研究生: |
今中麻祐子 Imanaka, Mayuko |
---|---|
論文名稱: |
華語會話中的自我修補策略:母語者與日籍學習者對比研究 An Analysis of Self-Repair Strategies in Chinese Conversation: Comparison between Native Speakers and Japanese Learners of Chinese |
指導教授: |
謝佳玲
Hsieh, Chia-Ling |
學位類別: |
碩士 Master |
系所名稱: |
華語文教學系 Department of Chinese as a Second Language |
論文出版年: | 2018 |
畢業學年度: | 106 |
語文別: | 中文 |
論文頁數: | 148 |
中文關鍵詞: | 自我修補 、華語會話 、母語者與學習者對比 、日籍華語學習者 |
英文關鍵詞: | self-repair, Chinese conversation, comparison between native speakers and non-native speakers, Japanese learners of Chinese |
DOI URL: | http://doi.org/10.6345/THE.NTNU.DCSL.017.2018.A07 |
論文種類: | 學術論文 |
相關次數: | 點閱:168 下載:11 |
分享至: |
查詢本校圖書館目錄 查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統 勘誤回報 |
修補行為是在溝通中說話者或聽話者對聽、說以及理解方面遇到問題或可能造成問題時,為了維持順暢的溝通所採用的行為。我們在溝通中時常遇到問題,此時我們便需要施行修補,因此修補行為在會話中扮演很重要的角色。華語會話中的修補行為研究比西方語言少,也尚未見華語母語者與日籍華語學習者在華語會話中的自我修補策略研究。有鑑於此,本文針對華語母語者之間以及華語母語者與日籍華語學習者會話中的自我修補策略進行研究,考察華語母語者與日籍華語學習者有何自我修補策略的特徵,以及兩者的自我修補策略特徵有何異同。
本文採取會話分析的研究方法。研究對象為六組華語母語者之間的日常會話,以及六組華語母語者與日籍華語學習者的日常會話。研究者以錄音和錄影方式紀錄會話之後,將會話轉寫成文字,分析會話中自我修補策略的特徵如何。
分析結果顯示華語母語者與日籍華語學習者的自我修補策略有相似的趨勢。自我發起方式為非詞彙性發起、詞彙性發起與無修補發起;他人發起方式為開放性修補發起、使用疑問詞、重複加上疑問詞、重複與確認理解。自我發起時的自我修補方式有重複、替代、增加、刪除、重組、完成、搜詞以及放棄;他人發起時的自我修補方式是重複、替代、增加、補充、放棄以及回應確認理解。兩種會話中都能觀察到自我修補序列擴展的現象,但華語母語者與日籍華語學習者會話中引起自我修補序列擴展的原因比華語母語者之間的會話多。
最後,本文依據研究結果提出華語教學中的自我修補策略教學之建議,希望能對往後華語自我修補策略教學予以啟發。
Repair is used to maintain fluent communication when speakers or listeners encounter problems in listening, speaking and understanding or may cause problems in communication. We often encounter problems in communication; during this time, we need to use repair. Therefore, repair plays an important role in conversation. There are fewer studies on repair in Chinese conversations than in Western language conversation, and the self-repair strategies in conversations between Chinese native speakers and Japanese learners of Chinese have never been studied. Thus, this study examines self-repair strategies in conversations among Chinese native speakers, and conversations between Chinese native speakers and Japanese learners of Chinese to find the characteristics of self-repair strategies in each conversation. Lastly, this study compares the characteristics of self-repair strategies between Chinese native speakers and Japanese learners of Chinese.
This study uses the conversation analysis method. This study examines daily conversations among six groups of Chinese native speakers, and daily conversations between six groups of Chinese native speakers and Japanese learners of Chinese. After the researcher recorded the conversations, the data were converted into text and analyzed.
