國 立 政 治 大 學 研 究 所 碩 士 論 文 提 要

研究所別: 語言學研究所

論文名稱: 中文對話中的異議現象

指導教授: 李櫻 博士

研究生: 林智怡

論文提要內容: 共壹冊，分伍章

在日常對話中，我們觀察到衝突對話是避免出現的，而大致上人們較傾向給予同意，而不傾向行使異議對話。既然在中國社會裡，面子和禮貌是相當受重視的，因此在中文對話中避免行使異議對話尤其重要。雖然在很多情境下，禮貌意味著盡量給予同意而避免異議，但顯然人們並不總是在同意他人。如果一個人不同意他的談話對象所表達的意見，他可以用一些禮貌的方式來避免威脅到對方的顏面。本篇研究的重點就是在調查當說話者要行使異議時，他們對不同的語用策略(pragmatic strategies)及語言特徵(linguistic features)的運用，並將探討說話者對談話原則中的合作原則(CP)及禮貌原則(PP)的遵守或違反。在調查的過程中，性別差異也將列入考慮。

在這篇研究當中，我們收集了九筆日常面對面對話互動的語料：三筆男對男的對話，三筆女對女的對話，三筆男與女的對話。每筆語料都是錄音自兩位熟朋友間大約四十五分鐘的對話。在語料分析的過程中，我們同時採用質性與量化的探討來調查並解釋中文對話中的異議現象。

研究結果顯示在異議時所呈現的語用策略及語言特徵似乎互相矛盾。人們傾向使用較具侵略性及競爭性的糾正策略(correction)來行使他們的異議，反而傾向用較宛轉的語言特徵來表示異議。然而，這並不是一個真正的矛盾，相反的，它可能顯示出年輕的族群不只在乎禮貌的和諧關係，同時也用較直接的語用策略來表示他們之間的一致性(solidarity)。除了用較宛轉的語言特徵來緩和行使異議時所用的較直接的語用策略外，人們在行使異議時也違反一些合作原則來實行禮貌原則或其他對話原則。不論人們如何行使異議，表面上禮貌或不禮貌，違反合作原則來遵守其他的談話原則的最終目的都是得體合宜及禮貌。

至於異議表現的性別差異，雖然一般的印象中是男性的互動比女性較具競爭性、侵略性及好辯，然而我們這裡的研究並不完全和這樣的模式吻合。女性現在較主動表達她們的意見，然而她們自由表達她們的想法只侷限在同樣是女性面前。換句話說，雖然現在的女性比傳統女性受較好的教育，男性也已意識到表現騎士風範及尊重女性的重要性，然而男女之間的權力(power)差異，似乎仍在現代社會中有著影響力。

Abstract

In daily conversation, it can be observed that conflict talk is avoided and agreement is generally preferred over disagreement. Avoidance of disagreement plays an especially important role in Mandarin Chinese conversation, since face and politeness are valued high in Chinese society. Although in many contexts being polite means maximizing areas of agreement and minimizing disagreement, clearly

people do not always agree; and if one does not agree with the views expressed by a conversational partner, there are polite options available for him to avoid any possible threat on the interlocutor’s face. The focus of this study is to investigate the speakers’ use of different pragmatic strategies and linguistic features when disagreement arises, and will also discuss the speakers’ observation or violation of the conversational principles of CP and PP. In the process of our investigation, gender difference will be taken into consideration.

In this study, we collect 9 dyadic face to face daily conversations: three male-to-male conversations, three female-to-female conversations, and three mixed-gender conversations. Each conversation is given by two close friends and tape-recorded around forty-five minutes. In the process of data analysis, qualitative as well as quantitative analysis will both be adopted to investigate and explain the phenomenon of disagreement in Mandarin Chinese conversation.

The results of this study indicate that the performance of the pragmatic strategies and the linguistic features in disagreement seems to be a contradiction. People tend to choose the aggressive and competitive strategy of correction to perform their disagreement, while they tend to choose mitigating features when performing their disagreement. However, this may not be a real contradiction. Instead, it may show that the young group’s concern is not only the harmonious relationships observed in politeness, but also the solidarity signaled by using direct pragmatic strategies. Besides using the mitigating linguistic features to tone down the direct pragmatic strategies in the performance of disagreement, people also violate some CP maxims to uphold the PP and other conversation principles when performing their disagreement. No matter how the disagreement is performed, superficially polite or impolite, the major concern and ultimate achievement of the CP violation for the sake of observation of other linguistic maxims is appropriateness and politeness.

