淡江大學覺生紀念圖書館 (TKU Library)
進階搜尋


下載電子全文限經由淡江IP使用) 
系統識別號 U0002-1608201222564200
中文論文名稱 大學生對於道歉語言行為之口語與非口語回應
英文論文名稱 An Investigation on College Students’ Verbal and Nonverbal Responses to Apology
校院名稱 淡江大學
系所名稱(中) 英文學系碩士班
系所名稱(英) Department of English
學年度 100
學期 2
出版年 101
研究生中文姓名 林于君
研究生英文姓名 Yu-Chun Lin
學號 697110657
學位類別 碩士
語文別 英文
口試日期 2012-06-13
論文頁數 112頁
口試委員 指導教授-林怡弟
委員-許炳煌
委員-王藹玲
中文關鍵字 語言行為  道歉  口語回應  非口語回應 
英文關鍵字 apology  verbal responses  nonverbal responses 
學科別分類 學科別人文學語言文學
中文摘要 先前道歉中介語的研究已探討過許多口語道歉語言行為策略、非口語道歉語言行為策略、以及對於道歉的回應。然而在這些研究當中卻沒有探討過英語為外語的台灣學生對於道歉語言行為之口語與非口語回應。因此,為了更加瞭解台灣學生在道歉的回應和美國人有何差異,本研究分別比較其如何回應道歉的語言、語氣、臉部表情、及肢體動作。受試者分為兩組,第一組為學習英語為外語的六十位台灣大學生,第二組為三十位美國人。語料收集的工具為言談情境填充問卷。六十位學習英語為外語的台灣大學生及三十名美國人皆填寫言談情境問卷,藉由言談情境填充問卷收集受試者在「冒犯類型」和「道歉策略」二項變數下對道歉語言行為之口語與非口語回應的語料,並以卡方檢定和t檢定來做分析。結果顯示,這兩組在此兩項的變數影響之下,口語和非口語的回應都有顯著的差異。在對於道歉的口語回應方面,接受道歉是台灣大學生最常使用的回應,而迴避道歉是美國人最常使用的回應。而在對於道歉的非口語回應方面,台灣學生最常以正常語氣、微笑、輝手示意沒關係這三種肢體語言回應道歉,而美國人則最常以正常語氣、沒表情、沒動作這三種肢體語言回應道歉。此研究可提供台灣英語教學者指導學生正確回應道歉的方式。
英文摘要 Previous studies on interlanguage speech act of apology have investigated verbal strategies of apology, nonverbal strategies of apology, and responses to apology, while little research has been done on verbal and nonverbal responses to apology performed by EFL college students in Taiwan. Therefore, aiming to have a better understanding about the difference between EFL college students in Taiwan and Americans when responding to apology, the study compares the verbal and nonverbal responses of the EFL college students in Taiwan and the Americans to apology. The participants consist of two groups, 60 EFL college students in Taiwan and 30 Americans. A Discourse Completion Test (DCT) was used to collect data. Chi-Square Tests and t-Tests were conducted to analyze the data. The results showed that the two groups of participants perform significantly different when responding to apologies under different types of offenses with different apology strategies. In the aspect of verbal responses to apology, acceptance of apology was the most frequently used by the EFL college students in Taiwan, while avoidance to apology was the most frequently used by the Americans. As for the nonverbal responses to apology, the EFL college students in Taiwan used normal tones, smiling, waving hands most frequently to respond to apologies, while the Americans used normal tones, no facial expressions, and no gesture most frequently to respond to apologies. The implication of the study could provide English teachers with insightful information on the teaching of the appropriate ways to respond to apologies.
論文目次 TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS i
CHINESE ABSTRACT ii
ENGLISH ABSTRACT iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS v
LIST OF TABLES viii

