在日常交往中，我們有時無法避免冒犯他人的行為，為了保持禮貌和雙方的和諧，說話者會採取「道歉」言語行為來彌補，說話者降低自己的面子，維護聽話者的面子。而不同文化背景於道歉策略的選用和形式有所不同，漢語與越南語也不例外。
本研究以語篇補全測試（Discourse Completion Test, DCT）為研究工具，蒐集漢語語料和越南語的語料對道歉言語行為進行分析對比。以Brown & Levinson（1987）的理論為基礎，參考Holmes（1990）的冒犯類型和Holmes（1995）的冒犯級別，將時間冒犯情境分為三種級別：輕度、中度、重度，受試者在假設的情境針對長輩（老師）與平輩（朋友）不同社會地位的道歉對象。透過問卷調查結果，研究對道歉策略歸納為四大類，未道歉；直接道歉；間接道歉（解釋或陳述事件、承擔責任）；輔助策略（提供補償、承諾、心理緩和）。漢語與越南語受試者在選擇使用道歉策略上，使用頻率最高的是「直接道歉」，接著是「間接道歉」，其次是「輔助策略」，使用比例最低為「未道歉」。關於社會變項，對於社會權勢高，漢語與越南語都偏向使用「直接道歉」為最普遍的策略，使用比例過半，兩者面對社會權勢高道歉時，使用「間接道歉」比例皆提升，而面對社會權勢低比例皆降低。輔助策略上，漢語與越南語受試者偏好向社會權勢低「提供補償」，較少使用「承諾」，相反的兩者向社會權勢高「承諾」比例較高，而較少向社會權勢高「提供補償」。
本研究希望透過道歉言語行為的語用策略及語言形式，能進一步使讀者透徹臺灣與越南的文化特徵，在漢語教學方面給學習者提供語用基本知識，根據漢語與越南語道歉言語行為的異同，理解學習第二語言的困難，從而設計出有效的教學活動。

Engaging in behaviors that may inadvertently offend others is sometimes inevitable in interpersonal communication. To maintain politeness and social harmony, speakers often employ the speech act of "apology" as a compensatory strategy. By apologizing, speakers strategically diminish their own positive or negative face to accommodate the face needs of the listener. However, the usage and choice of apology strategies vary significantly across cultural contexts.
This study utilizes the Discourse Completion Test (DCT) as a research tool to collect and analyze apology speech acts in both Chinese and Vietnamese. The theoretical framework is rooted in Brown and Levinson's (1987) politeness theory and Holmes' (1990, 1995) typology of offenses and their severity levels. Offense scenarios mentioned in this study are classified into three levels of severity—minor, moderate, and severe. Participants were asked to respond to hypothetical situations involving apology targets of different social statuses—elders (e.g., teachers) and peers (e.g., friends).
Data reveals four primary categories of apology strategies: non-apology, direct apology, indirect apology (e.g., explanations, accounts, or taking responsibility), and supplementary strategies (e.g., offering compensation, making promises, or employing psychological appeasement). Among both Chinese and Vietnamese respondents, "direct apology" was the most frequently used strategy, followed by "indirect apology" and "supplementary strategies," with "non-apology" being the least common.
The findings further highlight the influence of social power dynamics. Particularly, when addressing individuals of higher social power, both Chinese and Vietnamese participants predominantly used "direct apology" with usage exceeding half of all responses. The "indirect apology" frequency also increased in interactions with higher-power interlocutors, while it decreased in lower-power interactions. Regarding supplementary strategies, both groups preferred "offering compensation" when addressing those of lower social power and "making promises" for higher-power individuals. Conversely, "offering compensation" was less frequently employed in the latter context.
By examining the pragmatic strategies and linguistic forms of apology speech acts, this study provided insights into similarities and differences between Chinese and Vietnamese apology speech acts shaped by cultural characteristics. It also tackles challenges in acquiring Chinese as a second language and contributes to the development of effective teaching methodologies by offering both theoretical and practical insights into Chinese language pedagogy, with a particular emphasis on the importance of culturally informed instructional design.

