政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/106429
English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  Items with full text/Total items : 91913/122132 (75%)
Visitors : 25772903      Online Users : 181
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
  • Adv. Search
    HomeLoginUploadHelpAboutAdminister Goto mobile version
    政大典藏 > College of Liberal Arts > TCSL, NCCU > Theses >  Item 140.119/106429
    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/106429


    Title: 華語口語中反對意見表達之語步分析:母語者與日籍學習者之比較
    Move analysis of disagreement in oral Mandarin Chinese : a comparative study between native speakers and Japanese learners' data
    Authors: 栗原祐美
    Kurihara, Yumi
    Contributors: 尤雪瑛
    Yu, Hsueh Ying
    栗原祐美
    Kurihara, Yumi
    Keywords: 反對意見表達
    語步
    語言形式
    華語教學
    日籍學習者
    Disagreement
    Move
    Language Form
    TCSL
    Japanese Learner
    Date: 2017
    Issue Date: 2017-02-08 16:40:19 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 本文透過口語語料的分析探討華語反對意見(disagreement)的表達方式。這二十年來有關反對意見表達的相關研究越來越多,然而探討華語語步結構(move)和語言形式(language form)的文獻不多,但其實對學習者來說從語步結構、語言形式等具體的因素著手學習比較有幫助,因此本研究從這兩方面進行研究。本文提出兩個研究問題:第一個問題為語步方面,華語母語者和學習華語的日籍學習者提出反對意見時用什麼樣的語步結構?兩組之間是否有異同?第二個問題為語言形式,華語母語者和日籍學習者表達反對意見時,常用哪些預告標記、情態語、語氣詞等語言形式,兩組之間是否有異同?
    本文透過誘發會話法(elicited conversation)收集參與者的語料,分別為華語母語者和日籍學習者,每組各有十六篇語料,共三十二篇。參與者討論核能發電以及體罰的兩個議題,由一位參與者簡短發表其意見,誘發另一位參與者提出反對意見。
    語步的分析結果發現,母語者的語步結構為「開始語步:直接反駁或間接反訴→ 中間語步:假同意、陳述理由與舉例說明、提案→ 結束語步:總結或話輪轉讓」的結構;日籍學習者則為「開始語步:直接反駁或間接反訴→ 中間語步:假同意、陳述理由與舉例說明、提案」的結構。兩組的結束語步不同,母語者有明顯的結束語步,然而學習者沒有很明顯的結束語步。為了回答第二個問題,本文分析語步中的語言形式,結果發現兩組之間有相同處,兩組都是預告標記的使用次數最多,其次情態語、語氣詞。此外,兩組都常用的預告標記為「就是」「因為」;情態語為「應該」「(我)覺得」「可能」「那」等;語氣詞為「嗯」「呃」「啊」。但也有相異之處,華語母語者和日籍學習者的用法不同,母語者的「然後」「我們」「嗯」的用法比學習者多,但「那」「啊」的用法母語者比學習者少。語言形式的用法分析中發現,語言形式和功能並非一對一的關係,一個語言形式有數個功能,一個功能可以數個語言形式來達成。除此之外,母語者的預告標記在各副語步中有特定偏向,「雖然」「可是」「因為」「然後」「所以」分別集中在假同意、間接反訴、陳述理由與舉例說明、提案、總結的副語步,他們善用這些預告標記導入副語步,但日籍學習者的特定偏向比較少,只有「雖然」「所以」集中在假同意和總結的兩項副語步。
    根據以上的結果,最後提出針對華語教學的一些建議:教學步驟可按照三個步驟進行:教師介紹學習重點、演練、進一步練習與產出。最後讓學習者進一步練習自己所要表達的反對意見,此時教師可以提醒學習者按照開始語步、中間語步、結束語步的順序展開語步,開始語步不妨馬上提出核心意見,中間語步可以陳述理由或提出替代的方案等,在結束語步可以簡單一、兩句總結自己主張的重點,這樣的語步結構可以讓母語者更容易了解反對者的主張。另外,在反對意見中可以搭配預告標記、情態語、語氣詞等語言形式,可以導入反對意見、緩和或強化語氣和填補詞的功能。
    This study investigates how the Mandarin native speakers and Japanese learners express disagreement in oral data. Many scholars have devoted their studies into disagreement for decades, however, few studies are used in the expressions of disagreement about the move structure and language forms. The researcher believes that the analysis of move structure and language forms would be helpful in explaining the components of a disagreement discourse and in offering pedagogical implications. This study has two main research questions. First, what are the move structures of disagreement in Mandarin? Do the move structures differ between the data of native speakers and Japanese learners? Second, what kinds of language forms do the speakers of the two groups use the most? Are there differences between the two groups?