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background and Motivation 1
1.2 Statement of the Problem 4
1.3 Purpose of the Study 6
1.4 Research Questions 7
1.5 Significance of the Study 7
1.6 Definition of Terms 8
CHAPTER TWO REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 9
2.1 Cross-Cultural Communication 9
2.2 Cultural Dimensions and Communication 10
2.3 Communicative Competence 12
2.4 Communication Strategies 13
2.5 Speech Act 15
2.5.1 Speech Act of Apology 16
2.5.2 Politeness 17
2.5.3 Previous Research on Apology strategies 18
2.6 Verbal Communication 24
2.6.1 Categorizations of Verbal Communication 24
2.6.2 Functions of Verbal Communication 25
2.7 Nonverbal Communication 26
2.7.1 Categorizations of Nonverbal Communication 27
2.7.2 Cultural Differences in Nonverbal Communication 27
2.7.3 Functions of Nonverbal Communication 29
2.8 Verbal Strategies of Apology 31
2.9 Nonverbal Strategies of Apology 32
2.10 Responses to Apology 32
CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY 35
3.1 Participants 35
3.2 Instruments 36
3.2.1 Discourse Completion Task 36
3.2.2 Validity of the DCT 38
3.3 Procedures 38
3.4 Data collection 39
3.5 Data analysis 40
3.6 Coding System 41
3.6.1 Types of Offense 41
3.6.2 Apology Strategies 41
3.6.3 Responses to Apology (Verbal responses) 42
3.6.4 Acceptance 42
3.6.5 Tone, Facial Expression, and Body Language (Nonverbal Responses) 42
CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 43
4.1 Types of Offense and Responses in DCT 43
4.1.1 Types of Offense and Responses (EFL learners and Americans) 43
4.1.2 Comparison of Responses between EFL Learners and Americans 51
4.2 Comparison of the Levels of Acceptance of EFL Learners and Americans 52
4.3 Types of Offense and Tone in DCT 58
4.3.1 Types of Offense and Tone in DCT (EFL Learners and Americans) 58
4.3.2 Comparison of Tones with EFL Learners and Americans 65
4.4 Types of Offense and Facial Expressions 66
4.4.1 Types of Offense and Facial Expressions (EFL Learners and Americans) 66
4.4.2 Comparison of Facial Expressions between EFL Learners and Americans 72
4.5 Types of Offense and Body Language 73
4.5.1 Types of Offense and Body Language (EFL Learners and Americans) 74
4.5.2 Comparison of Body Language with EFL Learners and Americans 79
CHAPTER FIVE CONCLUSIONS 81
5.1 Summary 81
5.2 Pedagogical Implication 82
5.3 Limitations of the Study 82
5.4 Suggestions for Future Study 83
REFERENCES 85
APPENDIX 1 Chinese Version of DCT Questionnaire 91
APPENDIX 2 English Version of DCT Questionnaire 101

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Offense of Inconvenience and Responses 44
Table 2 Offense of Social Gaffe and Responses 45
Table 3 Offense of Space and Responses 47
Table 4 Offense of Talk and Responses 48
Table 5 Offense of Possession and Responses 49
Table 6 Offense of Time and Responses 50
Table 9 Offense of Social Gaffe and Tones 60
Table 10 Offense of Space and Tones 61
Table 11 Offense of Talk and Tones 62
Table 12 Offense of Possession and Tones 63
Table 13 Offense of Time and Tones 64
Table 15 Offense of Social Gaffe and Facial Expressions 68
Table 16 Offense of Space and Facial Expressions 69
Table 17 Offense of Talk and Facial Expressions 70
Table 18 Offense of Possession and Facial Expressions 71
Table 19 Offense of Time and Facial Expressions 72
Table 20 Offense of Inconvenience and Body Languages 74
Table 21 Offense of Social Gaffe and Body Languages 75
Table 22 Offense of Space and Body Languages 76
Table 23 Offense of Talk and Body Languages 77
Table 24 Offense of Possession and Body Languages 78
Table 25 Offense of Time and Body Languages 78
參考文獻 REFERENCES
Aijmer, K. (1996). Conversational routines in English: Convention and creativity. New York, NY: Longman.

Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. London: Oxford University Press.

Bachman, L. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G. (1989). Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Blum-Kulka, S., House, J. , & Kasper, G. (1989). Perception and performance in native and nonnative apology. In G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage pragmatics (pp.82-107). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Blum-Kulka, S., & Olshtain, E. (1984). Request and apologies: Across-cultural study of speech act realization patterns (CCSARP). Applied Linguistics, 5(3), 196-213.

Brown, H. D. (2000). Teaching by principles. New York, NY: Addison Wesley Longman.

Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cheng, S. M. (2005). A study on situational apology of Mandarin Chinese. (Unpublished master’s dissertation). National Kaohsiung Normal University, Kaohsiung.

Cohen, A. D. (1996). Investigating the production of speech act sets. In S. M. Gass & N. Joyce (Eds.), Speech acts across cultures (pp.21-43). Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.

Cohen, A. D., & Shively, R. L. (2007). Acquisition of requests and apologies in Spanish and French: Impact of study abroad and strategy-building intervention. The Modern Language Journal, 91(2), 189-212.

Coulmas, F. (1981). Poison to your soul: Thanks and apologies contractively
viewed. In C. Florian (Ed.), Conversational Routine (pp.69-91). Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.

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

Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Dornyei, Z. (1995). On the teachability of communication strategies. TESOL Quarterly 29, 55-84.

Edmondson, W. (1981). Spoken discourse: A model for analysis. Longman: Lodres.

Faerch, C., & Kasper, G. (Eds.), (1983). Strategies in interlanguage communication. London: Longman.

Fraser, B. (1981). On apologizing. In F. Coulmas (Ed.), Conversational routines (pp. 259-271). The Hague: Mouton.

