies of Agreement..............16
2.5.4. Social Constraints: Power and Solidarity.......17
2.5.4.1. The Notion of Power and Solidarity.......17
2.5.4.2. Gender Differences in Power and Solidarity.......18
2.5.5. Linguistic Features of Agreement.......20

Chapter 3 Methodology.......23

3.1. Data Collection.......23
3.1.1. Data Resource.......23
3.1.2. Social Distribution of Subjects.......24
3.2. Procedures of Data Analysis.......24
3.3. Classification of Agreement.......24
3.3.1. The Structure of Agreement.......25
3.3.2. Agreements with vs. without Contingency.......27
3.3.2.1. Upgrading Agreement.......28
3.3.2.2. Preserving Agreement.......29
3.3.2.3. Downgrading Agreement.......30
3.4. Pragmatic Strategies in Agreement.......31
3.4.1. Emphasis.......32
3.4.2. Elaboration.......32
3.4.3. Account.......33
3.4.4. Clarification.......34
3.4.5. Supporting.......35
3.4.6. Concession.......35

Chapter 4 Data Analysis (1): Constructions of Agreement.......37

4.1. Agreement Tokens as a Whole.......37
4.1.1. Agreement Tokens as a Whole by Gender.......37
4.1.1.1. Agreement Tokens as a Whole by Speaker’s Gender.......38
4.1.1.2. Agreement Tokens as a Whole by Hearer’s Gender.......38
4.1.1.3. Agreement Tokens as a Whole by Both Speaker’s and Hearer’s Gender.......39
4.2. Categories of Agreement.......39
4.2.1. HA (Head Act Alone).......40
4.2.1.1. HA by Subjects as a Whole.......40
4.2.1.2. HA by Gender.......40
4.2.1.2.1. HA by Speaker’s Gender.......41
4.2.1.2.2. HA by Hearer’s Gender.......41
4.2.1.2.3. HA by Both Speaker’s and Hearer’s Gender.......41
4.2.2. SM (Supportive Moves Alone).......42
4.2.2.1. SM by Subjects as a Whole.......42
4.2.2.2. SM by Gender.......42
4.2.2.2.1. SM by Speaker’s Gender.......42
4.2.2.2.2. SM by Hearer’s Gender.......43
4.2.2.2.3. SM by Both Speaker’s and Hearer’s Gender.......43
4.2.3. HA+SM (Head Act with Supportive Moves).......44
4.2.3.1. HA+SM by Subjects as a Whole.......44
4.2.3.2. HA+SM by Gender.......45
4.2.3.2.1. HA+SM by Speaker’s Gender.......45
4.2.3.2.2. HA+SM by Hearer’s Gender.......45
4.2.3.2.3. HA+SM by Both Speaker’s and Hearer’s Gender.......46
4.2.4. HA vs. SM vs. HA+SM (Head Act alone vs. Supportive Moves Alone vs. Head Act with Supportive Moves).......46
4.2.4.1. HA vs. SM.......46
4.2.4.1.1. HA vs. SM by Subjects as a Whole.......47
4.2.4.1.2. HA vs. SM by Gender.......48
1. HA vs. SM by Speaker’s Gender.......48
2. HA vs. SM by Hearer’s Gender.......49
3. HA vs. SM by Both Speaker’s and Hearer’s Gender .......49
4.2.4.2. HA vs. HA+SM.......50
4.2.4.2.1. HA vs. HA+SM by Subjects as a Whole.......50
4.2.4.2.2. HA vs. HA+SM by Gender.......51
1. HA vs. HA+SM by Speaker’s Gender.......51
2. HA vs. HA+SM by Hearer’s Gender.......51
3. HA vs. HA+SM by Both Speaker’s and Hearer’s Gender .......52
4.2.4.3. SM vs. HA+SM.......52
4.2.4.3.1. SM vs. HA+SM by Subjects as a Whole.......53
4.2.4.3.2. SM vs. HA+SM by Gender.......53
1. SM vs. HA+SM by Speaker’s Gender.......54
2. SM vs. HA+SM by Hearer’s Gender.......54
3. SM vs. HA+SM by Both Speaker’s and Hearer’s Gender.......55
4.2.5. Subcategories of SM (Supportive Moves).......55
4.2.5.1. Subcategories of SM by Subjects as a Whole.......55
4.2.5.2. Subcategories of SM by Gender.......56
4.2.5.2.1. Subcategories of SM by Speaker’s Gender.......57
4.2.5.2.2. Subcategories of SM by Hearer’s Gender.......58