The result of the study shows the similarity on the self-repair strategies of Chinese native speakers and Japanese learners of Chinese. Self-initiation methods are non-lexical initiation, lexical initiation, and non-detectable initiators; Other-initiation methods are open class repair initiators, WH-interrogatives, repetition with WH-interrogatives, partial repetition of the trouble-source, and understanding check. Self-initiated self-repair methods include repetion, substitution, addition, deletion, reorganization, completion, word searching, and abandonment; Other-initiated self-repair methods are repetition, substitution, addition, supplement, abandonment, and response understanding check. The self-repair sequence expansion is observed in the two type conversations, and the reason for the self-repair sequence expansion in conversations between Chinese native speakers and Japanese learners of Chinese is more than in the conversations among Chinese native speakers.
Finally, according to the results of this study, the self-repair strategies are integrated into lesson plans of Chinese teaching, in hopes of enhancing future Chinese self-repair strategy teaching.
中文
毛賀力(2016)。淺談日英語的對比會話分析-評泉子Kメイナード的《會話分析》。科教文化,352,181-182。
牛跃輝、李媛(2004)。談中介語理論對外語教學的啟示。華北電力大學學報(社會科學版),1,408-411。
王雨佳(2016)。網路會話的修正研究。黑龍江生態工程職業學院學報,3,154-155。
王佳敏(2016)。透過中日語言差異看中日文化差異。北方文學(中旬刊),5,154-155。
王曉燕(2007)。中國的會話修補研究總觀。雲夢學刊,28(5),29-33。
尹楠(2014)。會話修補研究述評。黑龍江教育學院學報,1,152–153。
宇國棟(2008)。會話分析。上海:上海外語教育出版社。
何自然(1988)。語用學概論。長沙:湖南教育出版社。
何自然、冉永平(2009)。新編語用學概論。北京:北京大學出版社。
李玉華(2014)。中日勸誘言語行為間接會話策略對比與日語教學。當代教育理論與實踐,6(12),108-110。
李茹、劉雪芹(2006)。權勢與親疏在話語中的體現形式。廣西民族大學學報(哲學社會科學版),28(5),154-156。
李悅娥、范宏雅(2002)。話語分析。上海:上海外語教育出版社。
汪萍(2006)。中介語理論及對英語教學的啟示。遼寧行政學院學報,8(6),141-142。
吳琼、劉莉雯(2012)。消極禮貌策略在會話自我修補中的應用-以某家暴時間施暴者受訪視頻為例,內蒙古電大學刊,136,58-60。
吳寶夢(2013)。中日語言文化的差異和生活中的應用。神州(上旬刊),5,155。
余麗艷(2011)。英語交際策略的研究及其對教學的啟示。和田示範專科學校學報,30(4),87-89。
邱晨烔(2012)。電視談話節目的會話修正研究-以《三味聊斋》為例。現代語文,1,136-137。
易強(2002)。會話修正研究。外語與外語教學,164,61-63。
侯民吉(2011)。二語習得研究中的對比分析、錯誤分析和中介語理論。吉首大學學報(社會科學版),32(3),159-162。
姚劍鵬(2005)。會話修補的認知研究。外語教學,26,1-6。
馬文(2003)。會話照應修正的語用闡釋。四川外語學院學報,6,87-90。
馬文(2005)。會話篇章中的指稱阻礙與糾偏策略。解放軍外國語學院學報,9, 1-6。
馬文(2006)。會話篇章中指稱阻礙的產生與修正。外語學刊,1,50-58。
孫玲燕(2008)。在大學英語口語教學中加強對交際策略的培養。湖北第二示範學院學報,25(9),121-124。
徐捷(2006)。中介語與外語教學。巢湖學院學報,76,158-161。
祝永麗(2014)。會話分析中“Repair”的漢譯問題。現代交際,10,24-25。
祖曉梅(2015)。跨文化交際。北京:外語教學與研究出版社。
畢繼萬(2014)。跨文化交際理論研究與應用。北京:北京語言大學出版社。
陳鋒(2008)。兩性話語差異禮貌策略。安徽工業大學學報(社會科學版),25(4),81-83。
陸鏡光、張惟(2001)。會話修補與句法結構的關係。載於戴昭銘、陸鏡光(主編)。語言學問題集刊第1輯(171-185頁)。吉林省:吉林人民出版社。
馮輝(2005)。中介語和跨文化交際研究。Languages, literary studies and international studies: An international journal, 2, 67-96。
項成東(1994)。錯誤起因、學習策略與外語教學。西安外國語學院學報,15,6-10。
楊石喬(2011)。漢語醫患會話修正引導位置研究。大慶師範學院學報,5,91-93。
楊恬、劉榮(2015)。對外漢語高級口語課中的會話修補研究。華語學刊,19,8-22。
楊惠麗(2009)。會話修補的模式與手段。山西農業大學學報(社會科學版),8(3),321-324。
戴雲娟(2007)。第二語言學習者漢語會話修正現象研究。漢語學習,6,69-75。
漢桂民、毛麗麗(2007)。電視談話節目中的會話修正分析。吉林廣播電視大學學報,82,53-61。
趙剛、賈琦(2013)。會話分析。北京:高等教育出版社。
劉佳音(2016)。漢語二語學習者課堂自啟自修型會話修正研究。東北師大學報(哲學社會科學版),3,249-253。
劉虹(2004)。會話結構分析。北京:北京大學出版社。
劉荷清(2006)。法庭會話中的答話修正與成因研究。當代修辭學,4,44-47。
劉運同(2007)。會話分析概要。北京:學林出版社。
