漢語與越南語道歉語用策略對比及教學應用

Abstract

在日常交往中，我們有時無法避免冒犯他人的行為，為了保持禮貌和雙方的和諧，說話者會採取「道歉」言語行為來彌補，說話者降低自己的面子，維護聽話者的面子。而不同文化背景於道歉策略的選用和形式有所不同，漢語與越南語也不例外。本研究以語篇補全測試（Discourse Completion Test, DCT）為研究工具，蒐集漢語語料和越南語的語料對道歉言語行為進行分析對比。以Brown& Levinson（1987）的理論為基礎，參考Holmes（1990）的冒犯類型和Holmes（1995）的冒犯級別，將時間冒犯情境分為三種級別：輕度、中度、重度，受試者在假設的情境針對長輩（老師）與平輩（朋友）不同社會地位的道歉對象。透過問卷調查結果，研究對道歉策略歸納為四大類，未道歉；直接道歉；間接道歉（解釋或陳述事件、承擔責任）；輔助策略（提供補償、承諾、心理緩和）。漢語與越南語受試者在選擇使用道歉策略上，使用頻率最高的是「直接道歉」，接著是「間接道歉」，其次是「輔助策略」，使用比例最低為「未道歉」。關於社會變項，對於社會權勢高，漢語與越南語都偏向使用「直接道歉」為最普遍的策略，使用比例過半，兩者面對社會權勢高道歉時，使用「間接道歉」比例皆提升，而面對社會權勢低比例皆降低。輔助策略上，漢語與越南語受試者偏好向社會權勢低「提供補償」，較少使用「承諾」，相反的兩者向社會權勢高「承諾」比例較高，而較少向社會權勢高「提供補償」。 本研究希望透過道歉言語行為的語用策略及語言形式，能進一步使讀者透徹臺灣與越南的文化特徵，在漢語教學方面給學習者提供語用基本知識，根據漢語與越南語道歉言語行為的異同，理解學習第二語言的困難，從而設計出有效的教學活動。Engaging in behaviors that may inadvertently offend others is sometimes inevitable in interpersonal communication. To maintain politeness and social harmony, speakers often employ the speech act of"apology" as a compensatory strategy. By apologizing, speakers strategically diminish their own positive or negative face to accommodate the face needs of the listener. However, the usage and choice of apology strategies vary significantly across cultural contexts. This study utilizes the Discourse Completion Test (DCT) as a research tool to collect and analyze apology speech acts in both Chinese and Vietnamese. The theoretical framework is rooted in Brown and Levinson's (1987) politeness theory and Holmes' (1990, 1995) typology of offenses and their severity levels. Offense scenarios mentioned in this study are classified into three levels of severity—minor, moderate, and severe. Participants were asked to respond to hypothetical situations involving apology targets of different social statuses—elders (e.g., teachers) and peers (e.g., friends). Data reveals four primary categories of apology strategies: non-apology, direct apology, indirect apology (e.g., explanations, accounts, or taking responsibility), and supplementary strategies (e.g., offering compensation, making promises, or employing psychological appeasement). Among both Chinese and Vietnamese respondents,"direct apology" was the most frequently used strategy, followed by "indirect apology" and "supplementary strategies," with "non-apology" being the least common. The findings further highlight the influence of social power dynamics. Particularly, when addressing individuals of higher social power, both Chinese and Vietnamese participants predominantly used "direct apology" with usage exceeding half of all responses. The "indirect apology" frequency also increased in interactions with higher-power interlocutors, while it decreased in lower-power interactions. Regarding supplementary strategies, both groups preferred"offering compensation" when addressing those of lower social power and "making promises" for higher-power individuals. Conversely, "offering compensation" was less frequently employed in the latter context. By examining the pragmatic strategies and linguistic forms of apology speech acts, this study provided insights into similarities and differences between Chinese and Vietnamese apology speech acts shaped by cultural characteristics. It also tackles challenges in acquiring Chinese as a secondlanguage and contributes to the development of effective teaching methodologies by offering both theoretical and practical insights into Chinese language pedagogy, with a particular emphasis on the importance of culturally informed instructional design.