4.2.5.2.3. Subcategories of SM by Both Speaker’s and Hearer’s Gender.......59
4.2.6. Subcategories of HA+SM (Head Act with Supportive Moves).......59
4.2.6.1. Subcategories of HA+SM by Subjects as a Whole.......60
4.2.6.2. Subcategories of HA+SM by Gender.......61
4.2.7. All Six Subcategories of Agreement.......61
4.2.7.1. All Six Subcategories of Agreement by Subjects as a Whole.......62
4.2.7.2. All Six Subcategories of Agreement by Gender.......63
4.2.7.2.1. All Six Subcategories of Agreement by Speaker’s Gender.......64
4.2.7.2.2. All Six Subcategories of Agreement by Hearer’s Gender.......65
4.2.7.2.3. All Six Subcategories of Agreement by Both Speaker’s and Hearer’s Gender.......66
4.2.8. Summary of 4.2........67
4.3. Degrees of Agreement.......70
4.3.1. Agreement by Degrees.......71
4.3.1.1. Agreement by Degrees with Subjects as a Whole.......71
4.3.1.2. Impacts of Gender on Agreement by Degrees.......73
4.3.1.2.1. Impacts of Speaker’s Gender on Agreement by Degrees.......75
4.3.1.2.2. Impacts of Hearer’s Gender on Agreement by Degrees.......75
4.3.1.2.3. Impacts of Both Speaker’s and Hearer’s Gender on Agreement by Degrees.......76
4.3.2. HA (Head Act Alone) by Degrees.......78
4.3.2.1. HA by Degrees with Subjects as a Whole.......78
4.3.2.2. Impacts of Gender on HA by Degrees.......79
4.3.2.2.1. Impacts of Speaker’s Gender on HA by Degrees.......81
4.3.2.2.2. Impacts of Hearer’s Gender on HA by Degrees.......81
4.3.2.2.3. Impacts of Both Speaker’s and Hearer’s Gender on HA by Degrees.......82
4.3.3. SM (Supportive Moves Alone) by Degrees.......83
4.3.3.1. SM by Degrees with Subjects as a Whole.......83
4.3.3.2. Impacts of Gender on SM by Degrees.......84
4.3.3.2.1. Impacts of Speaker’s Gender on SM by Degrees.......86
4.3.3.2.2. Impacts of Hearer’s Gender on SM by Degrees.......86
4.3.3.2.3. Impacts of Both Speaker’s and Hearer’s Gender on SM by Degrees.......86
4.3.4. HA+SM (Head Act with Supportive Moves) by Degrees.......87
4.3.4.1. HA+SM by Degrees with Subjects as a Whole.......87
4.3.4.2. Impacts of Gender on HA+SM by Degrees.......88
4.3.4.2.1. Impacts of Speaker’s Gender on HA+SM by Degrees.......90
4.3.4.2.2. Impacts of Hearer’s Gender on HA+SM by Degrees.......90
4.3.5. HA vs. SM vs. HA+SM (Head Act vs. Supportive Moves vs. Head Act with Supportive Moves) by Degrees.......90
4.3.5.1. HA vs. SM by Degrees.......91
4.3.5.1.1. HA vs. SM by Degrees with Subjects as a Whole.......91
4.3.5.1.2. Impacts of Gender on HA vs. SM by Degrees.......92
1. Impacts of Speaker’s Gender on HA vs. SM by Degrees.......94
2. Impacts of Hearer’s Gender on HA vs. SM by Degrees.......95
3. Impacts of Both Speaker’s and Hearer’s Gender on HA vs. SM by Degrees.......95
4.3.5.2. HA vs. HA+SM by Degrees.......96
4.3.5.2.1. HA vs. HA+SM by Degrees with Subjects as a Whole.......97
4.3.5.2.2. Impacts of Gender on HA vs. HA+SM by Degrees.......98
1. Impacts of Speaker’s Gender on HA vs. HA+SM by Degrees.......100
2. Impacts of Hearer’s Gender on HA vs. HA+SM by Degrees.......101
4.3.5.3. SM vs. HA+SM by Degrees.......101
4.3.5.3.1. SM vs. HA+SM by Degrees with Subjects as a Whole.......101
4.3.5.3.2. Impacts of Gender on SM vs. HA+SM by Degrees.......102
1. Impacts of Speaker’s Gender on SM vs. HA+SM by Degrees.......105
2. Impacts of Hearer’s Gender on SM vs. HA+SM by Degrees.......105
4.3.6. All Six Subcategories of Agreement by Degrees.......106
4.3.7. Summary of 4.3........109

