Studying Apologies: A Comparison of DCT and Role-play Data

209 Pages·2007·0.72 MB·English

by  國立中山大學 外國語文學系研究所 蔡伊婷

⊕

國立中山大學外國語文學系研究所
碩士論文

「道歉」語言行為研究：言談情境填充問卷及言談情境角色
扮演之比較

STUDYING APOLOGIES: A COMPARISON OF DCT AND
ROLE-PLAY DATA

研究生：蔡伊婷撰
By I-Ting Tsai
指導教授：林玉惠博士
Advisor: Dr. Yuh-Huey Lin

中華民國 96 年 09 月
September 2007
摘要

在中介語語用學 (Interlanguage Pragmatics) 領域裡，過去文獻已廣泛討論由不同
語料收集工具所收集的語料之效度。本研究透過語言行為 (speech act) 領域中二
種最普遍的研究方法，亦即，言談情境填充問卷 (Discourse Completion Task) 及
言談情境角色扮演 (role play)，收集道歉語言行為之語料並比較道歉策略
(apology strategies) 及內在修飾語 (internal modification) 之使用。六十名以中文
為母語的台灣大學生及六十名學習英語為第二語言之台灣大學生填寫言談情境
填充問卷；二十四名以中文為母語的台灣大學生及四十名學習英語為第二語言之
台灣大學生參與言談情境角色扮演。研究結果顯示，無論是在言談情境填充問卷
亦或在言談情境角色扮演裡，受試者者們傾向使用直接道歉策略 (Direct
Expression of Apology)、承認錯誤 (Acknowledge Responsibility) 及提出補償措施
(Offer of Repairs) 做為他們主要的道歉策略。此外，受試者在此二種研究方法
中，也都傾向使用增強道歉程度的修飾語 (MAXIMIZERs) 多於降低冒犯程度的
修飾語(MINIMIZERs) 。然而，進一步分析道歉策略及內在修飾語之使用頻率及
分佈，結果發現二種研究方法之間存在些許不同之處。相較於言談情境填充問
卷，受試者在言談情境角色扮演中使用較多道歉策略及較多的內在修飾語。此
外，受試者在填寫言談情境填充問卷時，也使用較少類別的道歉策略及較少類別
的內在修飾。另外，由於英語能力較低落，以及對於面對面的互動較沒把握
(Rintell and Mitchell, 1989)，學習英語為第二外語的非外文系學生，使用較多的
「無爭議性策略」(‘play-it-safe’ strategy) (Faerch and Kasper, 1989; Trosborg,
1987)。換句話說，學習英語為第二外語的非外文系學生使用較多的直接道歉，
並在所有的道歉情境下使用增強道歉程度的特徵(MAXIMIZERs)多於降低冒犯程
度的特徵(MINIMIZERs)。除此之外，若將以中文為母語的台灣大學生再劃分成
二組不同的組別：英語系學生及非英語系學生，結果顯示出一些群體內的差異。
ii
例如，在言談情境角色扮演的語料上顯示，英語系學生及非英語系學生之道歉策
略的喜好順序不同。另外，英語系學生也比非英語系學生使用較多的中文語氣
詞，「啊」、「吧」、及「呢」。研究結果意味，將台灣大學生依照其教育背景，另
外分成不同組別是必要的。本研究也另外指出，傳統上，根據英語系統所分類的
內在修飾模式可能無法完整解釋中文的道歉語言行為。中文的語氣助詞在英文中
沒有可相對應之詞 (Tang and Tang, 1997)，然而回顧以往道歉語言行為之研究，
內在修式模式的分類卻都將中文語氣詞忽略了。因此，本研究藉由將中文語氣詞
「啊」、「吧」、及「呢」列入內在修式語的分類中，修改了傳統上對於道歉語言
中的內在修式語的分類 (Blum-Kulka & Kasper, 1989; Lin and Ho, 2006; Trosborg,
1995)。結果指出，雖然先前關於道歉語言內在修飾模式的研究 (Lin and Ho, 2006)
顯示英語母語人士較中文母語人士使用較多的內在修飾語，然而，若將中文語氣
詞列入內在修飾語的分類之中，結果卻顯示中文母語人士較英文母語人士更常修
飾其言語的語氣。此結果暗指中文語氣詞對於中文母語人士在表達說話時的態度
的重要性。最後，為了提高語料的效度，未來相關研究應收集真實語境之語料並
分析言談情境填充問卷及言談情境角色扮演是否皆能代表真實言語。此外，為了
針對跨文化及中介語做更進一步分析，未來研究也應收集中文母語人士、英語母
語人士、學習英文為第二外語的學生之語料。