As for the gender differences in the performance of disagreement, though the overall impression is that male interaction is typically more competitive, aggressive and argumentative than female, our study here does not completely match with the general pattern. Females are now more active in expressing their opinions; however, they freely express their thought only in front of their own sex. In other words, the power difference between males and females still has its influence in this modern society though now females are better-educated than the traditional women and males have already known the importance of showing chivalry and respect to females.

Bibliography
Adger, Carolyn Temple. 1984. Communicative competence in the
culturally diverse classroom: negotiating norms for
linguistic interaction. In Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
linguistics. Georgetown University.
Albee, E. 1962. Who’s afraid of Virginia Woolf? New York:
Atheneum.
Aries, Elizabeth. 1976. Interaction patterns and themes of
male, female and mixed groups. Small Group Behavior 7 (1): 7-
18.
Atkinson, Maxwell, and Heritage, John. 1984. Preference
organization. In Structure of Social Action, Atkinson and Heritage (eds.): 53-56. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Azuma, H., Hess, R. D., Kashin-gawa, K., and Conroy, M. 1980.
Maternal control strategies and the child’s cognitive
development: a cross-cultural paradox and its
interpretation. Paper presented at the International
Congress of Psychology. Leipzig.
Bateson, Gregory. 1972. Steps to an Ecology of Mind. New York:
Ballantine.
Beebe, L., & cummings, M. 1985. Speech act performance: A
function of the data collection procedure? Paper presented
at TESOL ’85, New York.
Beebe, Leslie M. & Tomoko Takahashi. 1989. Sociolinguistic
variation in face-threatening speech acts: chastisement and
disagreement. In The Dynamic Interlanguage: Empirical
Studies in Second Language Variation, Eisenstein, Mirian R..
(ed.):199-218. New York: Plenum Press.
Bilmes, Jack. 1988. The concept of preference in conversation
analysis. In Language in society 17: 161-181.
Blum-Kulka, Shoshana. 1990. You don’t touch lettuce with your
fingers: Parental politensess in family discourse. Journal
of Pragmatics: Politeness, 259-288.
Boggs, Stephen T. 1978. The Development of verbal disputing in
part-Hawaiian children. Language in Society, 7: 325-344.
Brenneis, Donald. 1988. Language and disputing. Annual Review
of Anthropology, 17: 221-237.
Brenneis, Donald & Laura Lein. 1977. You fruithead: a
sociolinguistic approach to children’s dispute settlement.
In Child Discourse, S. Ervin-Tripp and C. Mitchell-Kernan
(eds.): 49-65. New York: Academic Press.
Brown, Penelope, and Stephen C. Levinson. 1978/1987.
Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Coates, Jennifer. 1989. Gossip revisited: language in all-
female groups. In Women in Their Speech Communities,
Jennifer Coates and Deborah Cameron (eds.): 94-121. London:
Longman.
Edelsky, Carole. 1981. Who’s got the floor? Language in
Society 10: 383-421.
Eisenberg, Ann R. and Catherine Garvey. 1981. Children’s use
of verbal strategies in resolving conflicts. Discourse
Processes, 4: 149-170.
Fraser, Bruce. 1975. The concept of politeness. Paper presented
at the 1985 NWAVE Meeting. Georgetown University.
---. 1990. Perspectives on politeness. Journal of Pragmatics.
14: 219-236.
Fraser, Bruce and William Nolen. 1981. The association of
deference with linguistic form. International Journal of
the Sociology of Language 27: 93-109.
Genishi, Celia and Marianna di Paolo. 1982. Learning through
argument in a preschool. In Communicating in the Classroom,
L.C. Wilkinson (ed.): 49-68. New York: Academic Press.
Goffman, Erving. 1967. Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face to
Face Behavior. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
---. 1971. Relations in Public: Microstudies of the Public
Order. New York: Basic Books.
Goodwin Charles and M.H. Goodwin. 1990. Interstitial argument.
In Conflict Talk: Sociolinguistic Investigations of Arguments in Conversations, Grimshaw, Allen D. (ed.): 85.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Goodwin, Marjorie Harness. 1978. Conversational practices in a
peer group of urban black children. Unpublished Ph.D.
dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of
Pennsylvania.
---. 1980a. He-said-she said: formal cultural procedures for
the construction of a gossip dispute activity. American
Ethnologist, 7: 674-695.
---. 1980b. Directive / response speech sequences in girls’
