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.

語言交際是人們運用語言傳遞訊息、交流感情的一種社會行為，日常生活中關於語用交際的現象很多，其中「拒絕」是常見的主題之一。影響拒絕言語行為施行的因素很多，包含了拒絕對象、目標、語境等，譬如晚輩拒絕長輩時會比同輩間的拒絕更為間接；私下場合比公眾場合的拒絕更來得直接。針對「跨文化交際」而言，影響拒絕言語行為的施行當然也包含了文化因素，不同文化的交際雙方可能因為價值觀以及對事物的解讀看法不一，因此在拒絕交際發生時會產生語用錯誤，造成交際上的誤會。 華語學習者累積的詞彙與語法隨著學習程度的提高而逐漸增加，語言技能的運用也因此漸趨成熟，但語用錯誤的發生大多是橫跨各學習程度的，即便是程度再高的學習者，也很容易發生交際上的語用錯誤。現今大部分的華語學習教材是以詞彙、句型與語法點為主要結構，雖然已經有些教材從語言能力觀點出發而規畫其結構、布局與進度，但是全面且有系統地討論專門、單一的言語行為的教材卻很少。 由於現今的華語教材以此主題來導入編寫的並不多，且現有的綜合性教材也缺乏對相關語用交際能力的介紹，忽略了學生實際語用交際的需求。學習者學習語言的目的就是能夠成熟、得體地運用於日常生活中，以達到人與人之間良好的動態交際，並達成傳遞訊息、聯絡感情的主要目的，而這種「得體」程度的表現主要來自於對目的語語用方面的瞭解程度，不僅止於詞彙、語法的學習。基於言語交際的動態性，筆者將拒絕視為一種言語行為，討論此一言語行為在華語中的語用策略及語言形式的表現，並將研究結果應用於教學層面，希望學習者能藉此增進語用交際能力，達到得體、有效率地溝通。 本論文旨在探討現代漢語交際中的拒絕現象與其延伸的相關教學研究，不僅對語用策略及語用形式作分析，也分析了現行教材的相關內容，期盼研究成果可以應用於對外華語教學層面，以便提供華語教師具體有據的教學內容與建議，並幫助外籍學生有效率地學習相關內容，提升學生實際交際運用的成果。 本論文主要以前人探討拒絕言語行為的研究成果作為基礎，透過前人的研究整理並輔以自己的實證分析把拒絕言語行為的基本組織、模式進行整理，並歸納出特定場合下使用頻率最高的拒絕模式與策略以提出教學應用。本研究主要採用調查研究法之問卷形式與內容分析法來探討以下內容：（一）語用分析—探究本文所選定之六類語境分別的拒絕策略與語言形式，依對象不同所表現的拒絕方式有何差異？（二）教材分析—分析現行教材中是否出現相關的教學內容，並歸納之中出現的拒絕語境與策略的頻率（三）教學應用—思考拒絕主題可應用的教學方式並提出相關的教學設計。藉此研究，筆者將對現代漢語的拒絕言語行為做整理歸納與分析，並對其中特殊的「間接拒絕」與「假拒絕」現象作進一步探討。接著，分析現行教材的相關教學內容並配合學生的學習需求，提出「拒絕」主題的教學設計。 研究結果歸納出了11類間接拒絕策略與5類輔助策略，並針對各語境歸納出了主要的拒絕模式。教學應用方面，主要是將研究結果編寫成教學內容，除了以各語境歸納出的拒絕模式導入對話的情景教學方法外，也思考了各拒絕策略可應用的教學方式。期盼研究成果可以應用於對外華語教學層面，除了提出相關主題教學時的應用方法外，也能提升教師的教學效率與學習者的學習成效。 / Verbal communication is a kind of social behavior which denotes activities as transferring messages or exchanging feelings by means of language. Various communicative actions appear in our daily life. Refusals are one of their most common forms. The performance of refusal speech varies greatly regarding to its objectives and contexts. The speech act of “indirect refusal”, for example, often occurs in situations where a younger person has to refuse a request of an elder one. “Direct refusal”, on the contrary, appears more in private occasions. Given the importance of context people with different cultural backgrounds easily fails to understand the more underlying pragmatic features of language. Although students of the Chinese language may gradually increase their lexical knowledge and become well-skilled in language performance, failures in decoding the pragmatic features still occur in many communicative situations. Even for advanced students understanding context poses a great challenge. Most teaching materials, however, focus on teaching vocabulary, phrases, and grammar. Some materials are designed according to various language competences. To lay focus on speech act sets, however, is still less common. The present thesis aims to analyze the speech act of refusal in Mandarin Chinese and wants to apply its results to the practical use of teaching Chinese. For the research in communicative behavior, the author collected data and results from different sources: 1. personal recordings of verbal behavior; 2. questionnaire for verbal behavior in different communicative situations; 3. theoretical discussions. First, based on the dynamic features of verbal communication, the author discusses refusal as speech act and analyzes its pragmatic strategies and linguistic structures. Different forms of refusal as indirect refusal and false refusal will be treated separately. Furthermore, the results of linguistic analysis will be applied to instructions for teaching in the hope that language learners can enhance both their communicative and pragmatic capabilities in a more efficient way. An analysis of common teaching materials is included, too. In detail, the present thesis includes four discussions: (1) Understanding the speech act of refusal: Based on previous theories the speech act of refusal will be discussed under different pragmatic perspectives. (2) Analyzing the speech act of refusal: Analyses of the pragmatic features and the linguistic structure of refusal are conducted for six different contexts. Eleven realization strategies of refusal and five supporting strategies of communicative behavior are discussed in detail. (3) Analyzing teaching materials: Frequency and methods of presenting different pragmatic features of refusal in teaching materials will be analyzed and evaluated. (4) Suggestions for teaching: Methods for teaching various speech acts of refusal are proposed according to the results obtained from the inquiries in its pragmatic and linguistic features. Examples for teaching different strategies and supporting strategies of refusal are included.

情報処理学会研究報告. SLP, 音声言語情報処理;　98-SLP-24-5

No description available.

ここに掲載した著作物の利用に関する注意 本著作物の著作権は（社）情報処理学会に帰属します。 本著作物は著作権者である情報処理学会の許可のもとに掲載するものです。 ご利用に当たっては「著作権法」ならびに「情報処理学会倫理綱領」 に従うことをお願いいたします。 Notice for the use of this material The copyright of this material is retained by the Information Processing Society of Japan (IPSJ). This material is published on this web site with the agreement of the author (s) and the IPSJ. Please be complied with Copyright Law of Japan and the Code of Ethics of the IPSJ if any users wish to reproduce, make derivative work, distribute or make available to the public any part or whole thereof. All Rights Reserved, Copyright (C) Information Processing Society of Japan. Comments are welcome. Mail to address: 　editj<at>ipsj.or.jp, please.

No description available.

国立情報学研究所で電子化したコンテンツを使用している。

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.