Georgakopoulos, A., & Guerrero, L. K. (2010). Student perceptions of teachers’ nonverbal and verbal communication: A comparison of best and worst professors across six cultures. International Education Studies, 3(2), 120-137.

Goffman, E. (1971). Relations in public, New York: Basic Books.

Hall, E. T. (1981). Beyond culture. Garden City, NY: Anchor/Doubleday.

Hall, E. T. (1990). The hidden dimension (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Anchor Press.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Cultures consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Hofstede, G. (2001). Cultures consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Holmes, J. (1986). Compliments and compliment responses in New Zealand English. Anthropological Linguistics, 28(4), 485-508.

Holmes, J. (1989). Sex differences and apologies: One aspect of communicative Competence. Applied Linguistics, 10(2), 194-213.

Holmes, J. (1990). Apologies in New Zealand English. Language in Society, 19, 155-200.

Holmes, J. 1992. An introduction to sociolinguistics. London: Longman

Hong, W. (2008). Effects of cultural background of college students on apology strategies. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 189, 149-163.

Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. In J. B. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds.), Sociolinguistics (pp.269-293). Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Kasanga, L. A., & Lumu, J. (2007). Cross-cultural linguistic realization of politeness: A study of apologies in English and Setswana. Journal of Politeness Research, 3, 65-92.

Knapp, J. (1992). An empire nowhere: England, America, and literature from utopia to the tempest. Berkeley, University of California Press.

Liao, C. C. (1994). A study of the strategies, maxims, and development of refusal in Mandarin Chinese. Taipei: Crane.

Liu, C. P. (2005). An investigation of the use of apology strategies in English by the Taiwanese EFL college students. Hwa Kang Journal of English Language & Literature, 11, 79-97.

Matsumoto, D. (2006). Culture and nonverbal behavior. In V. Manusov & M. L. Patterson (Eds.), The Sage handbook of nonverbal communication (pp. 219-235). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Matsumura, (2001). Learning the rules for offering advice. A quantitative approach to second language socialization. Language Learning, 51, 635-79.

Mey, J. L. (2001). Pragmatics: An introduction. China: Blackwell.

Olshtain, E. (1989). Speech act behavior across languages. In H. Dechert & M. Raupach (Eds.), Transfer in language production (pp. 53-68). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Olshtain, E., & Cohen, A. D. (1983). Apology: a speech act set. In N. Wolfson & E. Judd (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language acquisition (pp. 18-35). Rowley, M.A.: Newbury House.

Oxford, R. (1990). Language Learning Strategies: What every teacher should know. New York, NY: Newbury House.

Park, H.S., & Guan, X. (2009). Cross-cultural comparion of verbal and nonverbal strategies of apologizing. Journal of International and Intercultural Communication, 2 (1), 66-87.

Rintell, E. M., & Candace, J. M. (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.

Rosengren, K. E. (2000). Communication and introduction. London: Sage.

Rose, K. R. & Ono, R. (1995). Eliciting speech act data in Japanese: The effect of questionnaire type. Language Learning, 45(2), 191-223

Samovar, L. A., Porter, R. E., & Mcdaniel, E.R. (2010). Communication between cultures. Canada: Nelon.

Searle, J. R. (1979). Expression and meaning: Studies in the theory of speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Searle, J. R. (2000). Perspectives of the philosophy of language. Canada: Broadview Press.

Searle, J. R. (Ed.). (1991). The philosophy of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Shih, H. Y. (2006). An interlanguage study of the speech act of apology made by EFL learners in Taiwan. (Unpublished master’s dissertation). Sun Yat-sen University, Kaohsiung.

Trosborg, A. (1987). Apology strategies in natives/nonatives. Journal of Pragmatics, 11(2), 147-169

Tsai, I. T. (2007). Studying apologies: A comparison of DCT and role-play data. (Unpublished master’s dissertation). Sun Yat-sen University, Kaohsiung.


Walters, J. (1979). Strategies for requesting in Spanish and English: structural similarities and pragmatic differences. Language Learning, 29(2), 277-293.

Williams, F. (1992). The new communication. Belmont: Wassworth.

Wang, D. H., & Li, H. (1995). Nonverbal language in cross cultural communication. Sino-US English, 4(10), 66-69.

Wrench, J., McCroskey, J., & Richmond, V. (2008). Human communication in everyday life: Explanations and applications. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.

Wolfson, N. (1981). Invitations, compiments, and the competence of the native speaker. International Joural of Psycholinguistics, 24, 7-22.
論文使用權限
  • 同意紙本無償授權給館內讀者為學術之目的重製使用,於2012-08-22公開。
  • 同意授權瀏覽/列印電子全文服務,於2012-08-22起公開。


  • 若您有任何疑問,請與我們聯絡!
    圖書館: 請來電 (02)2621-5656 轉 2281 或 來信