and boys’ task activities. In Women and Language in
Literature and Society, S. McConnell-Ginet, R. Borker, and
N. Furman (eds.): 157-173. New York: Praeger.
---. 1982. Processes of dispute management among urban black
children. American Ethnologist, 9: 76-69.
Grice, H. P. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Speech Act.
Vol. 3 of Syntax and Semantics, P. Cole and J. Morgan
(eds.). New York: Academic Press.
Grimshaw, Allen D. 1990. Conflict Talk: Sociolinguistic
Investigations of Arguments in Conversations. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Gu, Yueguo. 1990. Politeness phenomena in modern Chinese.
Journal of Pragmatics 14: 237-257.
Gunthner, Susanne. 1993. The Negotiation of Dissent in
Intercultural Communication—an analysis of a Chinese-German
conversation. Paper presented on the 4th International
Pragmatics Conference. Kobe Japan.
Ho, D.Y. F. 1975. On the Concept of Face. American Journal of
Sociology 81.4: 867-884.
Holmes, Janet. 1995. Women, Men, and Politeness. New York:
Longman.
Hu, Hsien Chin. 1944. The Chinese Concept of ‘face’.
American Anthropologist 46: 45-64.
Huang, Shuanfan. 1984. Two studies on prototype semantics: xiao
(filial piety) and mei mianzi (loss of face). A paper
presented to the International Symposium on Psychological
Aspects of the Chinese Language. Hong Kong, July 2-5, 1984.
Hymes, Dell. 1972. On communicative competence. In
Sociolinguistics, J. B. Pride and Janet Homes (eds.): 269-
293. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Kalick, Susan. 1975. ‘…like Ann’s gynaecologist or the time
I was almost raped’—personal narratives in women’s rape
groups. Journal of American Folklore 88: 3-11.
Kasper, Gabriele. 1990. Linguistic politeness: current research
issues. Journal of Pragmatics: Politeness, 193-218.
Knoblauch, Hubert. 1991. The taming of foes: the avoidance of
asymmetry I informal discussions. In Asymmetries in
Dialogue, Ivana Markova and Klaus Foppa (eds.): 166-195.
Hemel Hempstead: Barnes and Noble.
Kotthoff, Helga. 1993. Disagreement and concession in disputes:
On the context sensitivity of preference structures.
Language in Society 22: 193-216.
Krainer, Elizabeth. 1988. Challenges in a psychotherapy group.
In Proceedings of the fourteenth Annual Meeting f the
Berkeley Linguistics Society: 100-113.
Kuo, Sai-hua. 1992. Formulaic opposition markers in Chinese
conflict talk. Georgetown-University-Round-Table-on-
Languages-and-Linguistics: 388-402.
---. 1997. Cooperation and competition in collaborative
narration. Paper presented at the 6th International
Conference on Language and Social Psychology, Ottawa,
Canada, May 16-20, 1997.
Lakoff, Robin. 1973. The logic of politeness: or, miniding your
p’s and q’s. In Papers from the ninth regional meeting of
the Chicago Linguistic Society, C. Corum et al. (eds.): 292-
305. Chicago Linguistic Society.
---. 1975. Language and Woman’s Place. New York: Harper and
Row.
---. 1977. What you can do with words: Politeness, pragmatics,
and performatives. In Proceedings of The Texas Conference
on Performatives, Presuppositions, and Implicatures, A. Rogers, B. Wall and J. Murphy (eds.): 79-105. Arlington:
Center of Applied Linguistics.
Lee David A. & Jennifer J. Peck. 1995. Troubled waters:
Argument as sociability revisited. In Language in Society
24: 29-52.
Leech, Geoffrey. 1977. Langage and tact. L.A.U.T. Paper 46.
Reprinted as Leech 1980, Language and Tact. Amsterdam:
Benjamins.
---. 1980. Explorations in Semantics and Pragmatics.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
---. 1983. Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.
Leet-Pellegrini, H. M. 1980. Conversational dominance as a
function of gender and expertise. In Language: Social
Psychological Perspectives, Howard Giles, Peter Robinson and Philip Smith (eds.): 97-104. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Lein, L., & Brenneis, D. 1978. Children’s disputes in three
speech communities. Language in Society, 7: 299-323.
Levinson, Stephen C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Liao, Chao-chih. 1994. A Study on the Strategies, Maxims, and
Development of Refusal in Mandarin Chinese. Taipei: The
Crane Publishing CO., LTD.
Lii-shih, Yu-hwei E. 1986. Conversational Politeness and
Foreign Language Teaching. Taipei: Crane.
Lii-shih, Yu-hwei E. 1994. What do “Yes” and “No” really
mean in Chinese? In Georgetown University Round Table on
Languages and Linguistics 1994, James E. Alatis (ed.), 128-
149.
Maltz, Daniel N. and Borker, Ruth A. 1982. A cultural approach
to male-female miscommunication. In Language and Social