Chapter 5 Data Analysis (2): Pragmatic Strategies in Agreement.......111

5.1. Amounts of Pragmatic Strategies in Agreement.......111
5.1.1. Pragmatic Strategies in Agreement with Subjects as a Whole.......111
5.1.2. Pragmatic Strategies in Agreement by Gender.......113
5.1.2.1. Pragmatic Strategies in Agreement by Speaker’s Gender.......115
5.1.2.2. Pragmatic Strategy in Agreement by Hearer’s Gender.......116
5.1.2.3. Pragmatic Strategy in Agreement by Both Speaker’s and Hearer’s Gender.......117
5.2. Pragmatic Strategies in HA (Head Act Alone).......117
5.2.1. Pragmatic Strategies in HA by Subjects as a Whole.......118
5.2.2. Pragmatic Strategies in HA by Gender.......119
5.3. Pragmatic Strategies in SM (Supportive Moves Alone).......121
5.3.1. Pragmatic Strategies in SM by Subjects as a Whole.......121
5.3.2. Pragmatic Strategies in SM by Gender.......123
5.4. Pragmatic Strategies in HA+SM (Head Act with Supportive Moves).......125
5.4.1. Pragmatic Strategies in HA+SM by Subjects as a Whole.......125
5.4.2. Pragmatic Strategies in HA+SM by Gender.......127
5.4.2.1. Pragmatic Strategies in HA+SM by Speaker’s Gender.......127
5.4.2.2. Pragmatic Strategies in HA+SM by Hearer’s Gender.......128
5.4.2.3. Pragmatic Strategies in HA+SM by Both Speaker’s and Hearer’s Gender.......129
5.5. Pragmatic Strategies in the Subcategories of SM (Supportive Moves).......131
5.5.1. Pragmatic Strategies in the Subcategories of SM by Subjects as a Whole.......131
5.5.2. Pragmatic Strategies in the Subcategories of SM by Gender.......133
5.5.2.1. Pragmatic Strategies in the Subcategories of SM by Speaker’s Gender.......134
5.5.2.2. Pragmatic Strategies in the Subcategories of SM by Hearer’s Gender.......137
5.5.2.3. Pragmatic Strategies in the Subcategories of SM by Both Speaker’s and Hearer’s Gender.......139
5.6. Pragmatic Strategies in All Six Subcategories of Agreement.......141
5.7. Summary of Pragmatic Strategies in Agreement.......144

Chapter 6 Conclusion.......148

6.1. Summary of the Major Findings.......148
6.1.1. Agreement in General.......148
6.1.2. Agreement by Gender.......150
6.2. Limitations and Suggestions.......153


References.......155		zh_TW
dc.language.iso en_US-
dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0097555002en_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 社會語言學zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 語用學zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 同意行為zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 性別差異zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Sociolinguisticsen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Pragmaticsen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Agreementen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) Gender differencesen_US
dc.title (題名) 中文對話中的同意使用：語用學與社會語言學分析zh_TW
dc.title (題名) Agreement in Mandarin Chinese: a sociopragmatic analysisen_US
dc.type (資料類型) thesisen
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Baym, N. K. (1996). Agreements and disagreements in a computer-mediated discussion. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 29(4): 315-345.

Blum-Kulka, S. & House, J., et al. (1989). Cross-cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. Norwood: Ablex.

Brown, R. & Gilman, A. (1960). The pronouns of power and solidarity. In Thomas Sebeok (ed.) Style in language. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press (pp. 253-276).

Brown, P. & Levionson, S.C. (1978/1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Chui, K. W. & Lai, H. L. (2009). The NCCU Corpus of Spoken Chinese: Mandarin, Hakka, and Southern Min. Taiwan Journal of Linguistics 6.2:119-144.

Coates, J. (1989). Gossip revisited: language in all-female groups. In Coates, J. and Deborah, C. (ed.), Women in their speech communities. London: Longman, pp. 94-121.

