國立臺灣師範大學博碩士論文全文系統

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

回結果列表

研究生：	陳薇竹 Wei-Zue Chen
論文名稱：	請求: 大一學生口說英文之分析 Requests: An Analysis of College Freshmen's Oral English in Role Play
指導教授：	林雪娥 Lin, Hsueh-O
學位類別：	碩士 Master
系所名稱：	英語學系 Department of English
論文出版年：	2005
畢業學年度：	94
語文別：	英文
論文頁數：	135
中文關鍵詞：	角色扮演、社會語用能力、語用能力、請求
英文關鍵詞：	Role Play, Sociopragmatic Competence, Pragmatic Competence, Requests
論文種類：	學術論文
相關次數：	點閱：175 下載：10
分享至:	分享至facebook 分享至twitter

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

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 downgraders suggest 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.

Page

Abstract (Chinese)........................................i
Abstract (English).......................................ii
Acknowledgements........................................iii
Table of Contents........................................iv
List of Tables.......................................... vi

1. Introduction...........................................1
   1.1 Background and Motivation..........................1
   1.2 Research Questions.................................4
   1.3 Organization of the Thesis.........................5

2. Literature Review......................................6
   2.1 Pragmatic Failures.................................6
   2.2 Requests..........................................11
     2.2.1 RHAs..........................................12
     2.2.2 RSMs..........................................15
   2.3 Politeness........................................17
     2.3.1 Brown & Levinson (1978, 1987).................18
     2.3.2 Leech (1983)..................................19
     2.3.3 Politeness in Chinese: Chinese Face...........20
   2.4 Cross-Cultural Requests...........................21
     2.4.1 Pragmalinguistic Failures.....................22
     2.4.2 Sociopragmatic Failures.......................23
   2.5 Empirical Studies on Requests in Taiwan...........26

3. Methodology...........................................29
   3.1 Participants......................................29
   3.2 Materials.........................................30
       3.2.1 Role Play as the Elicitation Method.........30
       3.2.2 Content of Role Play Sheets.................33
   3.3 Procedures........................................34
   3.4 Coding Schemes and Measures.......................35
       3.4.1 Segmentation............................... 35
       3.4.2 Taxonomy....................................37
       3.4.3 Coding Reliability.........................40
       3.4.4 Measures....................................41

4. Results and Discussions...............................42
   4.1 Request Strategies................................42
       4.1.1 Types and Distributions.....................43
       4.1.2 Power.......................................46
       4.1.3 Distance....................................47
   4.2 Lexical/ Phrasal Downgraders......................52
       4.2.1 Types and Distributions.....................52
       4.2.2 Power.......................................59
       4.2.3 Distance....................................64
   4.3 Request Supportive Moves (RSMs)..................67
       4.3.1 Types and Distributions.....................67
       4.3.2 Power.......................................71
       4.3.3 Distance....................................79
   4.4 An Integration of Strategies and Modifiers........83
       4.4.1 Integration.................................83
       4.4.2 Non-Compliance..............................89
   4.5 Summary...........................................96

5. Conclusion...........................................100
   5.1 Summary..........................................100
   5.2 Pedagogical Implications.........................102
   5.3 Limitations of the Present Study and Suggesitons
       for Future Reserach .............................106

Bibliography............................................111
Appendix A: Role Play Sheets for EFL Learners...........119
Appendix B: The Modified Types of Request Strategies....124
Appendix C: The Modified Types of Lexical/Phrasal
            Downgraders.................................126
Appendix D: The Modified Types of Request Supportive Moves
            (RSMs)......................................127
Appendix E: ENSs’ and EFL Learners’ Strategy
            Distributions...............................131
Appendix F: ENSs’ and EFL Learners’ Lexical/Phrasal
            Downgrader Distributions....................132
Appendix G: ENSs’ and EFL Learners’ RSM
            Distributions...............................133
Appendix H: An Example on DRT...........................134
Appendix I: A Modified DRT Example......................135


