台灣大專院校學生外語語用策略使用及教學成效之研究:以抱怨為例

Abstract

自1980年起，外語語用學研究發現語言學習者在言語行為的表現和母語人士有相當的差異。其區別可能顯現在所用的策略、用詞或是內容上。文獻中亦顯示相對於其他的言語行為諸如抱歉、請求或恭維，學生的抱怨行為較少被探討。有鑑於此，本研究有三個目的。 第一個目的為了解中國人及美國人的抱怨行為。第二個目的為比較學生及美語母語人士在抱怨行為上的差異，並進而解釋差異的源由。第三個目的則是教導學生美語抱怨的策略，同時檢視教學的成效。 本研究共有四組受試者，分別為中文母語人士、美語母語人士、高成就的學生及低成就的學生。每組各有二十位受試者，所以共有八十位受試者。為了達到第一個目的，中文母語人士及美語母語人士分別填寫語文完成測驗，這測驗共有八種情境，根據不同的上下及親疏關係來設計。資料分析發現受試者運用七種不同的策略，包括「退出」、「不責備」、 「間接抱怨」、 「間接指控」、「直接抱怨」、「修復」及 「威脅」。結果顯示美國人和中國人策略運用的分佈情形很類似，但是他們在 「間接指控」及「修復」策略上的用詞有差異。同時在「間接指控」加「間接抱怨」以及「間接抱怨」加「修復」的混合策略的內容上亦有所差異。這些差異究其原因是由於中美文化的不同所致。 為了達到第二個目的，學生亦填寫相同的語文完成測驗。他們預期會轉移中文及美語相似及差異之處。然而，研究結果顯示這種預測並不一定會發生，此乃由於學生的語言能力所致。高成就的學生傾向於正轉移策略及用詞，但負轉移其母語文化資訊。反過來說，低成就的學生不如高成就的學生會正轉移策略及用詞，但是他們亦不會負轉移其母語文化資訊。 為了達到第三個目的，教學上採取七個步驟，包括提昇認知，介紹社會情境和抱怨策略，要求學生從事語文完成測驗及角色扮演及給予課外練習等。教學結束後，學生的成績顯示他們在策略、用詞及內容方面皆有進步，但於某些方面仍無重大改變。這種情形可歸諸於教學所導致的失誤及持續的母語轉移。同時，教學似乎對於高成就的學生較有效。雖然如此，學生的自我報告對於教學皆抱持著正向的態度。他們認為教學改進了他們用美語來抱怨的能力。 除此之外，本研究亦探究語文完成測驗及角色扮演的異同之處。四位高成就的學生及四位低成就的學生被要求接受這兩項測試。研究結果以學生的表現及態度來做分析。在表現方面，結果顯示這兩種方式引導出類似的策略分布情形，但是在文法、禮貌程度等方面仍有所不同。在學生的態度方面，他們提到最主要的困難在於缺乏字彙及不熟悉情境。他們亦提到雖然語文完成驗較容易，但他們較喜歡角色扮演。 本研究的結果有下列貢獻。第一，美國人及中國人的抱怨策略分布情形也許類似，但由於文化的差異，在用詞及內容上有所差異。第二，高成就的學生較低成就的學生較常從事正語用語言轉移及負社會語用轉移。第三，學生可從教學中獲得進步。最後，學生在語文完成測驗及角色扮演的表現及態度各顯示出相似及相異之處。

The bulk of interlanguage pragmatics (ILP) research since the 1980's has intensively compared native and non-native speech act performances, and its findings have shown that learners generally deviate from target language norms in areas such as semantic formulas, sociolinguistic forms and content. However, compared with other speech acts like apologies, requests and compliments, learners’ acquisition of L2 complaint expressions has been far less investigated. Therefore, this study had three stages. First, it investigates the complaint expressions used by American and Chinese native speakers. Second, it compares Chinese EFL learners’ complaint expressions with those employed by Americans and attempts to identify the causes of learners' deviations. Based on the output of Chinese learners, this researcher lastly designed explicit instructions to improve learners' competence with American English complaint expressions. Additionally, the effectiveness of these instructions was examined with both high- and low-proficiency learners. There were four subject groups in this study: native speakers of American English, native speakers of Chinese and high- and low-level proficiency Chinese EFL learners. Each group was composed of twenty subjects, making a total ofeighty. For the first stage, the English- and Chinese-speaking groups were asked to respond to eight DCT scenarios, which were based on two variables: social power and social dominance. The performances produced by the two groups were then compared and analyzed. Six individual strategies were identified, which included opting out, indirect complaint, indirect accusation, direct complaint, request for repair and threat. The findings showed that both the Americans and the Chinese shared similar strategy distributions, but differed in the linguistic forms for indirect accusation and request for repair as well as in the content of indirect accusation + indirect complaint and indirect complaint + request for repair. These differences had mainly cultural causes. In the second stage, the same DCT scenarios were given to the learner groups. Based on the comparisons between the American and the Chinese groups, the learners were expected to positively transfer L1-L2 similarities and negatively transfer L1-L2 differences. However, the results showed that transfer predictions did not always match actual occurrences, and the mismatches corresponded closely to L2 proficiency. Since the high-proficiency learners had more control in using L2, they tended to conduct positive transfer of strategies and linguistic forms, as well as negative transfer of sociocultural information to a greater extent. The low-proficiency group, constrained by its limited linguistic competence, positively transferred strategies and linguistic forms to a lesser extent, and their output did not contain L1 sociocultural norms as expected. In the third stage, the L2 instructions were structured in a sequence of raising awareness, introducing social contexts and their appropriate complaint strategies, performing the DCT and role-play tasks, giving corrective feedback and wrapping up. After instruction, the learners improved their strategy use, linguistic forms and content, but were still resistant to certain aspects of the instructions. For example, they persisted in using hedged performative and will/would modals less frequently, although these forms were often used by the Americans. The resistance to instruction may have been caused by teaching-induced errors and continued L1 transfer. In addition, the instructions seemed to work more effectively with the high-proficiency learners. Nevertheless, the learners’ self-reports expressed a positive reaction to the instructions. Learners felt they improved their American English complaint-making competence. This study was also designed to investigate the similarities and differences between the DCTs and role plays. Two pairs of learners from the high-proficiency and low-proficiency groups were asked to perform the role-playing exercises in addition to the DCTs. The objective here was to analyze learners’ L2 production and perceptions of both tasks. The data on the former was analyzed in terms of strategy use, linguistic forms and content. The results showed that although both two methods elicited similar strategy distributions, they differed in the number of strategies used within a single conversational turn, in grammatical correctness, degree of politeness and topic changing. In terms of the learners’ perceptions, the data was analyzed in terms of learner difficulty and learner preference. Learners reported that their major difficulty existed in lexical deficiency and situational unfamiliarity. They also reported that although the DCTs were easier, they liked the role plays better. The findings of this study are the following. First, American and Chinese expressions for complaints may be similar in strategy distributions, but they differ in linguistic forms and content for cultural reasons. Second, the more proficient learners performed positive pragmalinguistic transfer and negative sociopragmatic transfer more frequently than the less proficient learners. Third, all learners benefited from the instructions, especially the higher proficiency group. Finally, the DCTs and role plays share similarities and differences in terms of the learners’ L2 productions and perceptions.