    The data were collected using the elicited conversation. It includes 32 oral data, with 16 units from each group. Two participants in one group discuss one of the issues: the establishing of nuclear power plant and the application physical punishment. One subject initiates the conversation briefly to elicit and the opposing opinions for the other subject.
    The findings of this study were following. First, the move structures of the native speakers, data shows the pattern as follows: “Starting move: Direct disagreement or indirect agreement→ Middle move: showing token agreements, account and announcing examples, offering suggestions → Concluding move: summary or returning turns” : the pattern of the Japanese learners on the other hand is “Starting move: direct disagreement or indirect agreement → Middle move: showing token agreements, account and announcing examples, offering suggestions”. The difference between the two groups is that the native speakers used concluding moves in the end of discussion while the Japanese learners didn’t. Second, the result of linguistic forms showed that there were similarities between the two groups. Pre-announcement markers were used in the most, followed by modals and final particles. Beside, “Jiushi” and “Yinwei” were used in the most in pre-announcement markers both in native speakers and the learners; “Na” “Yinggai” “(Wo)juede” “Keneng” in modals; and “En” “E” “A” were the most in final particles respectively. On the other hand, there were also some differences between them in usages, for example, native speakers had more kinds of usages of “Ranhou” “Women” “En” than Japanese learners; although Japanese learner used more usages in “Na” “A” than Native speakers. Moreover, native speakers had particular correration between language forms and submoves, they had “Suiran” in showing token agreement, “Keshi” in indirect agreement, “Yinwei” in giving account or examples, “Ranhou” in offering suggestions and “Suoyi” in summary. Japanese learners although had few correlation, just “Suiran” in showing token agreement and “Suoyi” in summary.
    This study also proposes some pedagogical implication based on the results above. The three teaching steps was proposed as follows: the teacher presents the key points, practice and further practice. In the final step, the teacher can make learners aware of the order of moves when they disagree with others: they can show their main claim first in the starting move. In the middle move, account and giving examples, suggestion can be used to elaborate in the claim. They can summarize their main idea briefly in the concluding move to make the hearer understood their opinion clearer. They can also combine language forms like pre-announcement markers, modals and final particles to introduce, mitigate or strengthen the opinion or to make verbal fillers.
    Reference: 一、中文部分
    方淑華, 王瓊淑, & 陳浩然. (2012). 從建置中的口語語料庫探討學習者的語言簡化行為-以日籍中級學習者的時間順序連貫形式為例. Paper presented at the The 7th International Conference & Workshops on Technology & Chinese Language Teaching: Conference Proceedings 2012, Hawaii.
    王媛. (2012). 不同意言語行為的日中比較研究. (碩士論文。未出版), 首都師範大學.
    冉永平. (2010). 衝突性話語的語用學研究概述. 外語教學, 1(1), 6.
    呂叔湘. (1999). 現代漢語八百詞:增訂版. 北京: 商務印書館.
    李櫻. (2000). 漢語研究中的語用面向. 漢語研究, 第十八卷特刊, 323-356.
    李櫻. (2012). 語用研究與華語教學. 台北: 正中書局.
    林佩樺. (2008). 華語「好」和「對」之語用功能及其教學啟示. (碩士論文。未出版), 高雄師範大學.
    林清山. (1981). 心理與教育統計學. 台北: 臺灣東華書局股份有限公司.