iii
ABSTRACT

The validity of the speech act data obtained from different types of elicitation
instruments has been widely debated in the Interlanguage Pragmatics literature. This
study compared the use of apology strategies and modality markers from apology
speech act data collected from two most popular speech act elicitation tasks, namely,
Discourse Completion Task (DCT) and role plays. Sixty native speakers of Chinese
(NS-C) and sixty EFL learners responded to DCT. Twenty four NS-C and forty EFL
learners participated in role plays. Results show that subjects tended to use Direct
Expression of Apology, Acknowledge Responsibility and Offer of Repairs as their
main strategies in apology situations both on DCT and in role plays. In addition,
participants tended to exploit MAXIMIZERs more than MINIMIZERs in both methods.
However, differences between two approaches were revealed when frequencies and
distributions of apology strategies and modality markers were examined. Role plays
elicited overall more apology strategies and modality markers than DCT did.
Participants were also found to employ a narrower range of strategies and modality
markers on DCT. Because of the feeling of insecurity in face-to-face encounters
(Rintell and Mitchell, 1989), EFL-L exhibited more ‘play-it-safe’ strategies (Faerch
and Kasper, 1989; Trosborg, 1987) by giving more direct apologies, and exploiting
more MAXIMIZERs than MINIMIZERs across four situations. When dividing NS-C
into two separate groups: English majors (NS-C-EM) and non-English (NS-C-NEM),
some in-group differences were revealed. For instance, in role-play data, the
preference order for apology strategy choice was different between NS-C-EM and
NS-C-NEM. Also, NS-C-EM tended to exploit overall more Chinese particles, a, ba,
and ne, than their NS-C-NEM counterparts. The finding suggests that it is necessary
to divide NS-C into different groups based on their educational background such as
iv
English majors and non-English majors. The present study also pointed out that
traditional categorization of apology internal modification which was based on the
language system of English may fail to fully capture Chinese apology behaviors.
Chinese modal particles which have no English equivalent (Tang and Tang, 1997)
have been ignored in the categorization of apology internal modifications in the
literature. Thus, a modified coding system which included Chinese particles, namely,
“A” (啊), “BA” (吧), and “NE” (呢), was proposed based on traditional categorization
of apology internal modification developed in the previous studies (Blum-Kulka &
Kasper, 1989; Lin and Ho, 2006; Trosborg, 1995). The result indicates that while the
previous study (Lin and Ho, 2006) on apology internal modification which excluded
Chinese particles has revealed that NS-C exploited less modality markers than their
native speakers of English (NS-E) counterparts, the result in the present showed an
opposite pattern in that by tagging Chinese particles at the end of the utterances, NS-C
were found to modulate their tone more often than NS-E. This might imply the
importance of the Chinese particles for NS-C in conveying attitude. Finally, in order
to increase the validity of data elicitation methods, further studies addressed to the
methodological issue should include the analysis of the responses obtained from
naturally occurring data and examine whether both data obtained from DCT and role
plays are representative of ‘natural speech’ . Also, in order to have cross-cultural and
cross-linguistic comparison, speech acts data produced by NS-E, NS-C, and EFL
learners collected through DCT, role plays, and naturally occurring data are needed
for future researches.
v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Without supports from many people, this thesis can never be accomplished. This
thesis is the product of the National Science Council project “Interlanguage Speech
Acts” (NSC 94-2411-H-110-010; NSC95-2411-H-110-005) conducted by Dr.
Yuh-Huey Lin. Therefore, I would like to acknowledge with profound gratitude to her
for offering me opportunity to participate in the “Interlanguage Speech Act Project”.
She has aroused my great interest in the field sociolinguistics. Throughout the entire
period of doing this research, she has provided me with invaluable insights and
opinions which have inspired me a lot.
An exceptional gratitude goes to my committee members: Dr. Syu-Ing Shyu, and
Dr. Tsai-Ling Liang. They have given me insightful comments and suggestions which
made my study more significant.
I also wish to acknowledge a debt to all the people who have been helpful: all
informants of this study, and the members of the Interlanguage Speech Act Project:
Chia-Hui, Chin-Yen, Hsiang-Yi, Hung-Wei, Miao-Tzu, Po-Chin, Sami, and
Xiang-Ling for their precious advice and constant supports. I would like to express
my special thanks to Hsiang-Yi, Po-Chin, and Sami, for their kindness and generosity
of offering me data they have collected and coded. I would like to thank my dear
classmates: Chia-Hua, Chia-Wen, Chih-Chieh, Hsin-Chin, Meng-Ting, and Ya-Li,
and my senior, Bao-Yu, for their long-term support and encouragement.
Finally, my deepest gratitude goes to my dearest family: my parents, my sister
and brother, for their everlasting love and total support. This thesis would not exist
without their encouragement and patience. Their confidence in me has made the
completion of this thesis meaningful.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………………...… IV
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.....................................................................................VI
LIST OF TABLES.......................................................................................................X
