簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示
| 研究生： |
時雪煒 Shih, Hsueh Wei |
|---|---|
| 論文名稱： |
從社會語言學看中文命令句的形式，用法，與意義 Forms, Usage, and Meanings of Command in Mandarin Chinese: A Sociolinguistic Approach |
| 指導教授： |
詹惠珍
Chan, Hui Chen |
| 學位類別： |
碩士
Master |
| 系所名稱： |
外國語文學院 - 語言學研究所 Graduate Institute of Linguistics |
| 論文出版年： | 1998 |
| 畢業學年度： | 86 |
| 語文別： | 英文 |
| 論文頁數： | 137 |
| 相關次數： | 點閱：172 下載：29 |
| 分享至: |
| 查詢本校圖書館目錄 查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統 勘誤回報 |
人們常覺得選擇適當的命令方式以便有效達成命令之目地往往構成人際溝通的難題。主要原因在於大多數的人不知依據他們和被命令者之間的關係來取用不同的命令形式。尤其當平等觀念方興未艾時，何謂「適當的命令方式」更形抽象。本研究試圖透過說話者與聽話者雙方的社會特徵，例如性別，年齡，及位階，來探查中文命令句的形式，用法，與意義。
本研究之資料藉由問卷取得，以量化方式及研究者之主觀判斷分析之。研究結果顯示不同的命令策略確實形成─強弱序列，以句型策略(Syntactic strategy)強於遮蔽策略(hedge stratey)，而兩者合用之策略為最弱。此外在命令策略的取用上，以遮蔽策略先於句型策略，隨即產生不同之命令型式。本研究發現，具單一遮蔽詞之肯定句的使用頻率為最高。
本研究發現，說話者對於命令策略之理解及取用幾乎不受說話者與聽話者雙方之性別，年齡，及位階的影響。這些社會特徵僅產生微弱之作用，而顯現在受試者對三種命令策略強度的比較，以及命令策略之強度範圍大小。受試者最常取用中等強度之命令句（即單一遮蔽詞之肯定句）。依此，本研究推測，命令者對命令策略的理解與取用表面上是為符合社會禮儀規範之要求。深究之，命令者本身的顏面可能才是隱而未現，操控他們命令行為的主要因素。
People in today's Chinese society find it difficult to give a command and have it perfected effectively. One of the reasons is that they are unable to choose appropriate command forms to cope with the relationship between themselves and their hearers. With the promotion of interpersonal equality, the so-called "appropriate command form" is even more complex. This study was designed and conducted in order to investigate the form, the usage, and the meaning of command in the milieu of Chinese culture, with a focus on the influence of the speaker's and the hearer's gender, age, and occupational ranking on the speaker's choice of appropriate command forms.
In this study, surveys through questionnaires are conducted for quantitative analysis. Also, a limited amount of interviews in very casual style are done to provide basis for qualitative analysis. The results of both kinds of data analyses, together with the researcher's intuition, are applied to explain how and why Chinese people choose among forms to give command.
The test results show that subjects indeed assign different strengths of command force to the three command strategies, namely, syntactic strategy (SS) (i. e. the syntactic change of a command form), hedge strategy (HS) (i. e. the insertion of words to weaken the command force), and syntactic strategy plus hedge strategy (SSHS). As for the selection of command strategies, hedge strategy overrides syntactic strategy, and various command forms are, thus, derived and used, with the form of intermediate strength (i. e. affirmative sentence+hedge) being most frequently used.
Social factors (namely, gender, age, and occupational ranking), out of expectation, almost cast no significant impacts on subjects' perception and production of the same command form. Minute social differences are revealed in the subjects' ways to differentiate the three strategies, and their decisions on the range of the command force of the three strategies tested.
In comparing subjects' perception of the force of the command forms and the forms which they actually used, it is confirmed that command forms of strong force are not appropriate because they immediately threaten the hearer's face and the speaker's face; but those forms of weak force are not appropriate either because, although they secure the hearer's face, they put the speaker's authority into jeopardy. In either usage, the possibility of command execution is endangered.