List of Tables
                                                      Page
Table 3-1: Social Constraints Embedded in the Role Play..34
Table 3-2: The Modified Types of Request Strategies......38
Table 3-3: The Modified Types of Lexical/Phrasal
           Downgraders...................................39
Table 3-4: The Modified Types of Request Supportive Moves
           (RSMs)........................................40
Table 4-1: Strategies for the ENS and the
           EFL...........................................44
Table 4-2: Strategies for the Textbooks..................45
Table 4-3: Strategies toward Hearers of Higher Status [+P]
           for the ENS and EFL...........................46
Table 4-4: Strategies toward Equals [=P] for the ENS and
           EFL...........................................47
Table 4-5: Strategies toward Hearers of Lower Status [-P]
           for the ENS and EFL...........................47
Table 4-6: Strategies toward Strangers [+D] for the ENS and
           the EFL.......................................48
Table 4-7: Strategies toward Strangers [+D] for the
           Textbooks.....................................48
Table 4-8: Strategies toward Familiars [-D] for the ENS and
           the EFL.......................................50
Table 4-9: Lexical/Phrasal Downgraders for the ENS and the
           EFL...........................................53
Table 4-10: Lexical/Phrasal Downgraders for the
            Textbooks....................................54
Table 4-11: Lexical/Phrasal Downgraders toward Hearers of
            Higher Status [+P] for  the ENS and the
            EFL..........................................60
Table 4-12: Lexical/Phrasal Downgraders toward Hearers of
            Higher Status [+P] for the Textbooks.........61
Table 4-13: Lexical/Phrasal Downgraders toward Equals [=P]
            for the ENSs and the EFL.....................62
Table 4-14: Lexical/Phrasal Downgraders toward Hearers of
            Lower Status [-P] for the ENS and the EFL....62
Table 4-15: Lexical/Phrasal Downgraders toward Hearers of
            Lower Status [-P] for the Textbooks..........63
Table 4-16: Lexical/Phrasal Downgraders toward Strangers
            [+D] for the ENS and the EFL.................65
Table 4-17: Lexical/Phrasal Downgraders toward Strangers
            [+D] for the Textbooks.......................65
Table 4-18: Lexical/Phrasal Downgraders toward Familiars
            [-D] for the ENS and the EFL.................66
Table 4-19: Lexical/Phrasal Downgraders toward Familiars
            [-D] for the Textbooks.......................66
Table 4-20: RSMs for the ENS and the EFL.................68
Table 4-21: RSMs toward Hearers of Higher Status [+P] for
            the ENS and the EFL..........................71
Table 4-22: RSMs toward Equals [=P] for the ENS and the
            EFL..........................................72
Table 4-23: RSMs toward Equals [=P] for the
            Textbooks....................................72
Table 4-24: RSMs toward Hearers of Lower Status [-P] for
            the ENS and EFL..............................75
Table 4-25: RSMs toward Hearers of Lower Status [-P] for
            the Textbooks................................78
Table 4-26: RSMs toward Strangers [+D] for the ENS and the
            EFL..........................................79
Table 4-27: RSMs toward Familiars [-D] for the ENS and the
            EFL..........................................80
Table 4-28: RSMs toward Familiars [-D] for the
            Textbooks....................................82
Table 4-29: Individual ENS’ Strategy and Modifier
            Patterns.....................................84
Table 4-30: Individual EFL Learner’s Strategy and Modifier
            Patterns.....................................87
                                

Andersen, E. S., Brizuela, M., Dupuy, B., & Gonnerman, L. (1999). Cross-linguistic evidence for the early acquisition of discourse markers as register variables. Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 1339-1351.

Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing. New York: Oxford University Press.

