研究生: |
伍宥蓁 Wu, Yu-Chen |
---|---|
論文名稱: |
華語與韓語拒絕策略之對比分析──以職場溝通為例 A Contrastive Analysis of Chinese and Korean Refusal Strategies in Workplace Communication |
指導教授: |
謝佳玲
Hsieh, Chia-Ling |
口試委員: |
洪嘉馡
Hong, Jia-Fei 許展嘉 Hsu, Chan-Chia 謝佳玲 Hsieh, Chia-Ling |
口試日期: | 2022/09/08 |
學位類別: |
碩士 Master |
系所名稱: |
華語文教學系 Department of Chinese as a Second Language |
論文出版年: | 2022 |
畢業學年度: | 110 |
語文別: | 中文 |
論文頁數: | 162 |
中文關鍵詞: | 拒絕言語行為 、職場溝通 、跨文化溝通 、華語教學 |
英文關鍵詞: | refusal speech acts, workplace communication, interlanguage analysis, Chinese teaching |
研究方法: | 比較研究 |
DOI URL: | http://doi.org/10.6345/NTNU202201603 |
論文種類: | 學術論文 |
相關次數: | 點閱:204 下載:34 |
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 |
拒絕雖具造成雙方心理負擔的特質,但其為與他人互動中常見的行為,在職場情境也無法避免。而不同文化背景的人於拒絕策略的選用上皆有所異同,臺灣及韓國雖同屬集體主義國家,文化背景相似,但在職場溝通中使用的拒絕策略卻也不盡相同。
過去雖有許多拒絕言語行為研究,卻少有聚焦於職場溝通中的研究,故本研究從職場情境中,選出請求、提供、建議及邀請四種常見的言語行為,請受試者以線上問卷進行語篇補全測試,受試者需要在上述四種情境中,分別拒絕兩種對象,共八個情境題。受試者首要拒絕不熟但社會地位相當的對象,如:同事;受試者接著要拒絕不熟但社會地位比自己高的對象,如:主管、老闆。研究對象包含臺灣地區的華語母語者以及韓國地區的韓語母語者。
研究結果顯示,兩者差異最大的為華語母語者以直接說不作為拒絕策略的頻率高於韓語受試者,而相較於華語母語者,韓語母語者較少使用輔助策略,但兩者皆高度仰賴主體策略中的間接策略完成拒絕言語行為。其中,兩者使用最多的為外在阻因策略,即傾向以因他人產生的事由、客觀事實或模糊未詳述的理由作為拒絕理由。於輔助策略的選用上,兩者皆偏好心理緩和策略,即傾向藉由表達自身歉意或感謝來緩解拒絕行為帶來的心理負擔。而最令兩國母語者難以拒絕的情境為請求加班情境,且當對方社會地位較高時,兩國母語者選擇不拒絕對方的比例皆提升,揭示社會權勢對兩國受試者行使拒絕言語行為皆帶來難度。
最後,本研究根據研究結果提出教學設計及建議,欲使華語學習者藉由任務性教學活動,提升根據情境與對象靈活的辨別並使用拒絕策略的能力。
Although refusal appears to be a mental burden, it is common and inevitable in the process of interacting with others, including workplace communication. People from various cultural backgrounds use refusal strategies in different ways. Taiwanese and Koreans have similar cultural backgrounds, but their refusal strategies differ. To date, research has focused on contrastive analysis of refusal speech acts, or more specifically on interlanguage analysis of Chinese and Korean. However, few studies have been conducted on the contrastive analysis of Chinese and Korean Refusal Strategies in the workplace. As a result, the contexts for the Discourse Completion Test were chosen from four common workplace speech acts: requests, offers, suggestions, and invitations. Participants were asked to complete DCT in the form of an online questionnaire and were required to refuse two types of targets, people with equal social status or people with higher social status, in the four contexts listed above. Participants must be native Chinese speakers in Taiwan or Korean speakers in South Korea.
The study's findings indicate that Chinese native speakers use "direct refusal" as a refusal strategy more frequently than Korean participants, and Korean native speakers use fewer "auxiliary strategies" than Chinese native speakers. Both, however, rely heavily on the "indirect strategy" to complete the refusal speech acts. External impending factors are commonly used as refusal excuses in all indirect strategies. People tend to use reasons caused by others, objective facts, or vague and unspecified reasons as an external impending factor. Both Chinese and Korean native speakers prefer mental mitigation strategies in the selection of auxiliary strategies, that is, people tend to ease the mental burden by expressing their apologies or gratitude during the refusal. The most difficult work situation is the request for overtime. According to the data, both Chinese and Korean native speakers use fewer refusal strategies but are more accepting in this context. Furthermore, when faced with a request, suggestion, offer, or invitation from someone of higher social status, both Chinese and Korean native speakers use refusal strategies less than when faced with someone of equal social status. This revealed social status does matter in Chinese and Korean refusal studies.