Acknowledgment-----iv
Table of Contents-----v
Chinese Abstract-----xi
English Abstract-----xii
List of Abbreviation-----xiv
List of Tables-----xv
List of Scales-----xvi
List of Charts-----xvii
Chapter
1. Introduction-----1
1.1 Purpose-----1
1.2 Linguistic Variable and Its Social Constraints-----2
1.2.1 Definition of Command-----2
1.2.2 Linguistic Variable-----3
1.2.2.1 Linguistic Strategies and Linguistic Variants-----4
1.2.2.1.1 Syntactic Strategy (SS)-----4
1.2.2.1.1.1 Affirmative Sentence (Aff)-----4
1.2.2.1.1.2 A-not-A Question (ANA)-----4
1.2.2.1.1.3 Tag Question (Tag)-----4
1.2.2.1.1.4 WH-Question (WH)-----5
1.2.2.1.1.5 Interrogative Ended with Question Marker (Qm##)-----5
1.2.2.1.2 Hedge Strategy (HS)-----5
1.2.2.1,2.1 Aff+Qing3-----5
1.2.2.1.2.2 Aff+Kong3pa4-----5
1.2.2.1.2.3 Aff+Ba5-----5
1.2.2.1.3 Syntactic Strategy plus Hedge Strategy (SSHS)-----6
1.2.2.1.3.1 Aff+Qing3+Kong3pa4-----6
1.2.2.1.3.2 Aff+Qing3+Ba5-----6
1.2.2.1.3.3 Aff+Kong3pa4+Ye5-----6
1.2.2.1.3.4 Aff+Qing3+Kong3pa4+Ye5-----6
1.2.2.1.3.5 ANA+Ne5-----6
1.2.2.1.3.6 ANA+Qing3-----7
1.2.2.1.3.7 ANA+Qing3+Ne5-----7
1.2.2.1.3.8 Tag+Qing3-----7
1.2.2.1.3.9 WH+Ne5-----7
1.2.3 Social Variables-----7
1.3 Hypotheses-----8
1.3.1 Hypotheses of Linguistic Variants-----8
1.3.2 Correlation between Strategies of Command and Social Factors-----8
2. Literature Review-----10
2.1 Command-----10
2.2 Language and Power-----13
2.2.1 Power-----13
2.2.2 Perception of Power-----14
2.2.3 Social Attributes to Power-----15
2.2.4 Representation of Power-----17
2.3 Language and Politeness-----19
2.3.1 Politeness-----19
2.3.2 Representation of Politeness-----23
3. Methodology-----29
3.1 Linguistic Variable-----29
3.1.1 Syntactic Strategy-----29
3.1.2 Hedge Strategy-----30
3.1.3 Syntactic Strategy plus Hedge Strategy-----30
3.2 Social Variables-----30
3.3 Pilot Study-----31
3.3.1 Informants' Background-----31
3.3.2 Data Collection-----31
3.3.3 Results-----31
3.4 Research Design of Current Study-----32
3.4.1 Quantitative Analysis: Questioimaires-----32
3.4.1.1 Tools-----33
3.4.1.1.1 Contents ofQuestionnaire-A to Test on Perception-----33
3.4.1.1.2 Contents of Questionnaires Bl and B2 to Test on Production-----34
3.4.1.2 Sampling-----34
3.4.1.2.1 Categorization of Subjects-----34
3.4.1.2.1.1 Age-----35
3.4.1.2.1.2 Occupational Ranking-----36
3.4.1.2.2 Number of Subjects-----37
3.4.1.2.3 Source of Subjects-----38
3.4.1.3 Data Analysis-----39
3.4.2 Qualitative Analysis: Interview-----39
4. Results and Discussions of Subjects' Perception of Positive Command-----40
4.1 Competence of Positive Command: Subjects as a Whole-----40
4.2 Subjects' Competence of Positive Command: The Main Effect of Each Social Factor-----47
4.2.1 Gender-----48
4.2.2 Age-----52
4.2.3 Occupational Ranking-----56
4.3 Subjects' Competence of Positive Command: The Interaction of Social Factors-----60
4.3.1 GenderandAge-----60
4.3.2 Gender and Occupational Ranking-----62
4.3.3 Age and Occupational Ranking-----64
4.4 Summary of This Chapter-----66
5. Results and Discussions of Subjects' Production of Positive Command-----68
5.1 Production of Positive Command: Subjects as a Whole-----68
5.2 Subjects' Production of Positive Command The Effects of Social Factors-----71
5.2.1 Gender-----72
5.2.2 Age-----74
5.2.3 Occupational Ranking-----76
5.3 Summary of This Chapter-----79
6. Conclusion-----82
Appendices-----87
Appendices I: Questionnaires-----88
Appendix 1: The Cover Letter and Questions of the Informants' Backgrounds of the Questionnaires-----89
Appendix 2: Questionnaire-A-----90
Appendix 3: Questionnaire-B1-----91
Appendix 4: Questionnaire-B2-----92
Appendices II: Results of Statistic Tests-----93
Appendix 5: Table 1. Factor analysis of eighteen syntactic variants of positive command in the pilot study-----94
Appendix 6: Table 2. Mean scores concerning strength of three strategies of positive command by subjects as a whole-----94
Appendix 7: Table 3. Results of Pair Test concerning the strength of three strategies of positive command by subjects as a whole-----94
Appendix 8: Table 4. Mean scores concerning strength of nine variants of positive command by subjects as a whole-----95
Appendix 9: Table 5. The strength range of nine variants of positive command based on the mean scores resulted from judgment by subjects as a whole-----95
Appendix 10: Table 6. Mean scores concerning strength of three strategies of positive command by gender-----95.
