請求: 大一學生口說英文之分析
No Thumbnail Available
Date
2005
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Abstract
本研究旨在探討英語為外國語(EFL)的台灣大一新生在作請求上和英語為母語者(ENSs)有何差異。資料來源主要有兩方面:分別是六個英語為母語者和六個大一新生。我們採用角色扮演的方試來收集這十二個受試者的資料。這些資料被分類為請求策略(request
strategies)，字詞緩標記(lexical/phrasal downgraders)和支持行動(RSMs)。三者皆以類型，總分佈, 及在不同權力和距離的影響下的分佈來分析。卡方檢定被用來檢定是否有任何顯著組間差異。
研究發現在策略(request strategies)類型中，學生並沒有使用明確策略(explicit performative),而英語為母語者沒有使用情感表露策略(moodderivables)。 這些學生們在策略的使用上比英語為母語者來的直接，因為他們比英語為母語者用了較多的直接性策略和較少的間接性策略。當對象是陌生人時[+D], 學生們較英語為母語者亦用了較多的直接性策略和較少的間接性策略。距離對於英語為母語者的影響比對學生們來的大。
在字詞緩標記(lexical/phrasal downgraders)類型中，英語為母語者沒有使用禮貌標記(politeness markers),和懇求標記(appealers),學生們則沒有用商議標記(consultative markers)。整体而言，學生們較常用「請」(please)，而較少使用緩和標記(downtoners)和商議標記(consultative markers)。對於上屬[+P]，下屬[-P]，陌生人[+D]，和熟人[-D]時，學生們皆用較多請(please),而英語為母語者則持續用較多的緩和標記(downtoners)。除此之外，對於上屬[+P]，英語為母語者傾向使用較多的主觀標記(subjectivizers)和商議標記(consultative markers)。當對象是熟人[-D]或是陌生人[+D]時，學生們皆用很少的緩和標(downtoners)，而英語為母語者則都不用請(please).
而在支持行動(RSMs)類型中，學生們並沒有使用懇請標記(appealer),和善意標記(good wills)，而英語為母語者則使用了全部12 個類型。學生們在支持行動(RSMs)和字詞緩標記(lexical/phrasal downgraders)的總使用量上比英語為母語者來的少，這顯示出他們在英語程度上的不足。整体而言，學生們用較多的確認標記(identifications)。對平輩[=P]作請求時，學生們用較多的預備標記(preparators)但較少的理由(grounders)。對於下屬[-P]或是熟人[-D]時，英語為母語者使用了許多的篇章標記(DMs),而學生們卻很少使用它們。此外，進一步的分析顯示我們可以綜合使用策略(strategies)和修飾字詞(modifiers)來達到較高的語言接間性，進而減低後續請求的威脅性。而我們也發現學生們比英語為母語者用較少的後續請求和拒絕。大体而言，導致上述這些語用(pragmatics)差異的因素可來自於文化，學生的程度，方法上的限制，和教科書的影響。
有鑑於此研究發現，文末提出了一些課堂上可實行的活動和教科書中可採用的設計。期待未來的研究能進一步的深入探討教導學生作請求的成效。
The present study aims to explore how the EFL learners’ requests differ from the ENSs. Two sets of data: 6 ENSs and 6 EFL college freshmen were gathered. Data were elicited by interactive role play. The findings were coded into request strategies, lexical/phrasal downgraders, request supportive moves (RSMs) in terms of general types and distributions, and distributions across different power and distance contexts. Chi-square tests were adopted to examine any inter-group significant differences. In request strategy types, the EFL learners did not use explicit performatives while the ENSs did not use any mood derivables. The EFL learners were revealed to be more direct than the ENSs in request strategies by using more direct strategies and fewer indirect ones than the ENSs. Toward strangers [+D], the EFL learners used more direct strategies but fewer indirect ones than the ENSs. The effects of distance are more pronounced on the ENS group than the EFL one. As for lexical/phrasal downgrader types, the ENSs did not use politeness marker nor appealer, the EFL learners did not use consultative markers. On the whole, the EFL learners used “please” more frequently while adopting downtoners and consultative markers less often. While the EFL students consistently used more “please,” the ENSs tended to use more downtoners to superiors [+P], subordinates [-P], strangers [+D] and familiars [-D] respectively. In addition, to superiors [+P], the ENSs tended to use more subjectivizers and consultative markers. When addressees are strangers [+D] or familiars [-D], the EFL learners tended to use few downtoners while the ENSs used no politeness marker. Concerning RSMs types, the EFL learners did not use appealers, and good wills whereas the ENSs used all 12 types. Learners’ limited RSMs and lexical/phrasal downgraderssuggest their limited proficiency. Generally, the EFL learners used identifications more frequently. The EFL learners used more preparators and fewer grounders toward equals [=P]. Toward subordinates [-P] or familiars [-D], the EFL learners used consistently few