研究生: |
劉怡君 Yi-Chun Liu |
---|---|
論文名稱: |
現代漢語委婉言語之語用策略及語言形式──以臺灣地區為例 Euphemistic Speech of Mandarin in Taiwan─ Pragmatic Strategies and Linguistic Structure |
指導教授: |
陳俊光
Chen, Jyun-Gwang |
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: | 2007 |
畢業學年度: | 95 |
語文別: | 中文 |
論文頁數: | 161 |
中文關鍵詞: | 委婉語 、語用策略 、語言形式 、言語行為 、面子威脅行為理論 |
英文關鍵詞: | euphemism, pragmatic strategy, linguistic structure, speech act, face-threatening act |
論文種類: | 學術論文 |
相關次數: | 點閱:479 下載:555 |
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 |
委婉言語為社會中人們普遍使用的一種語言方式。本研究之主要目的為找出現代漢語委婉言語的語用策略及語言形式,以期日後可運用於對外漢語之教學上,減少以漢語為外語的學習者在產出及理解委婉言語時遇到的困難。
本文以Brown和Levinson(1987)的FTA理論(face-threatening act)為主要架構,分析現代漢語委婉言語的語用策略。主要的研究方法為問卷調查法,採用言談篇章完成任務(discourse completion task)蒐集相關委婉言語語料。筆者從研究語料得出,可以表達委婉言語的三大語用策略包括:「積極禮貌」策略、「消極禮貌」策略及「不公開面子威脅行為」策略,其中以「消極禮貌」策略被受試者採用的比例為最高。接著,筆者分析探討三大策略底下的九個細部具體策略,統計結果顯示,「提問與規避」、「給予理由」,以及「表示敬意及道歉」三個策略的使用比例最高。
不同社會變項(social variables)反映在細部語用策略使用上的差異不盡相同。學生與非學生在「公開面子威脅行為」、「開玩笑」,以及「提問與規避」等三個策略上具有顯著差異;男性與女性則在「給予理由」與「開玩笑」策略上呈現不同;至於年齡方面,差別則在於「公開面子威脅行為」及「開玩笑」策略的運用。語用策略使用差異最多的變項為對象的地位,除了「確認共同立場」及「提問與規避」策略以外,其餘的具體策略均有顯著差異。
語言形式方面,筆者從詞語的選用與句式的使用兩方面找出具體的委婉語言成分,詞語的選用主要表現在預備詞、禮貌標記、對比標記、緩調詞、規避詞、主觀詞、低調陳述詞及填空詞等功能詞語上;句式的使用則為疑問句式、否定句式,以及條件句式的運用。
教學應用上,筆者以研究得出的委婉言語語用策略與語言形式為依據,設計一課文與教學簡案,透過教學流程的說明,提出教學建議。
This study investigates the pragmatic strategies and linguistic structure of euphemistic speech of Mandarin in Taiwan. This study is based on the framework of the face-threatening act (FTA) proposed by Brown and Levinson (1987). Questionnaire is used as the instrument for the investigation, and the questionnaire is designed primarily in the format of the discourse completion task.
The findings of the present research show that three possible strategies, namely “positive politeness”, “negative politeness”, and “off record” strategies, are used in euphemistic speech, and the “negative politeness” strategy is used most frequently among the three. Furthermore, nine sub-strategies under the three main strategies are analyzed. According to the quantitative results, “question and hedge”, “give reasons”, and “deference and apology” are the most frequently used sub-strategies.
Differences in the use of the strategies vary according to different social variables. Students and non-students differ in “bald on record”, “joke” and “hedge and question” strategies, while males and females differ in “give reasons” and “joke”. As regard the age, differences are found in the use of “bald on record” and “joke” strategies. The addressee’s social status makes the most difference; it emerges in nine strategies except for “assert common ground” and “question and hedge”.
The linguistic structure of euphemistic speech is discussed in two aspects: the choice of lexical items or phrases, and the use of sentence patterns. The former includes preparators, politeness markers, contrastive markers, downtoners, hedges, subjectivizers, understaters, and fillers. The latter includes question sentence, negative sentence, and adverbial clause of condition.
At the end of this study, the researcher has designed a practical lesson plan as a pedagogical illustration based on the empirical findings in the present research.