Appendix 11: Table 7. Results of Pair Test concerning the strength of three strategies of positive command by gender-----95
Appendix 12: Table 8. Mean scores concerning strength of nine variants of positive command by gender-----96
Appendix 13: Table 9. The strength range of nine variants of positive command based on the mean scores resulted from judgment by gender-----96
Appendix 14: Table 10. Mean scores concerning strength of three strategies of positive command by age-----96
Appendix 15: Table 11. Results of Pair Test concerning the strength of three strategies of positive command by age-----97
Appendix 16: Table 12. Mean scores concerning strength of nine variants of positive command by age-----97
Appendix 17: Table 13. The strength range of nine variants of positive command based on the mean scores resulted from judgment by age-----98
Appendix 18: Table 14. Mean scores concerning strength of three strategies of positive command by occupational ranking (0. R.)-----98
Appendix 19: Table 15. Results of Pair Test concerning the strength of three strategies of positive command by occupational ranking-----98
Appendix 20: Table 16. Mean scores concerning strength of nine variants of positive command by occupational ranking-----99
Appendix 21: Table 17. The strength range of nine variants of positive command based on the mean scores resulted from judgment by occupational ranking-----99
Appendix 22: Table 18. Mean scores concerning strength of three strategies of positive command by gender and age-----100
Appendix 23: Table 19. Results of Pair Test concerning the strength of three strategies of positive command by gender and age-----100
Appendix 24: Table 20. Mean scores concerning strength of three strategies of positive command by gender and occupational ranking (O. R.)-----101
Appendix 25: Table 21. Results of Pair Test concerning the strength of three strategies of positive command by gender and occupational ranking-----101
Appendix 26: Table 22. Mean scores concerning strength of three strategies of positive command by age and occupational ranking (O. R.)-----102
Appendix 27: Table 23. Results of Pair Test concerning the strength of three strategies of positive command by age and occupational ranking-----102
Appendix 28: Table 24. Percentage of 23 forms of positive command according to 12 different interlocutors by subjects as a whole-----103
Appendix 29: Table 25. Percentage of 23 forms of positive command according to 12 different interlocutors by gender-----105
Appendix 30: Table 26. Percentage of 23 forms of positive command according to 12 different interlocutors by age-----108
Appendix 31: Table 27. Percentage of 23 forms of positive command according to 12 different interlocutors by occupational ranking-----111
Bibliography-----114
LIST OF TABLES
Table A. Subjects' ratings of command-----32
Table B. Mean scores concerning strength of three strategies of command by subjects at a five-year-old interval-----35
Table C. Mean scores concerning strength of three strategies of command by subjects of five occupational rankings-----36
Table D. Distribution of the sample population of Questionnaires (Q) A to B2-----37
LIST OF SCALES
Scale 1. Perception of command variants-----42
Scale 2. Perception of command variants by gender-----50
Scale 3. Perception of command variants by age-----55
Scale 4. Perception of command variants by occupational ranking-----58
Scale 5. Production of command variants-----68
Scale 6. Production of command variants by gender-----72
Scale 7. Production of command variants by age-----74
Scale 8. Production of command variants by occupational ranking-----77
LIST OF CHARTS
Chart 1. Subjects' Decision-Making Process of the Command Forms-----46
此全文未授權公開