    林雪芳. (1998). 商業華語短期密集課程設計. (碩士論文。未出版), 台灣師範大學.
    林欽惠. (2002). 漢語句末助詞「啊」之教學語法初探. (碩士論文。未出版), 臺灣師範大學.
    侯迺慧. (2013). 精篇活用辭典. 台北: 三民書局.
    夏玉瓊, & 崔義平. (2008). 異議表達的語用策略研究. 宜賓學院學報(11), 80-82.
    陳夜寧、王淑美、盧翠英. (1999). 實用視聽華語 I. 台北: 正中書局.
    陳靜雯. (2010). 華語日籍學習者異議語策略及語言特徵研究. (碩士論文。未出版), 高雄師範大學.
    舒兆民(2007). 計量分析英日語人士華語學習者之拒絕中介語. 華語文教學研究, 4(1), 99-124.
    黃雅英. (2013). 華語文教學之跨文化溝通能力指標研究───以《 歐洲共同語文參考架構》為基礎. (博士論文。未出版), 國立政治大學.
    劉月華, 潘文娱, & 故韡. (1996). 實用現代漢語語法: 台北:師大書苑.
    謝佳玲. (2006a). 漢語情態詞的語意界定: 語料庫為本的研究. 中國語文研究, 1, 45-63.
    謝佳玲. (2006b). 華語廣義與狹義情態詞的分析. 華語文教學研究, 3(1), 1-25.
    謝佳玲, & 李家豪. (2010). 華語與英語說服行為中的反對表述對比分析. Paper presented at the 2010台灣華語文教學年會暨學術研討會.
    華語能力測驗推動工作委員會 http://www.sc-top.org.tw/ (accessed 2016/03/23)
    漢語考試服務網 http://www.chinesetest.cn/gosign.do?id=1&lid=0# (accessed 2016/03/23)

    二、英文部分
    Austin, J. L. (1962). How to Do Things with Words: Harvard University Press.
    Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2001). Evaluating the empirical evidence: Grounds for instruction in pragmatics. In G. Kasper & K. R. Rose (Eds.), Pragmatics in Language Teaching (pp. 13-32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Dörnyei, Z. (1998). Do Language Learners Recognize Pragmatic Violations? Pragmatic Versus Grammatical Awareness in Instructed L2 Learning*. Tesol Quarterly, 32(2), 233-259.
    Beebe, L. M., & Takahashi, T. (1989). Do you have a bag? Social status and patterned variation in second language acquisition. In S. Gass, C. Madden, D. Preston, & L. Selinker (Eds.), Variation in Second Language Acquisition: Discourse and Pragmatics (pp. 103-125). Clevedon and Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters.
    Beebe, L. M., Takahashi, T., & Uliss-Weltz, R. (1990). Pragmatic transfer in ESL refusals Developing Communicative Competence in a Second Language (Vol. 55-73). N. Y: Newburyhouse.
    Biq, Y.-O. (2001). The Grammaticalization of" Jiushi" and" Jiushishuo" in Mandarin Chinese. Concentric: Studies in Linguistics, 27(2), 53-74.
    Boxer, D., & Pickering, L. (1995). Problems in the presentation of speech acts in ELT materials: The case of complaints. ELT Journal, 49(1), 44-58.
    Brown, G., & Yule, G. (1983). Discourse Analysis: Cambridge University Press.
    Brown, L. (2010). Politeness and second language learning: The case of Korean speech styles. Journal of Politeness Research, 6, 243-269.
    Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage (Vol. 4). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Chen, M.-T. (2006). An interlanguage study of the speech act of disagreement made by Chinese EFL speakers in Taiwan(台灣學生異議語之中介語研究). (Unpublished master's thesis), National Sun Yat-sen University,.
    Cheng, W., & Tsui, A. B. M. (2009). ‘ahh ((laugh)) well there is no comparison between the two I think’: How do Hong Kong Chinese and native speakers of English disagree with each other? Journal of Pragmatics, 41(11), 2365-2380.