Bardovi-Harlig, K., Hartford, B. A. S., Mahan-Taylor, R., Morgan, M. J., & Reynolds, D. W. (1991). Developing pragmatic awareness: closing the conversation. ELT journal, 45(1), 4-15.

Bardovi-Harlig, K. & Mahan-Taylor, R. (2003). Introduction to Teaching Pragmatics. English Teaching Forum, 37-39.

Bialystok, E. (1993). Symbolic representation and attentional control in pragmatic competence. In K. Gabriele and S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Pragmatic Interlanguage (pp. 43-57). New York: Oxford University Press.

Blum-Kulka, S. (1987). Indirectness and politeness in requests: Same or Different? Journal of Pragmatics, 11, 131-146.

Blum-Kulka, S., House, J. and Kasper, G. (Eds.) (1989). Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Request and Apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Blum-Kulka, S. & House, J. (1989). Cross-Cultural and Situational Variation in Requesting Behavior. In S. Blum-Kulka, J. House & G. Kasper (Eds.),Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies (pp. 123-153). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Blum-Kulka, S., House, J. & Kasper, G. (1989).Investigating Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: An Introductory Overview. In S. Blum-Kulka, J., House & G..Kasper (Eds.), Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies (pp.1-34).Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Brown, P. & Levinson, S. (1978). Universals of language usage: Politeness phenomena. In E. Goody (Ed.), Questions and Politeness (pp. 56-324).Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Brown, P. & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Byon, A. S. (2004). Socialpragmatic analysis of Korean requests: pedagogical settings. Journal of Pragmatics, 36, 1673-1704.

Canale, M. & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics,1, 1-47.

Celce-Murcia, M. & Olshtain, E. (2000). Discourse and Context in Language Teaching: A Guide for Language Teachers (pp. 73-97). New York: CUP.

Chang, S. J. (2001). Taiwanese High School English Teachers’ Conceptions of English Conversation: Is There Too Much “English” and Too Little “Conversation”? English Teaching and Learning, 25(4), 71-91.

Chen, C. H. (2000). Senior High School English Teachers’ Perceptions of The New English Teaching Materials and Their Usage in Southern Taiwan. Master Thesis, National Kaohsiung Normal University, Taiwan.

Chung, S. H. (2004). Polite Request Strategies Across Cultures: Chinese and American College Students. English Teaching & Learning, 28(3), 85-106.

Edmondson, W. J. & House, J. (1991). Do learners talk too much? The waffle phenomenon in interlanguage pragmatics. In R. Phillipson, E. Kellerman, L. Selinker, M. Sharwood-Smith and S. Merrill (Eds.), Foreign/Second Language
Pedagogy Research (pp. 273-286). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Ervin-Tripp, S. (1976). Is Sybil there? The structure of some American English directives. Language in Society, 5, 25-66.

Faerch, C. & Kasper, G. (1989). Internal and External Modification in Inerlanguage Request Realization. In S. Blum-Kulka, J. House & G. Kasper (Eds.), Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies (pp. 221-247). NJ: Ablex.

Fuller, J. M. (2003). The influence of speaker roles on discourse marker use. Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 23-45.

Garcia, P. (2004). Developmental Differences in Speech Act Recognition: A Pragmatic Awareness Study. Language Awareness, 13(2), 96-115.

Gu, Y. (1990). Politeness Phenomena in Modern Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 237-257.

Hadzima, A. M. (1999). Sequencing communicative activity types in high school English textbooks. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Symposiumand Book Fair on English Teaching, 509-519. Taipei, Crane.

Harris, S. (2003). Politeness and power: Making and responding to ‘requests’ in institutional settings. Text, 23(1), 27-52.

Hassall, T. (2001). Modifying requests in a second language. IRAL, 39, 259-283.

Hassall, T. (2003). Requests by Australian learners of Indonesian. Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 1903-1928.