DMs, constantly used by the ENSs. In addition to these findings, our further analysis informed us that the integration of different strategies and modifiers can often achieve a higher degree of linguistic indirectness that mitigates face-threats in subsequent requests. Moreover, the EFL learners often used fewer subsequent requests and refusals than the ENSs. Factors of inadequacy of these pragmatic deviations were categorized into cultural influence, limited proficiency, methodological limitations, and the textbook influence. In view of the findings of the study, classroom activities and textbook designs are suggested. Future research is expected to look into the effects of teaching requests.
The present study aims to explore how the EFL learners’ requests differ from the ENSs. Two sets of data: 6 ENSs and 6 EFL college freshmen were gathered. Data were elicited by interactive role play. The findings were coded into request strategies, lexical/phrasal downgraders, request supportive moves (RSMs) in terms of general types and distributions, and distributions across different power and distance contexts. Chi-square tests were adopted to examine any inter-group significant differences. In request strategy types, the EFL learners did not use explicit performatives while the ENSs did not use any mood derivables. The EFL learners were revealed to be more direct than the ENSs in request strategies by using more direct strategies and fewer indirect ones than the ENSs. Toward strangers [+D], the EFL learners used more direct strategies but fewer indirect ones than the ENSs. The effects of distance are more pronounced on the ENS group than the EFL one. As for lexical/phrasal downgrader types, the ENSs did not use politeness marker nor appealer, the EFL learners did not use consultative markers. On the whole, the EFL learners used “please” more frequently while adopting downtoners and consultative markers less often. While the EFL students consistently used more “please,” the ENSs tended to use more downtoners to superiors [+P], subordinates [-P], strangers [+D] and familiars [-D] respectively. In addition, to superiors [+P], the ENSs tended to use more subjectivizers and consultative markers. When addressees are strangers [+D] or familiars [-D], the EFL learners tended to use few downtoners while the ENSs used no politeness marker. Concerning RSMs types, the EFL learners did not use appealers, and good wills whereas the ENSs used all 12 types. Learners’ limited RSMs and lexical/phrasal downgraderssuggest their limited proficiency. Generally, the EFL learners used identifications more frequently. The EFL learners used more preparators and fewer grounders toward equals [=P]. Toward subordinates [-P] or familiars [-D], the EFL learners used consistently few DMs, constantly used by the ENSs. In addition to these findings, our further analysis informed us that the integration of different strategies and modifiers can often achieve a higher degree of linguistic indirectness that mitigates face-threats in subsequent requests. Moreover, the EFL learners often used fewer subsequent requests and refusals than the ENSs. Factors of inadequacy of these pragmatic deviations were categorized into cultural influence, limited proficiency, methodological limitations, and the textbook influence. In view of the findings of the study, classroom activities and textbook designs are suggested. Future research is expected to look into the effects of teaching requests.
Description
Keywords
角色扮演, 社會語用能力, 語用能力, 請求, Role Play, Sociopragmatic Competence, Pragmatic Competence, Requests