    Chui, K. (2002). Ritualization in evolving pragmatic functions: A case study of DUI. Language and Linguistics, 3(4), 645-663.
    Cohen, A. (1996). Investigating the production of speech act sets. In S. Gass & J. Neu (Eds.), Speech Acts across Cultures: Challenges to Communication in a Second Language (pp. 21-43). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    Crookes, G. (1986). Towards a validated analysis of scientific text structure. Applied Linguistics, 7(1), 57-70.
    Du Bois, J. W. (1991). Transcription design principles for spoken discourse research. Pragmatics, 1(1), 71-106.
    Fathman, A., & LoCoco, V. (1989). Word order contrasts and production in three target languages. In H. W. Dechert & M. Raupach (Eds.), Transfer in Language Production (pp. 159-170). Norwood, N.J: Ablex Pub. Corp.
    Fraser, B. (1990). An approach to discourse markers. Journal of Pragmatics, 14(3), 383-398.
    Fraser, B. (1998). Contrastive discourse markers in English. In A. H. Jucker & Y. Ziv (Eds.), Pragmatics and Beyond New Series (pp. 301-326). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co.
    Gajaseni, C. (1994). A contrastive study of compliment responses in American English and Thai including the effect of gender and social status. (Unpublished PhD. thesis), University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
    Gruber, H. (2001). Questions and strategic orientation in verbal conflict sequences. Journal of Pragmatics, 33(12), 1815-1857.
    Haisa, A. (1996). Replication study of "Examination of American and Japanese Performance in Face-Threatening Speech Acts: The Case of Disagreement and Giving Embarrassing Information". Kantokoshinetsu Association of Teacher of English, 10, 55-67.
    Halenko, N., & Jones, C. (2011). Teaching pragmatic awareness of spoken requests to Chinese EAP learners in the UK: Is explicit instruction effective? System, 39(2), 240-250.
    Halliday, M. A. (1970). Clause types and structural functions. In J. Lyons (Ed.), New Horizons in Linguistics (pp. 140-165). Harmondsworth: Penguin.
    Honda, A. (2002). Conflict management in Japanese public affairs talk shows. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(5), 573-608.
    Hosoda, Y. (2009). Diluting Disagreement in Japanese Conversation. 神奈川大学人文学会誌, 169, 87-117.
    House, J. (1996). Developing pragmatic fluency in English as a foreign language: Routines and metapragmatic awareness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18(2), 225-252.
    Hsiao, C.-H. (2010). Move structure of literature review in Ma theses by Taiwanese TEFL Graduates(臺灣英語教學碩士論文中文獻探討章節之語步分析). Unpublished PhD. thesis, National Chengchi University.
    Judd, E. L. (1999). Some issues in the teaching of pragmatic competence. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Culture in Second Language Teaching and Learning (pp. 152-166). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Kakavá, C. (1993). Negotiation of Disagreement by Greeks in Conversations and Classroom Discourse. (Unpublished PhD. thesis, ), Georgetown University.
    Kasper, G. (1992). Pragmatic transfer. Second Language Research, 8(3), 203-231.
    Kasper, G. (2000). Data collection in pragmatics research. In H. Spencer-Oatey (Ed.), Culturally Speaking: Managing Rapport through Talk across Cultures (pp. 316-341). London. New York: Continuum.
    Kasper, G., & Dahl, M. (1991). Research methods in interlanguage pragmatics. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13(02), 215-247.
    Kasper, G., & Rose, K. R. (2001). Pragmatics in language teaching. In G. Kasper & K. R. Rose (Eds.), Pragmatics in Language Teaching (pp. 1-9). Cambridge: Cambridge university press.
    Koike, D. A., & Pearson, L. (2005). The effect of instruction and feedback in the development of pragmatic competence. System, 33(3), 481-501.
    Kuo, S.-H. (1992). Formulaic opposition markers in Chinese conflict talk. Georgetown University Round Table on Language and Linguistics 1992, 388-402.
    Langlotz, A., & Locher, M. A. (2012). Ways of communicating emotional stance in online disagreements. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(12), 1591-1606.