Identity, John J. Gumperz (ed.): 196-216. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Maynard, Douglas W. 1985a. How children start arguments.
Language in Society, 14: 1-29.
---. 1985b. On the functions of social conflict among
children. American Sociological Review, 50: 207-223.
Megaree, E. I. 1969. Influence of sex roles on the
manifestation of leadership. In Journal of Applied
Psychology 53, 5: 377-382.
Munro, Fran. 1987. Female and male participation in small-group
interaction in the ESOL classroom. Unpublished terms
project. Graduate Diploma in TESOL. Sydney: Sydney College
of Advanced Education.
Muntigl, Peter and William, Turnbull. 1998. Conversational
structures and facework in arguing. Journal of Pragmatics
29: 225-256.
Naotsuka, Reiko, Nancy Sakamoto et al. 1981. Mutual
Understanding of Different Cultures. Osaka: Taishukan.
Pilkington, Jane. 1992. ‘Don’t try to make out that I’m
nice!’ The different strategies women and men use when
gossiping. Wellington Working Papers in Linguistics 5: 37-
60.
Pomerantz, Anita. 1984. Agreeing and disagreeing with
assessments: some features of preferred / dispreferred turn
shapes. In J. M. Atkinson and J. Heritage. Eds. Structures
of social action: Studies in conversation analysis. 57-
101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Richards, Jack C. and M. Sukwiwat. 1983. Language transfer and
conversational competence. Applied Linguistics 4.2: 113-125.
Sacks, Harvey. 1973. The preference for agreement in natural
conversation. Paper presented at the Linguistic Institute,
Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Schick Case, Susan. 1988. Cultural differences, not
deficiencies: an analysis of managerial women’s language.
In Women’s Careers: Pathways and Pitfalls, Suzanna Rose and
Laurie Larwood (eds.): 41-63. New York: Praeger.
Schiffrin, Deborah. 1984. Jewish argument as sociability.
Language in Society, 13: 311-335.
---. 1985. Everyday argument: the organization of diversity in
talk. In Handbook of Discourse Analysis 3: Discourse and
Dialogue, T. van Dijk (ed.): 35-46. London: Academic Press.
---. 1987. Discourse Markers. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Schmidt, Richards W. 1980. Review of questions and politeness
in social interaction. In RELC 11(2): 100-114.
Sell, Roger D. 1991. The politeness of literary texts. In
Literary Pragmatics, R. Sell (ed.): 208-224. London:
Routledge.
Shils, Edward. 1968. Deference. In Social Stratification, J.
A. Jackson (ed.): 104-132. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Simmel, George. 1949. The sociology of sociability. In
American Journal of Sociology 55: 254-261.
Stubbe, Maria. 1991. Talking at cross-purposes: the effect of
gender on New Zealand primary schoolchildren’s interaction
strategies in pair discussions. MA thesis. Wellington:
Victoria University.
Swacker, Marjorie. 1979. Women’s verbal behaviour at learned
and profesinoal conferences. In The Sociology of the
Languages of American Women, Berry-Lou Dubois and Isobel
Crouch (eds.): 155-160. San Antonio, Tex.: Trinity
University.
Tannen Deborah. 1984. Conversational Style: Analyzing Talk
among Friends. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex Publishing
Corporation.
---. 1986. That’s Not What I Meant! How Conversational Style
Makes or Breaks Your relations with Others. New York:
William Morrow; London: J. M. Dent.
---. 1990. You Just Don’t Understand: Women and Men in
Conversation. New York: William Morrow.
---. 1993. What’s in a frame?: Surface evidence for underlying
expectations. In Framing in Discourse: 14-56. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Vuchinich, Samuel. 1988. The sequential organization of closing
in verbal family conflict. In Conflict Talk, A.D. Grimshaw
(ed.): 118-138. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wang, Yu-fang. 1997. Dispreferred Responses in Mandarin Chinese
Conversation. In Proceedings of the First Symposium on
Discourse and Syntax in Chinese and Formosan Languages: 103-
134. Taipei: NTU.
Watts, Richard J. 1992. Linguistic politeness and polite verbal
behavior: reconsidering claims for university. In Trends in
Linguistics, Studies and Monographs 59: Politeness in
Language, Watts, Richard J., Sachiko Ide, and Konrad Ehlich
(eds.). Mouton De Gruyter.
Watzlawick, Paul, Janet H. beavin, and don D. Jackson. 1967.
Pragmatics of Human Communication: A Study of Interactional
Patterns, Pathologies, and Paradoxes. New York: W.W. Norton.
West, Candace and A. Garcia. 1988. Conversational shift work: a
study of topical transitions between women and men. Social
Problem 35.5: 551-75.