LIST OF FIGURES.................................................................................................XII
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION.............................................................................1
1.1 METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES IN INTERLANGAGE STUDIES.............................1
1.2 APOLOGY SPEECH ACT STUDY AND MOTIVATION........................................3
1.3 PURPOSE OF THE STUDY................................................................................7
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW.................................................................8
2.1 DATA COLLECTION IN SPEECH ACTS AND INTERLANGUAGE PRAGMATICS
STUDIES............................................................................................................8
2.1.1 Methods Eliciting Perception Data............................................................9
2.1.1.1 Multiple Choice Questionnaire........................................................10
2.1.1.2 Rating Scales....................................................................................11
2.1.1.3 Stimulated Recall.............................................................................12
2.1.2 Methods Eliciting Production Data..........................................................13
2.1.2.1 Authentic Discourse.........................................................................13
2.1.2.2 Discourse Completion Tasks............................................................14
2.1.2.3 Role play..........................................................................................17
2.2 THE USE OF MULTIPLE APPROACHES IN SPEECH ACT PRODUCTION.......20
2.3 COMPARING DIFFERENT MEASURES IN SPEECH ACT BEHAVIORS............21
2.4 THE SPEECH ACT OF APOLOGY..................................................................28
2.4.1 Definition.................................................................................................28
vii
2.4.2 Apology Strategies...................................................................................30
2.4.3 Previous Studies on the Speech Act of Apology......................................39
2.4.3.1 L1 Studies.........................................................................................40
2.4.3.2 Cross-cultural and Interlanguage Studies.........................................41
CHAPTER 3 METHOD.........................................................................................45
3.1 INFORMANTS................................................................................................45
3.2 INSTRUMENT................................................................................................47
3.3 PROCEDURES...............................................................................................51
3.4 DATA ANALYSIS AND TRANSCRIPTION........................................................52
3.5 CODING SYSTEM..........................................................................................53
3.5.1 APOLOGY STRATEGIES.............................................................................53
3.5.2 INTERNAL MODIFICATIONS......................................................................66
3.5.2.1 MAXIMINZERs vs. MINIMIZERs................................................66
3.5.2.2 Chinese Particles: A, BA, and, NE..................................................70
CHPATER 4 RESUTLS AND DISCUSSION......................................................77
4.1 DISTRIBUTION OF APOLOGY STRATEGIES......................................................77
4.1.1 Overall Pattern of Apology Strategies Used on DCTs and in Role plays...77
4.1.2 Apology Strategy Preference Order on the DCT and in role plays.........80
4.1.3 Apology Strategies Used Among the Four Groups..................................90
4.1.4 TASK INFLUENCES ON APOLOGY STRATEGIES............................................95
4.1.4.1 Response Differences between DCT and Role Plays for NS-C-EM...95
4.1.4.2 Responses Differences between DCT and Role Plays for NS-C-N
............................................................................................................................104
4.1.4.3 Responses Differences between DCT and Role Plays for EFL-H..113
4.1.4.4 Responses Differences between DCT and Role Plays for EFL-L..118
viii
4.2 Effect of L2 Proficiency: Pragmalinguistic Transfer........................126
4.3 DISTRIBUTION OF MODALITY MARKERS ON DCT AND ROLE PLAY.......132
4.3.1 Overall Use of Modality Markers..........................................................132
4.3.2 MAXIMIZERs vs. MINIMIZERs.........................................................137
4.3.3 MINIMIZING Upgraders vs. Downgraders..........................................140
4.3.4 Chinese Particles: A, BA, and NE.......................................................144
4.3.5 Preference of Modality Markers............................................................148
4.3.6 MAXIMIZERs vs. MINIMIZERs Across Four Situations....................155
4.3.7 Problems Resulted from Traditional Apology Internal Modifications..158
CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION..............................................................................161
5.1 SUMMARY..................................................................................................161
5.2 IMPLICATION FOR FUTURE RESEARCHES.................................................164
APPENDIX A: QUESTIONNAIRE: CHINESE VERSION FOR NS-C.....................178
APPENDIX B: Questionnaire: English Version for EFL...............................186
APPENDIX C: ROLE PLAY SITUATIONS: CHINESE VERSION FOR NS-C.........194
APPENDIX D: ROLE PLAY SITUATIONS: ENGLISH VERSION FOR EFL...........195
APPENDIX E: ROLE PLAY TRANSCRIPTION CONVENTIONS...........................196