Based on the findings of the study, some refusal-related teaching plans and tasks were proposed in order to improve Chinese learners' ability to use and be flexible in their awareness of the various refusal strategies.
Voicetube BLOG(2021)。職場文化差異不可怕!一起認識臺灣與世界各國的職場文化差異!擷取日期:2021年10月21日,取自https://bit.ly/3pW0Z7x
尹恩美(2004)。韓國人和韓國學習者拒絕行為中禮貌策略的比較研究:以保全面子的應對方式為中心。對外韓國語教育,29,117-145。
尹悅(2011)。儒家文化在韓國。赤峰學院學報(漢文哲學社會科學版),32(9),104-105。
王愛華(2001)。英漢拒絕言語行為表達模式調查。外語教學與研究,33(3),178-185。
王葳(2019)。中韓拒絕言語行為對比研究。碩士論文,黑龍江大學。
王燕(2007)。漢語間接拒絕言語行為實施原因變相探析。聊城大學學報,(2),295-296。
安珠延(2021)。我做了什麼會產生職業倦怠。大塊文化。
曲禹宣(2012)。現代漢語拒絕言語行為與策略及其教學探究。碩士論文,國立政治大學。
朱明愛(2010)。韓國語的儒家文化特徵。延邊大學學報社會科學版,43(4),5。
朴淑子(2009)。韓國語語法教程。北京語言大學出版社。
李宗勛、張曉宇(2007)。中韓日三國語言文化比較-以一般性特點及歷史視角為中心。東疆學刊,24(4),6-14。
李明彥、林柏豪、楊子儀、葉羿廷(2018)。華人職場文化探討:場面話的探索研究。文化研究季刊,164,68-91。
林文凱(2021年7月6日)。臺灣與韓國的歷史比較(一):韓/美關係初探。歷史學柑仔店。https://bit.ly/3t0bubT
林堅(2008)。韓國企業管理與企業文化特色。北京行政學院學報,3,67-68。
姜春玉(2014)。淺談韓國語中的敬語。遼寧師專學報(社會科學版),93(3),27-28。
段遠鵬(2007)。企業是追求幸福的手段-以奇美為例看臺灣企業獨特的“幸福文化”。商場現代化,11,310。
孫雪岩(2009)。“韓流”探源—解讀韓國的融合文化。聊城大學學報社會科學版,1,78-81。
徐盛桓(1992)。禮貌原則新擬。外語學刊,2,1-7。
高杰(2014)。職場日語拒絕表達研究。碩士論文,遼寧師範大學。
張絮茵(2012)。商務漢語拒絕言語行為研究。華語文教學研究,9(1),73-98。
梁慧(2020)。禮貌原則視角下職場交往中的會話拒絕策略。北方文學,30,139-140。
許春華(2010)。儒文化對韓國經濟的影響。安順學院學報,12(2),66-68。
許哲源(2013)。對於韓國語拒絕言語行為的研究。博士論文,黑龍江大學。
麻靜(2020)。現代漢語拒絕言語行為及其回應研究。碩士論文,渤海大學。
彭喬渝(2019)。華語回應拒絕之語用策略分析及其教學應用。碩士論文,國立臺灣師範大學。
黃海金(2019)。拒絕言語行為中自我防衛策略的文化內涵。現代語文,168(3),175-179。
楊芳(2010)。言語行為研究的歷史,現狀及啟示。赤峰學院學報:漢文哲學社會科學版,4,124-126。
賈玉新(1997)。跨文化交際學。上海外語教育出版社。
網路溫度計(2021年4月9日)。工作做得好,不如馬屁拍得好!10大學校沒教的「職場潛規則」。取自https://bit.ly/3JNgBT0
趙元任(1968)。中國話的文法。香港中文大學。
劉紅艷、駱莉(2006)。淺析韓國現代化模式中的文化因素。湖北社會科學,2,138-140。
劉森林(2003)。語用策略與言語行為。外語教學,3,10-15。
劉森林(2007)。語用策略。社會科學文獻出版社。
劉葆(2006)漢語誠意拒絕和虛假拒絕言語行為的禮貌性研究。碩士論文,東北師范大學。
蔡伊婷(2018)。中韓請求禮貌語言表現研究:以臺灣韓語學習者為例。博士論文,文化大學。
蔣為文(2010)。《訓民正音》語文政策與韓國文字之崛起。臺灣國際研究季刊,6(4),53-69。
鄭E子(2018)。韓國職場為何那樣?!。橙實文化。
鄭妮妮(2019)。中法文化差異之研究:以拒絕策略為例。碩士論文,文藻外語大學。
鄭鳳霞、張順興(2009)。中國儒家傳統文化對韓國社會發展的影響。延邊大學學報社會科學版,42(4),62-66。
賴紋萱(2012)。拒絕言語行為之難點分析及教學應用-以澳大利亞籍學生為例。碩士論文,國立臺灣師範大學。
謝佳玲(2010)。華語拒絕請求的策略分析:語體與語境的作用。臺灣華語教學研究,1,111-137。
謝佳玲、賴紋萱(2010)。華語拒絕策略與情境因素之互動。載於國立政治大學(主編),第四屆美國國際教育交流協會華語文教學研討會論文集(1-26頁)。國立政治大學。
謝國平(1985)。語言學概論。三民書局。
魏岩軍、王建勤、朱雯靜(2015)。不同文化背景漢語學習者跨文化認同研究。華文教學與研究,4,38-47。
羅玉玲(2016)。臺灣職場拒絕策略之社會語用學研究。碩士論文,國立雲林科技大學。
龐德美(2007)。中英拒絕言語行為對比研究。碩士論文,揚州大學。
蘆麗婷(2014a)。漢英職業交往中的拒絕言語行為研究。博士論文,華中師範大學。
蘆麗婷(2014b)。職業交往中的拒絕藝術——基於中美職場劇的拒絕言語行為對比。信陽師範學院學報:哲學社會科學版,34(2),105-108。
蘭曉霞(2013)。中國學習者韓國語“請求—拒絕”對話研究。博士論文,上海外國語大學。
顧曰國(2010)。顧曰國語言學海外自選集語用學與話語分析研究。外語教學與研究出版社。
Ahrens, F. (2016). Seoul Man: A Memoir of Cars, Cultures, Crisis, and Unexpected Hilarity Inside a Korean Corporate Titan. Harper Business.
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words? The Clarendon Press.
Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Hartford, B. S. (1991). Saying “no” in English: Native and nonnative rejections. Pragmatics and Language Learning, 2, 41-57.