參考書目
中文文獻
中國大辭典編纂處（1937）。道歉。漢語詞典簡本（簡本，172頁）。商務印書館。
方麗娜（2017）。華人與社會文化。正中書局。
冉永平（2006）。語用學：現象與分析。北京大學出版社。
田惠刚（1997）。中西人際稱謂系統。外國語教學與研究出版社。
何自然、冉永平（2009）。新編語用學概論。北京大學出版社。
吳婉綺（2011）。現代漢語道歉言語之語用策略及語言形式－以臺灣地區為例（未出版碩士論文）。國立臺灣師範大學。
施玉惠（1984）。從社會語言學觀點探討中文男女兩性語言的差異。教學與研究，（6），207-228。
胡文仲（1999）。跨文化溝通學概論。外語教學與研究出版社。
胡瑞雪（2021）。跨文化道歉口語語用策略差異探析。教育與家庭學刊，12，1-36。
范宏貴（2008）。越南语言文化探究。民族出版社。
真島淳（2020）。融入跨文化溝通能力培養之初級華語教學實踐－以課堂情境會話活動為例。華語學刊，（28），9-49。
祖曉梅（2017）。跨文化溝通。文光圖書。
陳松岑（2001）。禮貌語言。商務印書館。
陳振宇（2022）。多面向第二語言習得理論。元照出版公司。
曾金金（2006）。語言、文化與翻譯教學。載於戴維揚、梁耀南（主編），語言與文化（175-187頁）。文鶴網路書店。
葛本儀（2002）。語言學概論。五南圖書出版股份有限公司。
賈玉新（1997）。跨文化溝通學。上海外語教育出版社。
劉森林（2007)。語用策略。社會科學文獻出版社。
謝佳玲（2015)。漢語與英語跨文化對比：網路社會之語用研究策略研究。文鶴出版有限公司。
顧日國（1992）語用與文化。外語教學與研究，4，10-17。
英文文獻
Austin, J. L. (1975). How to do things with words. Harvard University Press.
Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford University Press.
Beebe, L. M., & Cummings, M. C. (1985). Speech act performance: A function of the data collection procedure? [Paper presentation]. The Sixth Annual TESOL and Sociolinguistics Colloquium at the International TESOL Convention, New York.
Brown, H. (2001). An interactive approach to language pedagogy. Longman.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press.
Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and assessing intercultural communicative competence. Multilingual Matters.
Chamani, F., & Zareipur, P. (2010). A cross-cultural study of apologies in British English and Persian. Concentric: Studies in linguistics, 36(1), 133-153.
Deutschmann, M. (2003). Apologising in British English (Doctoral dissertation). Umeå universitet.
Erving Goffman. (1971). Relations in public. Harper & Row.
Fantini, A. E. (2000). A central concern: Developing intercultural competence. SIT Occasional Paper Series, 1(1), 25-42.
Fraser, B. (1981). On apologizing. In F. Coulmas (Eds.), Volume 2 conversational routine (pp. 259-272). De Gruyter Mouton.
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts (pp. 41-58). Academic Press.
Hall, E. T. (1959). The silent language. Doubleday.
Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond culture. Doubleday.
Holmes, J. (1990). Apologies in New Zealand English1. Language in society, 19(2), 155-199.
Holmes, J. (1995). Women, men and politeness. Routledge.
Hymes, D. H. (1972). On communicative competence. In J.B. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds.), Sociolinguistics selected readings (pp. 269-293). Penguin.
Kasper, G. (1997). Can pragmatic competence be taught?. University of Hawaii.
Kasper, G., & Dahl, M. (1991). Research methods in interlanguage pragmatics. Studies in second language acquisition, 13(2), 215-247.
Kasper, G., & Rose, K. R. (2001). Pragmatics in language teaching. Cambridge University Press.
Kasper, G., Maeshiba, N., Yoshinaga, N., & Ross, S. (2006). Transfer and proficiency in interlanguage apologizing. In S. Gass & J. Neu (Ed.), Speech acts across cultures: Challenges to communication in a second language (pp. 155-187). De Gruyter Mouton.