Dahl, R. A. (1957). The Concept of Power. Behavioral Science 2: 201-215.

Eckert, P. (1990). Cooperative competition in adolescent ‘girl talk’. Discourse Processes 13: 91-122.

Edelsky, C. (1981). Who’s got the floor? Language in Society 10: 383-421.

Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face to face behavior. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Davis, S. (ed.), Pragmatics: A reader (pp. 305-315). Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.

Guiller, J. & Durndell, A. (2006). ‘I totally agree with you’: gender interactions in educational online discussion groups. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 22: 368-381.

Hayano, K. (2007). Repetitional agreement and anaphorical agreement: negotiation of affiliation and disaffiliation in Japanese conversation. MA thesis. Los Angeles: University of California.

Horn, L. (1984). Toward a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference: Q-based and R-based implicature. In Schiffrin,D. (ed.), Meaning, form, and use in context: linguistic application (pp. 11-42). Washington, D. C.: Georgetown University Press.
Hornero, A. M. & Hornero, A. M., et al. (2008). Preference structure in agreeing and disagreeing responses. In Hornero, A. M., Luzón & Murillo, S. (eds.), Corpus linguistics: Applications for the study of English (pp. 113-123). Switzerland: Peter Lang.

James, D. & Drakich, J. (1993). Understanding gender differences in amount of talk: A critical review of research. In D. Tannen (ed.), Gender and conversational interaction (pp. 281-312). New York: Oxford.

Kalcik, S. (1975). ‘…like Ann’s gynaecologist or the time I was almost raped’ – personal narratives in women’s rape groups. Journal of American Folklore 88: 3-11.

Kotthoff, H. (1993). Disagreement and concession in disputes: On the context sensitivity of preference structures. Language in Society, 22, 193-216.

Kuo, S. H. (1994). Agreement and disagreement strategies in a radio conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 27(2): 95-121.

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).

Leech, G. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.

Leet-Pellegrini, H. M. (1980). Conversational dominance as a function of gender and expertise. In Howard Giles, Peter Robinson and Philip Smith (eds) Language: Social Psychological Perspectives. Oxford: Pergamon Press (pp. 97-104).

Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Liu, J. -Y. (2009). Disagreement in Mandarin Chinese: a sociopragmatic analysis. MA thesis. Taipei: National Chengchi University.

Mori, J. (1999). Negotiating agreement and disagreement in Japanese: Connective
expressions and turn construction. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Mulkay, M. (1985). Agreement and disagreement in conversations and letters. Text 5: 201-227.

Pomerantz, A. (1975). Second assessments: A study of some features of agreement/disagreement. Unpublished Ph. D. Dissertation. University of California, Irvine.

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.

Rattai, D. (2003). Agreement and disagreement strategies in Russian news interviews: a linguistic perspective. MA thesis. Edmonton: University of Alberta.

Sacks, H. (1973). The preference for agreement in natural conversation. Paper presented at the Linguistic Institute, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Sacks, H. (1987). On the preferences for agreement and contiguity in sequences in conversation. In G. Button & J. R. E. Lee (eds.), Talk and Social Organization (pp. 54-69). Clevedon, UK.: Multilingual Matters.

Schegloff, E. A. & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica, 7.4, 289-327.

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.

Tannen, D. (1975). Communication mix and mixup or how linguistics can ruin a marriage. San Jose State Occasional Papers in Linguistics.

Tannen, D. (1979). What’s in a Frame? Surface evidence for underlying expectations. In Freedle, R. (ed.), Discourse processes, Vol. 2. New Directions. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex.

Tannen, D. (1986). That’s not what I meant!: How conversational style makes or breaks your relations with others. New York: William Morrow. Paperback: Ballantine.

Tannen, D. (1990). You just don’t understand: Women and men in conversation. New York: William Morrow. Paperback: Ballantine.

Tannen, D. (1994). Gender and discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Tsui, A. (1994). English conversation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Woods, M. (1997). Discourses of power and rurality. Political Geography 16: 453-478.

Yang, Y. T. (2010). Strategies in the disagreement speech act used by learners in Taiwan: a sociolinguistic analysis. Ph. D. dissertation. Kaohsiung: National Kaohsiung Normal University.

高麗君、李珮甄、王萸芳，2006，中文會話中表同意和不同意之語言特徵及其教學應用。發表於第八屆世界華語文教學研討會。		zh_TW