劉麗萍(2010)。大學英語課堂中會話修正的語用分析。宜春學院學報,32,174-177。
閻新紅(2014)。不同漢語水平者在漢語口語課堂會話中的自我修正研究。新疆職業教育研究,1,54-56。
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。台北:文鶴出版有限公司。
顏曉華(2009)。影響會話自我修正的隱形因素-面子。南華大學學報(社會科學版),10,90-93。
英文
Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford, England: Oxford university press.
Benjamin, T., & Mazeland, H. (2012). Conversation Analysis and Other-Initiated Repair. The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics.
Brown, H. D. (1994). Principles of language learning and teaching (3rd ed.). Englewocliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.
Canale, M. (1983). From communicative competence to communicative language pedagogy. In J. C. Richards, & R. W. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and communication (pp. 2-27). London, England: Longman.
Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied linguistics, 1(1), 1-47.
Chang, K. P. (1998). Choosing repair types in conversation: Semantic and pragmatic determinants. Unpublished master dissertation, National Chengchi University, Taiwan.
Chui, K. (1996). Organization of repair in Chinese conversation. Text, 16(3), 343-372.
Darwish, A. E., & Huber, G. L. (2003). Individualism vs collectivism in different cultures: a cross cultural study. Intercultural Education, 14(1), 47-55.
Dornyei, Z. (1995). On the teachability of communication strategies. TESOL Quarterly, 29(1), 55-85.
Drew, P. (1984). Speakers’ reporting in invitation sequences. Structures of social action. In J.M. Atkinson, & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structure of social action (pp. 152-164). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Drew, P. (1997). ‘Open’ class repair initiator in response to sequential sources of trouble in conversation. Journal of pragmatics, 28, 69-101.
Fox, B., & Jasperson, R. (1995). A syntactic exploration of repair in English conversation. In P. W. Davis (Eds.), Alternative linguistics: Descriptive and theoretical modes (pp. 77-134). Amsterdam, Nederland: John Benjamins.
Gaskill, W. (1980). Correction in native speaker-nonnative speaker conversations. In D. L. Freeman (Eds.), Discourse analysis in second language research (pp. 125-137). Rowley, MA: Newbury house.
Goldman-Eisler, F. (1958). Speech production and the predictability of words in context. Quarterly journal of experimental psychology, 10(2), 96-106.
Hall, E. (1976). Beyond culture. New York: Doubleday.
Hellermann, J. (2009). Practices for dispreferred responses using no by a learner of English. International review of applied linguistics in language teaching, 47, 95-126.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's consequences: International differenced in work-related values. London, England: Sage.
Hofstede, G. H., & Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations. London, England: Sage.
Hosoda, Y. (2006). Repair and relevance of differential language expertise in second language conversations. Applied Linguistics, 27(1), 25-50.
Hutchby, I., & Woffit, R. (1999). Conversation analysis: Principles, practice and applications. Cambridge, England: Polity Press.