House, J. (1989). Politeness in English and German: The Functions of Please and Bitte. In S. Blum-Kulka, J. House & G. Kasper (Eds.), Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and apologies (pp. 96-119). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

House, J & Kasper, G. (1981). Politeness markers in English and German. In F. Coulmas (Ed.), Conversational routine (pp. 157-185). The Hague, Netherlands: Mouton.

House, J. & Kasper, G. (1987). Interlanguage Pragmatics: Requesting in a foreign language. In L. Wolfgang & R. Schulze, Language in Performance. Tbingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.

Hsu, H. F. (2004). Senior High School English Teachers’ Perceptions and Opnions of the New English Teaching Materials and Their Current Usage Status in Northern Taiwan. Master Thesis, National Kaohsiung Normal University, Taiwan.

Hsu, Y. G. (2001). A pilot study on young Chinese EFL learners’ request strategies. In Proceedings of the Tenth International Symposium on English Teaching, 417-428. Taipei: Crane.

Hsu, Y. G. (2003). The Development of Taiwanese EFL Children’s Speech Act Performance: Social Variables and Request Strategies. Master Thesis,National Taipei Teacher’s College, Taiwan.

Hu, H. C. (1994). The Chinese concept of face. American Anthropologist, 46
(1): 45-64.

Huspek, M. (1989). Linguistic variability and power: An analysis of you know/ I think variation in working-class speech. Journal of Pragmatics, 13, 661-683.

Hymes, D. (1972). On Communicative Competence. In J. B. Pride, & J. Holmes (Eds.), Sociolinguistics. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Ide, S. (1989). Formal forms and discernment: two neglected aspects of universals of linguistic politeness. Multilingua, 8, (2/3), 223-238.

Jucker, A. H., Smith, S. W., & Ldge, T. (2003). Interactive aspects of vagueness in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 1737-1769.

Kasper, G., & Dahl, M. (1991). Research methods in interlanguage pragmatics.Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, 215-247.

Koike, D. A. (1989). Pragmatic Competence and Adult L2 Acquisition: Speech Acts in Interlanguage, 73, 279-288.

Lee, J. S. & MacChensney, B. (2000). Discourse Rating Tasks: A teaching tool for developing sociocultural competence. ELT Journal, 54(2), 161-168.

Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. London and New York: Longman.

Lei, C. H. (2001). Social Variables and Chinese Adolescents' Directives: The Development of the Speech Acts in Junior High, Senior High and College Students. Master Thesis, National Tsinghua University, Taiwan.

Li, C. (1996). A Pragmatic Study on English Tense. English Teaching and Learning, 21(2), 39-53.

Li, J. J. (1989). Major Social Variables and Their Realization Patterns of Request in Mandarin Chinese. Master Thesis, National Taiwan Normal University, Taiwan.

Liao, C. C. (1997). A comparison of request speech act in American English and Taiwanese Mandarin. Journal of Feng Chia University, 31, 1-38.

Liao, C., & Bresnahan M. I. (1996). A contrastive pragmatic study on American English and Mandarin refusal strategies. Language Science, 18(3/4), 703-727.

Lin, C. Y. (2004). Teaching Speech Acts in High School: An analysis of English Textbooks. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Symposium and Book Fair on English Teaching, 509-519. Taipei: Crane.

Mao, L, M. (1994). Beyond politeness theory: ‘Face’ revisited and renewed. Journal of Pragmatics, 21, 451-486.

McCarthy, M. (2002). Discourse Analysis for Language Teachers (pp. 5-33). Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
Olshtain, E., & Cohen, A. (1983). Apology: a speech-act set. In N. Wolfson, E. Judd, (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and Second Languge Acquisition (pp.18-35). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Peng, C. S. (2000). Teaching Speech Acts in Taiwan’s EFL Classroom: An Analysis of Teaching Materials. Master Thesis, National Tsing Hua University, Taiwan.

Prince, E., Bosk, C., & Frader, J. (1982). On hedging in physician-physician discourse. In J. di Pietro (Ed.), Linguisticis and the Professions (pp. 83-97). New Jersey: Ablex.

