中德批評與回應策略—以電影討論區為例

Abstract

批評屬於高度面子威脅的言語行為，當說話者實施批評行為時，容易造成溝通雙方的面子損失，因而產生衝突，而衝突性的言語行為對於華語學習者而言是潛藏的難點，對於文化差異較大的德國籍學習者更是。但是現今的批評言語行為研究一方面缺乏中德語言對比，另一方面仍多著重探討批評行為本身，缺少行為與回應之交互關係的討論，同時研究方法多以語篇補全測試 (Discourse Completion Test, DCT) 為主，缺少真實的語料佐證。 因此本研究以德國與中國的網路電影討論區為語料來源，分別選取兩種語言的批評與回應總共600則貼文，並以言語行為的核心與輔助功能，將批評行為與回應行為分為主體策略與輔助策略，再由中國與德國籍母語者協助檢定分類之正確性。研究結果顯示中德在批評主體行為的實施上具有一致性，但兩種語言使用的次策略卻有所不同。而在回應批評方面，兩種語言皆以拒絕批評的回應方式最為多樣，並且最常使用回以批評的方式給予回應，但是中文多使用質問策略，德語則偏向使用嘲諷策略回以批評，而相同類型的批評策略在中德語中也會使用不同的策略予以回應。整體而言，兩個語言的言語策略實施差異體現出集體主義以及個體主義文化的不同面子取向。 本文進一步根據研究結果設計辯論形式的課堂活動，教授適宜的批評與批評回應策略，並藉由定式標記提升學生的篇章組成能力，同時亦強調輔助策略中的緩和與加強的功能，以提升學生的語用與跨文化溝通能力。Criticism is a highly face-threatening speech act, which means that its implementation will result in losing face on both sides during the process of communication. This easily leads to conflicts, and speech acts of this nature are often latent difficulties for learners of Chinese, especially for German learners of Chinese because of their vastly different cultural background. Current studies on speech acts of criticisms, however, lack of Chinese-German contrastive analysis on the one hand; on the other hand, many of the studies emphasize on the criticism itself, without much discussion on the inter-relations between the speech acts and their responses. Moreover, the research method employed is mostly Discourse Completion Test (DCT), which is short of proof from authentic materials. As a result, this study uses German and Chinese online movie discussion boards as the source of corpus. The data collected include a total of 600 posts of criticisms and responses in both languages. According to the core and supportive functions of the speech act, the research has categorized the acts of criticism and response into primary move and supportive move. The categorization was then examined by native Chinese and German speakers to confirm its accuracy. The research results show that both languages demonstrated uniformity in terms of the head acts of criticism, but they differ in their employment of supportive moves. With regards to the responses to criticisms, both languages have the most variety in responding by refusing criticisms, and the most often used response is responding with criticism. Still, it is more common to find the use of questioning strategy in Chinese, whereas there is an inclination of using sarcasms in response to criticisms in German. The two languages also use different strategies in response to the same type of criticism strategy. All in all, the selected speech tactics in the Chinese and German languages reflect the face tendency in different culture. In addition, based on the results of this study, the researcher designed a teaching plan that includes classroom activities in the form of debates. The teaching of appropriate criticisms and strategies on forming response were included. Formulaic markers were used to enhance students’ ability in forming discourses, and the soothing and strengthening functions in supporting move were also emphasized, so as to reinforce students’ competence in pragmatics and inter-language communication.