ix
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Groupings of the participants of DCT and role plays................................47
Table 2 Descriptions and contextual factors of four scenarios on DCT and in role
plays...........................................................................................................50
Table 3 Categorization of Modality Markers in Apology Realization...................76
Table 4 Mean number of apology strategies used on DCT and in role plays.........77
Table 5 Apology strategy preference order on DCT..............................................81
Table 6 Apology strategy preference order in role plays.......................................83
Table 7 Relative Frequency of Apology Strategy for DCT....................................92
Table 8 Relative frequency of apology strategies for role play..............................93
Table 9 Frequency of the eight main apology strategies used by NS-C-EM on DCT
and in role plays.........................................................................................97
Table 10 Frequency of the eight main apology strategies used by NS-C-NEM on
DCT and in role plays..............................................................................105
Table 11 Frequency of the eight main apology strategies used by EFL-H on DCT
and in role plays.......................................................................................114
Table 12 Frequency of the eight main apology strategies used by EFL-L on DCT
and in role plays.......................................................................................119
Table 13 Frequency of Explicit Acceptance of the Blame in the four situations on
the DCT and in role plays for EFL-L.......................................................124
Table 14 Number and frequency of negative pragmalinguistic transfer in EFL
learners’ interlanguage apologies............................................................127
Table 15 Number and frequency of modality markers on DCT and role play by
NS-C, EFL-H and EFL-L........................................................................133
Table 16 Number and frequency of modality markers on DCT and role play by
NS-C-EM, NS-C-NEM, EFL-H and EFL-L............................................134
x