Beebe, L. M., Takahashi, T., & Uliss-Weltz, R. (1990). Pragmatic transfer in ESL refusals. Developing communicative competence in a second language,55-73. Newbury House.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1978). Politeness: Some universals in language usages. Cambridge University Press.
Chen, X., Ye, L., & Zhang, Y. (1995). Refusing in Chinese. In G. Kasper (Ed.), Pragmatics of Chinese as native and target language (pp. 119-163). University of Hawaii Press.
Cook, A. B. (1969). Introduction to the English language: Structure and history. Ronald.
De Rycker, A. (2007). Should business students be taught how to say ‘no’? A comparison of Flemish and US rejection letters in English. ABLA Conference.
Edward, R., D., & David F. (1990). Planning strategies for world evangelization. Wm. B. Eerdmans-Lightning Source.
Hsieh, C.-L. (2006). Different pragmatic orientations, different conceptualizations of politeness: A crosscultural inquiry into refusing strategies. Proceedings of the 31st International LAUD Symposium, Series A: General and Theoretical Paper No. 682 (pp. 1-25). Essen, Germany: LAUD Linguistic Agency.
Hussein, T. M. H. (2018). Strategies of refusal in American English and Egyptian Arabic discourse. CDELT Occasional Papers in the Development of English Education, 64(1), 365-385.
Inook, L. (1994). A comparison of Korean and American refusal strategies. English Teaching, 49, 221-251.
Liao, C.-C. (1994). A Study on the strategies, maxims, and development of refusal in Mandarin Chinese (Unpublished master’s thesis). National Taiwan Normal University.
Lii-Shih, Y. E. (1994). What do “yes” and “no” really mean in Chinese? In James E. Alatis (Ed.), Georgetown University round table on languages and linguistics: educational linguistics, crosscultural communication, and global interdependence (pp.128-149). Georgetown University Press.
Lyuh, I. (1992). The art of refusal: comparison of Korean and American cultures (Unpublished master’s thesis). Indiana University.
Mey, J. (1993). Pragmatics: An introduction. Oxford, U.K., Blackwell.
Mitkova, P. (2018). Refusal strategies in business communication of native English Speakers. Knowledge International Journal, 23(5), 1451-1456.
Rubin, J. (1983). How to tell when someone is saying “no”? In N. Wolfson and E. Judd (eds), Socialinguistics and language acquisition (pp. 10-17). Newbury House.
Searle, J. (1969). Speech acts: an essay in the philosophy of language. Cambidge Unervisity Press.
Shoshana, B. K., & Elite O. (1984). Requests and apologies: A cross-cultural study of speech act realization patterns. Applied Linguistics, 5(3), 196-213.
Triandis, H. C. (1995). Hrizontal and vetical dimensions of individualism and collectivism: A theoretical and measurement refinement. In Richard E. Nisbett (Eds.), Individualism and collectivism (pp. 240-275). Routledge.
Wolfson, N. (1986). The bulge: A theory of speech behavior and social distance. In J. Fine (Ed.), Second Language discourse: A textbook of current research (pp. 21-38). Norwood: N.J.: Ablex.
Yule, G., & Widdowson, H. G. (1996). Pragmatics. Oxford University Press.