中文部分:
王麗君(2005)。〈漢語會話中末尾標記語的語用功能分析〉,《烏魯木齊職業大學學報》,14(2),137-140。
吳佩怡(2006)。《當代臺灣國語語氣詞之研究──從核心語義和語用功能的角度探討》。臺北:國立臺灣師範大學碩士論文,未出版,臺北。
呂叔湘主編(1996)。《現代漢語八百詞》。香港:商務印書館。
呂彥菁(2003)。〈「不好意思」在臺灣國語中的言談分析〉。第七屆世界華語文教學研討會論文集第二冊語文分析組(頁126-138)。
李臻儀(1988)。《中文請求語式與主要社會變項關係研究》。臺北:國立臺灣師範大學碩士論文,未出版,臺北。
屈承熹(1999)。《漢語認知功能語法》。臺北:文鶴出版社。
金炫兌(2002)。《交際稱謂語和委婉語》。北京:臺海出版社。
林倫倫(1997)。〈漢英委婉語禁忌語的異同及其文化原因〉,《漢字文化》,(1),17-21。
林欽惠(2003)。《漢語句末助詞「啊」之教學語法初探》。臺北:國立臺灣師範大學碩士論文,未出版,臺北。
邵敬敏(1996)。《現代漢語疑問句研究》。上海:華東師範大學出版社。
何兆熊(主編)(2000)。《新編語用學概要》。上海:外語教育出版社。
馬清華(1986)。〈現代漢語的委婉否定格式〉,《中國語文》,(6),437-441。
胡裕樹(1992)。《現代漢語》。臺北:新文豐出版公司。
張宇平、姜艷萍、于年湖(1998)。《委婉語》。北京:新華出版社。
陳松岑(2001第二版)。《禮貌語言》。北京:商務印書館。
陳原(1984)。《社會語言學》。香港:商務印書館香港分館。
陳懷萱(2004)。《漢語反問句的形式與意義分析》。臺北:國立臺灣師範大學碩士論文,未出版,臺北。
喬剛(1997)。〈委婉辭的表達形式〉,《修辭學習》,(2),47-49。
靳洪剛(2004)。〈語言定式教學法在中文習得和中文教學中的作用〉,Journal of the Chinese Language Teachers Association,39(1),45-62。
齊滬揚(2002)。《語氣詞與語氣系統》。合肥:安徽教育出版社。
黃宣範(1983)。(中譯本)《漢語語法》。Li, C. and Thompson, S. A. 1982(原著)。臺北:文鶴出版社。
黃慶萱(1975)。《修辭學》。臺北:三民書局。
劉月華、潘文娛和故韡(2001)。《實用現代漢語語法》。北京:商務印書館。
蔣濤(1998)。〈淺談固定委婉語和臨時委婉語〉,《鄂州大學學報(社科版)》,(16),59-62。
錢乃榮(2002)。《現代漢語概論》。臺北:師大書院。
魏妙純(2006)。《漢語抱怨言語之母語和中介語對比分析──兼談美籍華語學生的第二語言教學》。臺北:國立臺灣師範大學碩士論文,未出版,臺北。
英文部分:
Allan, K. and Burridge, K. (1991). Euphemism and dysphemism. New York: Oxford University Press.
Austin, J. L. (1975). How to do things with words (2nd edition). Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Biq, Y.〔畢永峨〕(1990). Question words as hedges in conversational Chinese: A Q and R exercise. In L. B. Bouton and Y. Kachru (Eds.) Pragmatics and Language Learning, monograph series Vol. 1, (pp. 141-157). Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois.
Biq, Y.〔畢永峨〕(2001). The grammaticallization of jiushi and jiushishuo in Mandarin Chinese. Concentric: Studies in English Literature and Linguistics, 27(2), 53-74.
Brown, P. and Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Chen, R.〔陳蓉〕(1993). Responding to compliments: A contrastive study of politeness strategies between American English and Chinese speakers. Journal of Pragmatics, 20, 49-75.
Du, J. S. (1995). Performamce of face-threatening acts in Chinese: Complaining, giving bad news, and disagreeing. In G. Kasper (Ed.) (1995). Pragmatics of Chinese as native and target language. (pp. 165-205). Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press.
Coates, J. (1987). Women, men, and language. London: Longman Group UK Limited.
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole and J. L. Morgan (Eds.) (1975). Syntax and semantics, Vol.3: Speech acts. (pp. 22-40). New York: Academic Press.
Gu, Y.〔顧曰國〕(1990). Politeness phenomena in modern Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 237-257.
Holmes, J. (1986). Women, men, and politeness. London: Longman Group UK Limited.
Holmes, J. (2001). An introduction to sociolinguistics (2nd edition). Harlow, England: Pearson Education Limited.
Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. New York: Longman.
Liao, C.〔廖招治〕and Bresnahan, M. I. (1996). A contrastive pragmatic study on American English and Mandarin refusal strategies. Language Science, 18, 703-727.
Lin Domizio, H.〔林秀惠〕(2004). Initiating, sustaining, and concluding social transactions: An analysis of roleplay performance in the oral proficiency interview. Journal of Language and Linguistics, 3(1), 109-138.
Pfaff, K. L., Gibbs, R.W., JR., & Johnson, M. D. (1997). Metaphor in using and understanding euphemism and dysphemism. Applied Psycholinguistics, 18, 59-83
Pomerantz, A. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/ dispreferred turn shapes. In J. M. Atkinson and J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action (pp. 57-101). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Rojo, L. (2005). The speech act of apologies in Peninsular Spanish: A pilot study. Hipertexto, 1, 63-80.
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. London: Cambridge University Press.
Shih, Y.〔施玉惠〕(1986). Conversational politeness and foreign language teaching. Taipei: The Crane Publishing.
Wang, Y. F.〔王萸芳〕(2002). Contrast in discourse cohesion and coherence: The contrastive markers in Mandarin conversation. Proceedings of the First Cognitive Linguistics Conference, 375-399.
Wolfson, N. (1988). The bulge: A theory of speech behavior and social distance. In J. Fine (Ed.) Second language discourse: A textbook of current research. (pp. 21-38). Norwood, N.J.: Albex.
工具書:
李行健主編(2004),現代漢語規範詞典。北京:外語教學與研究出版社語文出版社。
Walter, E. (Ed.) (2005). Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary (2nd edition). Cambridge University Press.
教材:
國立臺灣師範大學國語教學中心(1999)。實用視聽華語2上。臺北市:正中書局。
網路資源:
中央研究院現代漢語平衡語料庫。http://www.sinica.edu.tw/SinicaCorpus/。
教育部重編國語重編國語辭典修訂本。http://www.sinica.edu.tw/~tdbproj/dict/。