    Leech, G. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. London, N. Y.: Longman.
    Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Lin, X.-R. (2002). Two Discourse Markers: Na and Ranhou in Chinese Spoken Discourse(中文言談詞-「那」與「然後」在口語中的功能). (Unpublished master's thesis, ), National Tsinghua University.
    Lin, Z.-Y. (1999). Disagreement in Mandarin Chinese Conversation(中文對話中的異議現象). Unpublished master's thesis, National Chengchi University.
    Liu, J.-Y. (2009). Disagreement in Mandarin Chinese: A sociopragmatic analysis(中文對話中的異議使用:語用學與社會語言學分析). Unpublished master's thesis, National Chengchi University.
    Mackey, A., & Gass, S. M. (2005). Second Language Research: Methodology and Design. New York: Routledge.
    Matsumura, S. (2001). Learning the rules for offering advice: A quantitative approach to second language socialization. Language Learning, 51(4), 635-679.
    McCarthy, M. (1991). Discourse Analysis for Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    McLean, T. (2004). Giving students a fighting chance: Pragmatics in the language classroom. TESL Canada Journal, 21(2), 72-92.
    Mori, J. (1996). Negotiating agreement and disagreement: the use of connective expressions in Japanese conversations. (Unpublished PhD. thesis), University of Wisconsin-Madison.
    Muntigl, P., & Turnbull, W. (1998). Conversational structure and facework in arguing. Journal of Pragmatics, 29(3), 225-256.
    Nakajima, S., & Allen, J. F. (1993). A study on prosody and discourse structure in cooperative dialogues. Phonetica, 50(3), 197-210.
    Nguyen, H. T. (2011). Boundary and alignment in multiparty conflict talk. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(6), 1755-1771.
    Niezgoda, K., & Röver, C. (2001). Pragmatic and grammatical awareness: A function of the learning environment. In G. Kasper & K. R. Rose (Eds.), Pragmatics in Language Teaching (pp. 63-79). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Palmer, F. R. (2001). Introducion. Mood and Modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Peacock, M. (2002). Communicative moves in the discussion section of research articles. System, 30(4), 479-497.
    Pica, T. (1983). Adult acquisition of English as a second language under different conditions of exposure. Language Learning, 33(4), 465-497.
    Pomerantz, A. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of Social Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2001). The oral approach and situational language teaching Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching Second Edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Rees-Miller, J. (2000). Power, severity, and context in disagreement. Journal of Pragmatics, 32(8), 1087-1111.
    Robinson, M. A. (1992). Introspective methodology in interlanguage pragmatics research. In G. Kasper (Ed.), Pragmatics of Japanese as Native and Target Language (Vol. Technical report No.3, pp. 27-82). University of Hawaii at Manoa: Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.
    Rose, K. R. (2005). On the effects of instruction in second language pragmatics. System, 33(3), 385-399.
    Rose, K. R., & Ng, C. K.-F. (2001). Inductive and deductive approaches to teaching compliments and compliment responses. In G. Kasper & K. R. Rose (Eds.), Pragmatic in Language Teaching (pp. 145-170). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Schegloff, E. A. (2007). The organization of preference/dispreference. In E. A. Schegloff (Ed.), Sequence Organization in Interaction: (Vol. 1): Cambridge University Press.
    Schuetze-Coburn, S., Shapley, M., & Weber, E. G. (1991). Units of intonation in discourse: A comparison of acoustic and auditory analyses. Language and Speech, 34(3), 207-234.
    Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse Markers. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Inc.
    Scott, S. (2002). Linguistic feature variation within disagreements: An empirical investigation. Text the Hague then Amsterdam then Berlin, 22(2), 301-328.
    Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge university press.
    Searle, J. R. (1975). Indirect speech acts. Syntax and Semantics, 3, 59-82.
    Sifianou, M. (2012). Disagreements, face and politeness. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(12), 1554-1564.
    Sim, J., & Wright, C. C. (2005). The kappa statistic in reliability studies: use, interpretation, and sample size requirements. Physical Therapy, 85(3), 257-268.