Redeker, G. (1990). Ideational, and pragmatic markers of discourse structure. Journal of Pragmatics,14, 367-381.

Rintell, E. (1981). Sociolinguistic variation and pragmatic ability: A look at learners. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 27, 11-34.

Rintell, E. M. & Mitchell, C. J. (1989). Studying Requests and Apologies: An Inquiry into Method. In S. Blum-Kulka, J. House, & G. Kasper (Eds.), Cross-Cultural pragmatics: Requests and Apologies (pp. 248-272). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse Markers. Cambridge University Press,Cambridge.

Searle, J. (1975). Indirect Speech Acts. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.),Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 3: Speech Act (pp.59-82).

Searle, J. (1976). The classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society,
5, 1-24.

Shenkar, O. & Ronen, S. (1987). The Cultural Context of Negotiations: The Implications of Chinese Interpersonal Norms. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 23 (2), 263-275.

Shih, Y. H. (1986). Conversational Politeness and Foreign Language Teaching.Taipei: Crane.

Sinclair, J. M., & Brazil, D. C. (1982). Teacher Talk. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Sneddon, J. (1996). Indonesian Reference Grammar. Sydney: Allen and Unwin. Stubbe, M., & Holmes, J. (1995). You know, eh and other ‘exasperating expressions’: an analysis of social and stylistic variation in the use of pragmatic devices in a sample of New Zealand English. Language and Communication, 15,(1), 63-88.

Su, I. R. (2004). Bi-directional transfer in EFL users’ requesting behavior. English Teaching and Learning, 29(2), 79-98.

Takahashi, S. (1996). Pragmatic Transferability. SSLA, 18, 189-223.

Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 91-112.

Torsborg, A. (1995). Interlanguae Pragmatics: Requests, Complaints and Apologies. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Trillo, J. R. (2002). The pragmatic fossilization of discourse markers in non-native speakers of English. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 769-784.

Walters, J. (1981). Variation in the requesting behavior of bilingual children. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 27, 77-92.

Watts, R. J. (1992). Linguistic politeness and politic verbal behavior: Reconsidering claims of university. In R. J. Watts, S. Ide, K. Ehlich (Eds.), Politeness in Language: Studies in its History, Theory and Practice (pp. 43-69). New York: Mounton de Gruyter.

Wichmann, A. (2004). The intonation of Please-requests: a corpus-based study.Journal of Pragmatics, 36, 1521-1549.

Wijst, P. (1995). The perceptions of politeness in Dutch and French indirect requests, Text, 15(4), 477-501.

Wolfson, N., Marmor, T., & Jones, S. (1989). Problems in the comparison of speech acts across cultures. In S. Blum-Kulka, J. House, & G. Kasper (Eds.), Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies (pp. 175-196). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Yu, M. C. (1999). Universalisitc and culture-specific perspectives on variation in the acquisition of pragmatic competence in a second language. Pragmatics, 9 (2), 281-312.

Yule, G. (1997). Pragmatics (3rd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.

Wichmann, A. (2004). The intonation of Please-requests: a corpus-based study. Journal of Pragmatics, 36, 1521-1549.

Zhang, Y. (1995a). Strategies in Chinese requesting. In G. Kasper (Ed.), Pragmatics of Chinese as Native and Target Language (pp. 24-68). Second language Teaching and Curriculum Center, Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press.

Zhang, Y. (1995b). Indirectness in Chinese Requesting. In G. Kasper (Ed.), Pragmatics of Chinese as Native and Target Language (pp. 69-118). Second language Teaching and Curriculum Center, Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press.

Zhang, Y. (1995c). Refusing in Chinese. In G. Kasper (Ed.), Pragmatics of Chinese as Native and Target Language (pp. 121-193). Second language Teaching and Curriculum Center, Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press.

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

相關論文