Kwon, J. (2004). Expressing refusals in korean and in american english. Multilingua - Journal of Cross-Cultural and Interlanguage Commulrication, 23(4), 339-364.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2000). Techniques and principles in language teaching. Oxford University Press.
Lazare, A. (2005). On apology. Oxford University Press.
Leech, G. (2014). The pragmatics of politeness. Oxford University Press.
Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. Longman.
Olshtain, E. (1989). Apologies across languages. In Blum-Kulka, J. House & G. Kasper (Eds.), Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies (pp. 155-173). Ablex Publication Corporation.
Olshtain, E., & Cohen, A. (1983). Apology: A speech act set. Apology: A speech act set. In N. Wolfson, & E. Judd (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language acquisition (pp. 18-35). Newbury House Publishers.
Owen, M. (1983). Apologies and Remedial Interchanges: A Study of language use in social interaction. De Gruyter Mouton.
Rintell, E., & Mitchell, C. J. (1989). Studying requests and apologies: An inquiry into method. In Blum-Kulka Shoshana, House Juliane & Kasper Gabriele (Eds.), Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies (pp. 248-272). Ablex Publication Corporation.
Savignon, S. J. (1991). Communicative language teaching: State of the art. TESOL quarterly, 25(2), 261-278.
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge University Press.
Ting-Toomey, S. (1985). Toward a theory of conflict and culture. In W. B. Gudykunst, L. Stewart, & S. Ting-Toomey (Eds.), Communication, culture, and organizational processes (pp. 71-86). Sage.
Thomas, J. (1995). Meaning in interaction: An introduction to pragmatics. Longman.
Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism & collectivism. Westview Press.
Trosborg, A. (1995). Interlanguage pragmatics: Requests, complaints, and apologies. Walter de Gruyter.
Willis, J. (1996). A flexible framework for task-based learning. Longman.
越文文獻
Do Huu Chau (2003). Cơ sở ngữ dụng học, tập 1 [語用學基礎，第一卷]. NXB Đại học Sư phạm [師範大學出版社].
Hoang Phe (2000). Từ điển tiếng Việt [越文詞典].
Le Hong Linh (2010). Mối liên hệ giữa ngôn ngữ và giới tính trong tiếng việt và tiếng anh [越南語和英語中語言與性別之間的關係]. Tạp chí Khoa học & Đời sống [科學與生活期刊], 1, 30-36.
Le Thi Hong Van (2020). Các cách thức xin lỗi trong tiếng việt và tiếng nhật - đối chiếu dựa trên lý thuyết lịch sự của Brown và Levinson [越南語與日語的道歉方式-基於Brown & Levinson理論]. Hội thảo quốc gia nghiên cứu liên ngành về ngôn ngữ và giảng dạy ngôn ngữ [全國語言與語文教學交叉學科學術會議], 6, 533-542.
Nguyen Thi Nga (2023). Sử dụng phương pháp đóng vai trong dạy học tiếng anh [在英語教學中使用角色扮演的方法]. Tạp chí nghiên cứu ứng dụng [應用研究期刊], 2(295), 33-35.
Nguyen Thuy Trang (2017). Những chiến lược xin lỗi bằng tiếng anh của người mỹ và người việt [美國人和越南人的英語道歉策略]. Tạp chí nghiên cứu nước ngoài[外國研究期刊], 33(2), 118-131.
Nguyen thi Thuy Linh (2015). Xin Lỗi và tiếp nhận lời xin lỗi của người việt nhìn từ góc độ giới [越語道歉言語行為之性別探討]. Luận văn Thạc sĩ [碩士論文]. Đại học Sư phạm Hà Nội [河內師範大學].
Vu Tien Dung (2002). Chiến lược lịch sự âm tính và lời xin lỗi trong tiếng việt [陰性禮貌策略與越南語語中的道歉言語行為]. Tạp chí khoa học [科學期刊], 2, 45-52.