    Smalley, R. L., Ruetten, M. K., & Kozyrev, J. (2012). Refining Composition Skills: Rhetoric and Grammar: Heinle & Heinle Boston, MA.
    Su, L. I.-W. (1998). Conversation coherence: the use of Ranhou in Chinese spoken discourse. Paper presented at the In Collected Papers of the Second International Symposium on Languages in Taiwan., Taipei: Crane.
    Swales, J. (1990). Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Takahashi, S. (2005). Pragmalinguistic Awareness: Is it Related to Motivation and Proficiency? Applied Linguistics, 26(1), 90-120.
    Takahashi, S., & DuFon, M. A. (1989). Cross-linguistic influence in indirectness: the case of English directives performed by native Japanese speakers. Unpublished paper, University of Hawaii at Manoa.
    Takahashi, T., & Beebe, L. M. (1993). Cross-linguistic influence in the speech act of correction. In G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage Pragmatics (pp. 138-157): Oxford University Press.
    Tateyama, Y. (2001). Explicit and implicit teaching of pragmatic routines: Japanese sumimasen. In G. Kasper & K. R. Rose (Eds.), Pragmatics in Language Teaching (pp. 200-222). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Takahashi, T., & Beebe, L. M. (1993). Cross-linguistic influence in the speech act of correction. In G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage Pragmatics (pp. 138-157): Oxford University Press.
    Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4, 91-112.

    Thomas, J. (1995). Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics. London, New York: Longman.
    Tracy, K. (2008). “Reasonable Hostility”: Situation-appropriate face-attack. Journal of Politeness Research. Language, Behaviour, Culture, 4(2), 169-191.
    Tsukimi, S. (2012). Disagreement Sequences in A Naturally Occurring Conversation And in A Textbook Dialog. University TESOL Working Paper Series, 10, 74-77.
    Tuan, H.-T. (2006). An Analysis of Disagreement Speech Act in Taiwanese EFL Speakers' Arguing Talk(學習英語的臺灣學生在爭論中之反對言談行為分析). (Unpublished PhD. thesis), National Kaohsiung Normal University.
    Wang, Y.-F. (1997). Dispreferred Responses in Mandarin Chinese Conversation. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the first symposium on discourse and syntax in Chinese and Formosan languages, Taipei.
    Watanabe, S. (1993). Cultural differences in framing: American and Japanese group discussions. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Framing in Discourse (pp. 176-209). N.Y.: Oxford University Press.
    Weng, M.-T. (2008). A Study of the Speech Act of Disagreement in Mandarin Chinese(漢語不同意言語行為之研究). Unpublished master's thesis, National Tsing Hua University.
    Wichmann, A. (2000). Intonation in conversation: structure and meaning Intonation in Text and Discourse: Beginnings, Middles and Ends (pp. 123-148). Essex: Pearson Education Limited.
    Willis, J., & Willis, D. (1996). Challenge and Change in Language Teaching. Oxford: Heinemann.
    Yamada, H. (1990). Topic management and turn distribution in business meetings: American versus Japanese strategies. Text-Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse, 10(3), 271-295.
    Yang, H.-X. (2011). An Intercultural and Cross-Gender Study on Disagreement Realization Patterns of Chinese and American College Students (中美大學生反對語實施模式跨文化性別對比研究 ). (Unpublished master's thesis), Xibei Normal University.
    Yang, Y.-T. (2010). Strategies in the Disagreement Speech Act Used by Learners in Taiwan: a Sociolinguistic Analysis(台灣英語學習者異議語的使用策略: 從社會語言學的角度分析). (Unpublished PhD. thesis), National Kaohsiung Normal University.
    Yoshimi, D. R. (2001). Explicit instruction and JFL learner‟ s use of interactional discourse markers. In G. Kasper & K. R. Rose (Eds.), Pragmatics in Language Teaching (pp. 223-244). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Yu, H.-Y. (1990). Connectives in Chinese Narrative Discourse. (Unpublished master's thesis), National Chengchi University.