James, C. (2001). Learing and use: Exploring error analysis. Beijing, China: Foreign language teaching and researching.
Kaplan, R. B. (1966). Cultural thought and patterns in inter-cultural education. Language learning, 16, 1-20.
Levelt, W. J. M. (1983). Monitoring and self-repair in speech. Cognition, 14, 41-104.
Nakamura, I. (2008). Understanding how teacher and student talk with each other: An exploration of how ‘repair’ displays the co-management of talk-in-interaction. Language Teaching Research, 12(2), 265-283.
Pearson, P. D., & Cole, J. A. (1987). Explicit comprehension instruction: A review of research and a new conceptualization of learning. Elementary School Journal.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking in conversation. Language, 50, 696-735.
Schegloff, E. A. (1968). Sequencing in conversational openings. American Anthropology, 70, 1075-1095.
Schegloff, E. A. (1979). The relevance of repair to syntax-for-conversation. In T. Givon (Eds.), Syntax and semantics 12: Discourse and syntax (pp. 261-288). New York: Academic Press.
Schegloff, E. A. (1986). The routine as achievement. Human Studies, 9, 111-151.
Schegloff, E. A. (1992). Repair after next turn: The last structurally provided defense of intersubjectivity in conversation. American journal of sociology, 97, 1295-1345.
Schegloff, E. A., Gail, J., & Harvey, S. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53(2), 361-382.
Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International review of applied linguistics for second language teaching, 10, 209-231.
Sinclair, J. McH., & M. R. Coulthard. (1975). Toward an analysis of discourse. London, England: Oxford University Press.
Singelis, T. M., Triandis, H. C., Bhawuk, D.P.S., & Gelfand, M. J. (1995). Horizontal and vertical dimensions of individualism and collectivism: A theoretical and measurement refinement. Cross-cultural research, 29, 240-275.
Suzuki, K. (2010). Other-initiated repair in Japanese: Accomplishing mutual understanding in conversation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Kobe University, Japan.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16, 371-391.
Tang, C. (2011). Self-repair devices in classroom monologue discourse. Studies in Linguistics, 37(1), 93-120.
Tang, X. (2014). Self-repair practices in a Chinese as a second language classroom. Taiwan Journal of Chinese as a Second Language, 9, 101-133.
Tarone, E. (1980). Communication strategies, foreigner talk, and repair in interlanguage. Language Learning, 30, 417-431.
Ting-Toomey, S. (1985). Towards a theory of conflict and culture. In W. Gudykunst, L. Stewart, & S. Ting-Toomey (Eds.), Communication, culture, and organizational processes (pp. 71-86). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Ting-Toomey, S. (1994). Managing intercultural conflicts effectively. In L. Samovar, & R. Porter (Eds.), Intercultural communication: A reader (7th ed.) (pp. 360-371). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Triandis, H. C. (1988). Collectivism vs. Individualism: A reconceptualization of basic concept in cross-cultural cosial psychology. In G. K. Verma, & C. Bagley (Eds.), Cross-cultural studies of personality, attitudes and cognition (pp. 60-95). London, England: Macmillan.
Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism & collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Tsui, A. (1989). Beyond the adjacency pair. Language in Society, 18(4), 545-564.
Varner, I., & Beamer, L. (2005). Intercultural communication in the global workplace (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
Varonis, E. M., & Gass, S. (1985). Non-native/non-native conversations: A model for negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics, 6(1), 71-90.
Wang, Y. (2005). A study on the organization of repair in Mandarin Chinese conversation. Unpublished master dissertation, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.
Waring, H. (2005). The unofficial business of repair initiation: Vehicles for affiliation and disaffilication. In A. Tyler, M. Takada, Y. Kim & D. Marinova (Eds.), Language in use: Cognitive and discourse perspectives on language and language learning (pp. 163-175). Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
Wong, J. (2000). Delayed next turn repair initiation in native/non-native speaker English conversation. Applied Linguistics, 21(1), 244-267.
Wong, J., & Waring, H. (2010). Conversation analysis and second language pedagogy: A guide for ESL/ EFL teachers. London, England: Routledge.
Wu, R. R. (2001). Stance in talk: A conversation analysis of Mandarin final particles. Amsterdam, Nederland: John Benjamins.
Yang, R. R. (2009). Other-repair in Chinese conversation: A case of web-based academic discussion. Intercultural Pragmatics, 6(3),315-343.
Zhang, W. (1998). Repair in Chinese conversation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.
日文
H.サックス・E.A.シェグロフ・G.ジェファソン 西阪仰(訳)(2010).『会話分析基本論集 順番交替と修復の組織』[會話分析基本論集 話輪轉換以及修補的組織]京都:世界思想社.
王輝(2003).言語と文化背景ー言葉から見た中、日文化[語言語文化背景-從語言看的中日文化]『Journal of language, culture, and communication』5(2), 67-79.
許挺傑(2010).日本語学習者の発話ストラテジーについての一考察―第二言語習得環境にいる中上級学習者の縦断的データを用いてー[關於日語學習者的話語策略之一考察-使用在第二語言習得環境之中高級學習者的縱斷的語料]『筑波応用言語学研究』17, 111-124.
串田秀也(1995).トピック性と修復活動ー会話におけるスムーズなトピック移行の一形式をめぐって[話題性與修補行為-討論會話中的順利的話題遷移之形式]『大阪教育大学紀要』44(1), 1-25.
佐藤有希子(2005).日本語母語話者の雑談における「うん」と「そう」―フィラーとして用いられる場合―[在日本母語者自由會話中的「うん」與「そう」-填充詞功能的場合]『国際開発研究フォーラム』29, 107-124.
清水崇文(2009).『中間言語語用論概論ー第二言語学習者の語用論的能力の使用・習得・教育』[中介語語用學概論-第二語言學習者的語用能力之使用、習得以及教育]東京:スリーエーネットワーク.
鈴木佳奈(2008).「なにかが欠けている発話」に対する他者開始修復:会話の事例から「文法項の省略」を再考する(<特集>相互行為における言語使用:会話データを用いた研究)[對「缺乏什麼的發言」之他人發起修補:由會話例子再考察「省略語法項目」(<特輯>互動中的語言使用:使用會話資料的研究)]『社会言語科学』10(2), 70-82.
高木智世、細田由利、森田笑(2016).『会話分析の基礎』[會話分析之基礎]東京:ひつじ書房.
趙宏杰(2010).依頼の言語行動の日中対照研究ー「依頼・承諾」のコミュニケーションを対象にー[請求的語言行為之中日對比研究-研究對象為「請求、承諾」的溝通]『国際文化研究』(16), 235-248.
張玲玲(2014).言語的修復行動に関する語用論的研究:中国語との比較を通して[從語用學觀點分析的修補行為研究:與中文的對比]北海道大学博士論文(未公刊).
西阪仰(2007).繰り返して問うことと繰り返して答えることー次の順番における修補開始の一側面ー[重複問以及重複回答-在第二話輪中發起修補的一側面-]『研究所年報』(37), 133-143.
橋内武(1999).『ディスコース』[言談]東京:くろしお出版.
林誠(2008).相互行為の資源としての投射と文法ー指示詞「あれ」の行為投射的用法をめぐってー[互相行為資源的投射與語法-關於指示代名詞「那個」的行為投射之用法-]『社会言語科学』10(2), 16-28.
松本明香(2001).協働的対話場面で起こる日本語学習者の言語学習プロセスの考察―母語話者のフィードバックに対する学習者のリペアー[在協同對話場合發生的日語學習者之語言學習過程考察-學習者對母語者回饋的修補]『言語文化と日本語教育』(22), 92-103.
村上仁一(1997).確率的言語モデルによる自由発話認識に関する研究[使用機率的語言型的關於認識自由發言的研究]豊橋技術科学大学博士論文(未公刊).
山﨑けい子、初鹿野阿れ(2012).日本語教科書における「修復」の扱われ方:タスク内での役割ー[日語課本中的修補行為-任務性練習中的角色-]『富山大学人文学部紀要』(57), 25-38.