    Yuan, Y. (2001). An inquiry into empirical pragmatics data-gathering methods: Written DCTs, oral DCTs, field notes, and natural conversations. Journal of Pragmatics, 33(2), 271-292.

    三、日文部分
    Kunpattaranirun, W. (2012). 日本語とタイ語における提案に対する反対意見の対照研究(泰日反對意見表達之對比研究). (博士論文。未出版), 大阪大學.
    大塚淳子. (2005). 不同意の表明: 日本人大学生の場合(不同意意見表達: 以日本大學生為中心). 日本語日本文化 大阪外国語大学日本語日本文化センター, 31, 81-91.
    木山幸子. (2005). 日本語の雑談における不同意の様相 : 会話教育への示唆(日語日常會話中的不同意研究: 會話教學應用). 言語情報学研究報告, 6, 165-182.
    王萌. (2013). 日本人と中国人の不同意表明―ポライトネスの観点から― (日本人和中國人的不同意表達:從禮貌原則的觀點). 福岡: 花書院.
    杉本明子. (2002). 職場における相互理解のコミュニケーション構造 : 否定・反論に対応する言動行動の分析(職場的語言相互溝通結構:對應否定和反對意見的言語行為分析), 日本教育心理学会総会発表論文集.
    李吉鎔. (2001). 日・韓両言語における反対意見表明行動の対照研究 : 談話構造とスキーマを中心として(韓日反對意見表達的對照分析:談話結構構思圖示為中心). 阪大日本語研究, 13, 19-32.
    李善雅. (2001). 議論の場における言語行動-日本語母語話者と韓国人学習者の相違(爭論中的言語行為研究-日語母語者和韓籍學習者的相異). 日本語教育, 111, 36-45.
    村田和代. (1996). 同意・不同意表現の語用論的研究 PARTII (同意與不同意的語用研究 II). TOMMORROW 大阪女子大学大学院英米文学研究会, 15, 63-80.
    施信余. (2007). 「待遇コミュニケーション」 における 「依頼」 に対する 「断り」 の研究: 日台の言語行動の比較を中心に (拒絕請求之言語行為研究:以台日的對比分析為中心). (博士論文。未出版), 早稻田大學.
    重光由加. (2005). 何を心地よいと感じるか―会話のスタイルと異文化間コミュニケーション(哪些因素讓說話者感到舒適?:會話語體與異文化溝通) 講座社会言語科学 (Vol. 1, pp. 216-237). 東京: 羊書房.
    倉田芳彌, & 楊虹. (2010). 討論における中国人学習者と日本語母語話者の不同意表明の仕方 : 構成要素の観点から(爭論中的中籍日語學習者和日語母語者的不同意表達方式:從結構要素的觀點). お茶の水女子大学日本言語文化学研究会 言語文化と日本語教育, 39, 158 -161.
    宮内敬太郎. (2006). ドイツ語・日本語政治討論と論証様式(德語和日語的政治討論和論證方式). 立教大学コミュニティ福祉学部紀要, 8, 155-171.
    梶原綾乃. (2003). 留学生と日本人学生との交流促進を目的としたコミュニケーション教育の実践 (為了促進留學生和日本學生之交流的溝通教育實施). 日本語教育, 117, 93-102.
    椙本總子. (1999). 会話者の力関係の調整--不同意から同意に至る連鎖を対象にして(對話者的社會地位調整--從不同意到同意的過程為中心). 日本語日本文化 大阪外国語大学日本語日本文化センター(9), 71-84.
    薄井良子. (2007). 日本語反論表現の諸相(日語反對意見表達研究). (博士論文。未出版), 神戶
    Description: 博士
    國立政治大學
    華語文教學博士學位學程
    98160504
    Source URI: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0098160504
    Data Type: thesis
    Appears in Collections:[TCSL, NCCU] Theses

    Files in This Item:

    File SizeFormat
    050401.pdf2950KbAdobe PDF380View/Open


    All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏,無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用,惟仍請適度,合理使用本網站之內容,以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用,則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    2.本網站之製作,已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益,如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者,請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw),維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback