Responsive image
博碩士論文 etd-0530118-195317 詳細資訊
Title page for etd-0530118-195317
論文名稱
Title
工作年資對道歉策略之影響
The Influences of Working Years on Apology Strategies
系所名稱
Department
畢業學年期
Year, semester
語文別
Language
學位類別
Degree
頁數
Number of pages
62
研究生
Author
指導教授
Advisor
召集委員
Convenor
口試委員
Advisory Committee
口試日期
Date of Exam
2018-06-28
繳交日期
Date of Submission
2018-07-31
關鍵字
Keywords
年齡、工作年資、權力、道歉、道歉策略、地位
status, age, apology, apology strategy, working year, power
統計
Statistics
本論文已被瀏覽 5744 次,被下載 41
The thesis/dissertation has been browsed 5744 times, has been downloaded 41 times.
中文摘要
道歉是一種很常見的語言行為。過去以來,大部分研究都著重在學生的道歉策略。然而,研究很少以就業人士為探討對象。本篇文章研究工作「資淺員工(rookies)」與「資深員工(seniors)」的道歉策略之差異。雖然文章著重在受試者的工作年資(working year),也有將受試者與道歉對象之間相對的地位(status)、年齡(age)及工作年資等其它權力相關因素納入考量。本篇文章之研究問題如下:1)資淺員工與資深員工使用道歉策略有何異同?2)其他權力相關因素是否會影響兩者的道歉策略?3)真實生活的道歉經驗是否與前者的結果一致?
本研究對象為八十四位有正式工作經驗的受試者,並依據工作年資區分為資淺員工及資深員工兩組。資料主要用言談情境填充問卷(discourse completion task)蒐集,並利用頻率及卡方檢驗(chi-square test)進行分析。研究結果總共有以下四項:
一、 一般而言,資淺員工比資深員工更常使用補償(repair)、關心(concern)及保證(promise)三種策略,代表資淺員工比資深員工更重視正向禮貌(positive politeness)。
二、 當道歉對象權力較自己高時,資淺員工比資深員工更常使用明確道歉(illocutionary force indicating device)及強化歉意(intensification),因為資淺員工犯錯經常被認為是更嚴重的事情,所以需要更多道歉及強化歉意來彌補。
三、 直接道歉策略(direct apology)比間接道歉(indirect apology)策略更常被使用,與Fraser (1981) 的結果一致。
四、 資深員工因面子(face)較薄,犯錯時較常使用明確解釋(explicit explanation)以免丟臉。資淺員工比較不會用明確解釋,以避免被認為是在推卸責任。
上述四項研究結果顯示,工作年資對於道歉策略的使用具有影響力。之後可以有更多關於工作年資在其他情境下的道歉策略影響。
Abstract
This thesis focuses on the influences of working year on the choices of apology strategies. College students were often the target in past studies of apology. How students apologize after they graduate from school and join the workplace, however, is not under the spotlight. In this study, the aim is to investigate how rookies in the workplace, compared with seniors, apologize. Although attention focuses on the working year of the participants, other factors such as relative age, relative status and relative working year are also considered. Here are the research questions: i)What are the similarities and differences in apology strategies and sub-strategies used by rookies and those by seniors? ii)Do power-related variables affect the differences found in the first question? iii) Do participants’ real-life experiences of apology support the findings in the first two questions?
Data were collected from discourse completion task (DCT) questionnaires in which 84 Taiwanese working people participated. With both the statistical results tabulated from chi-square tests and real-life apology strategies from the participants, there are four findings as listed below:
i. Generally, repair, promise, and concern were used more frequently by rookies than by seniors, meaning that rookies were more aware of the positive politeness than seniors were.
ii. When the apologizers were less powerful than the apologizees, rookies preferred to use illocutionary force indicating device (IFID) and intensification frequently, for it was more severe for rookies to offend more powerful people.
iii. Direct strategies appeared more frequently than indirect strategies, which was consistent to the finding of Fraser’s (1981) study.
iv. Seniors’ faces are vulnerable, so they preferred explicit explanation in order not to lose their faces. In contrast, rookies might not provide clear explanation so as not to be considered irresponsible for the mistake.
As the four findings indicated, working year had an impact on apology strategies. This study helps understand how working people apologize to people with different powers.
目次 Table of Contents
摘要 ii
Abstract iii
List of Tables viii
Chapter 1 Introduction 1
1.1 Background and motivation 1
1.2 Purpose of the study 2
1.3 The organization of the study 3
Chapter 2 Literature Review 4
2.1 Theoretical studies 4
2.1.1 Speech act 4
2.1.2 Politeness 5
2.1.2.1 Cooperative Principle 5
2.1.2.2 Principle of Politeness 6
2.1.2.3 Politeness Theory and face 7
2.2 Apology 8
2.2.1 Realization of apology 9
2.2.2 Power 10
2.2.2.1 Status 10
2.2.2.2 Age 11
2.3 Summary 12
Chapter 3 Methodology 13
3.1 Participants 13
3.2 Data collection method 14
3.2.1 Discourse completion task questionnaire 14
3.2.2 Data collection procedure 16
3.3 Coding scheme 17
3.3.1 Strategy 1: opt out 17
3.3.2 Strategy 2: IFID 18
3.3.3 Strategy 3: intensification 18
3.3.4 Strategy 4: explicit self-blame 18
3.3.5 Strategy 5: self-deficiency 19
3.3.6 Strategy 6: lack of intent 19
3.3.7 Strategy 7: admission of fact 20
3.3.8 Strategy 8: explicit explanation 20
3.3.9 Strategy 9: implicit explanation 21
3.3.10 Strategy 10: specified repair 21
3.3.11 Strategy 11: unspecified repair 22
3.3.12 Strategy 12: showing concern 22
3.3.13 Strategy 13: promise for forbearance 23
3.3.14 Strategy 14: others 24
3.4 Quantitative analysis 24
3.5 Qualitative analysis 24
Chapter 4 Results and Discussion 25
4.1 Statistical results 25
4.1.1 Overall distribution 25
4.1.2 Situation 27
4.1.3 Relative age 28
4.1.4 Relative working year 30
4.1.5 Relative status 31
4.1.6 Summary of the results 33
4.2 Real-life data 35
4.2.1 Sincerity 35
4.2.2 Offer of repair 37
4.3 General discussions 38
4.3.1 First finding 39
4.3.2 Second finding 39
4.3.3 Third finding 40
4.3.4 Fourth finding 41
Chapter 5 Conclusion 42
5.1 Summary 42
5.2 Limitations and suggestions 43
References 45
Appendix: Questionnaire 50
參考文獻 References
Afghari, A. (2007). A sociopragmatic study of apology speech act realization patterns in Persian. Speech Communication, 49(3), 177-185.
Austin, John L. (1962). How to Do Things with Words. New York: Oxford University Press.
Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G. (1989). Cross-cultural Pragmatics: Request and Apologies. Norwood, NJ: Albex Publishing Corporation.
Blum-Kulka, S., & Olshtain, E. (1984). Requests and apologies: A cross-cultural study of speech act realization patterns. Applied Linguistics, 5(3), 196-212.
Bonikowska, M. P. (1988). The choice of opting out. Applied Linguistics, 9(2), 169-181.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brown, R., & Gilman, A. (1960). The Pronouns of power and solidarity. In: T. A. Sebeok (Eds.), Style in Language (pp. 253-276). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Chang, Shu-mei. (2005). A Study on Situational Apology of Mandarin Chinese. Master thesis, National Kaohsiung Normal University.
Chen, Hui-ping. (2008). A Sociopragmatic Study on Gender Differences in Apologetic Strategies. Master thesis, Fu Jen Catholic University.
Chen, Nai-chen. (2014). A Sociopragmatic Study of Apology Strategies in Chinese on Age Differences. Master thesis, Fu Jen Catholic University.
Chen, S. (2009). The Comparison of Professional Development Process among Three Play Therapists. Master thesis, Chinese Culture University.
Chun, L., & Yun, Z. (2010). Apology strategies between social unequals in The Dream of the Red Chamber. Chinese Language & Discourse, 1(2), 264-292.
Cohen, A.D., and E. Olshtain. (1981). Developing a Measure of Sociocultural Competence: The Case of Apology. Language Learning, 31, 113–134.
Deutschmann, M. (2003). Apologizing in British English. Umeå: Umeå University Press.
Fraser, B. (1981). On apologizing. In Coulmas, F. (Ed.). Conversational routine: Explorations in standardized communication situations and prepatterned speech. The Hague: Mouton. 259-271.
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Ed.), Syntax and semantic 3: Speech arts (pp. 41-58). New York: Academic Press.
Guo, M. (1999). Relationship of Teacher Self-efficacy, Classroom Management Strategy and Classroom Management Effectiveness in Elementary School. Doctoral dissertation, National Kaohsiung Normal University.
Ho, D. Y. F. (1976). On the concept of face. American journal of sociology, 81(4), 867-884.
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(2), 155-199.
Holmes, J. (1995) Women, Men and Politeness. London: Longman.
Hou, Yi-chun. (2006). A Cross-cultural Study of the Perception of Apology —Effect of Contextual Factors, Exposure to the Target Language, Interlocutor Ethnicity and Task Language. Master thesis, National Sun Yat-sen University.
Hsu, T., Koo, M., & Yeh, Y. (2013). Investigation of Factors Associated with Sleep Quality Among Male Emergency Department Physicians in Taiwan. Show Chwan Medical Journal, 12(2), 1-9.
Hu, H. C. (1944). The Chinese concepts of “face”. American anthropologist, 46(1), 45-64.
Jebahi, K. (2011). Tunisian university students’ choice of apology strategies in a discourse completion task. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(2), 648-662.
Leech, Geoffrey N. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. London and New York: Longman.
Liao, C., & Yu, G. (2002). A Study of Knowledge Management and Professional Growth for Elementary Teachers. Bulletin of Research on Elementary Education, 10, 63-90.
Mao, L. R. (1994). Beyond politeness theory: “face” revisited and renewed. Journal of Pragmatics, 21, 451-486.
Mir, M. (1992). Do We All Apologize the Same?--An Empirical Study on the Act of Apologizing by Spanish Speakers Learning English. Pragmatics and language learning, 3, 1-19.
Ohtsubo, Y., & Watanabe, E. (2009). Do sincere apologies need to be costly? Test of a costly signaling model of apology. Evolution and Human Behavior, 30(2), 114-123.
Olshtain, E., & Cohen, A. (1983). Apology: A speech act set. Sociolinguistics and language acquisition, 18-35.
Owen, M. (1983). Apologies and remedial interchanges: A study of language use in social interaction. Berlin: Mouton, Walter de Gruyter.
Scher, S. J., & Darley, J. M. (1997). How effective are the things people say to apologize? Effects of the realization of the apology speech act. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 26(1), 127-140.
Shahrokhi, M., & Jan, J. M. (2012). The realization of apology strategies among persian males. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 692-700.
Shih, Hsiang-yi. (2006). An Interlanguage Study of the Speech Act of Apology Made by EFL Learners in Taiwan. Master thesis, National Sun Yat-sen University.
Shih, Hsin-chun. (2006). The Effect of English Proficiency and Social Variables on L2 Apology Strategies: A Case Study on Taiwanese EFL Junior High School Students of Taipei County. Master thesis, National Taipei University of Education.
Spencer-Oatey, H. (1996). Reconsidering power and distance. Journal of Pragmatics, 26(1), 1-24.
Suszczyńska, M. (1999). Apologizing in English, Polish and Hungarian: Different languages, different strategies. Journal of pragmatics, 31(8), 1053-1065.
Taki, Y. (2003). Culture and Politeness: Differences of Apology Strategies of the British and Japanese People: Comparison of Young and Older Subjects. Studies in Language and Literature, 22(2), 27-63.
Tehrani, M. D., Rezaei, O., Dezhara, S., & Kafrani, R. S. (2012). Apology strategies of Iranian undergraduate students. English Language Teaching, 5(2), 93.
Trosborg, A. (1987). Apology strategies in natives/non-natives. Journal of pragmatics, 11(2), 147-167.
Trosborg, A. (1995). Interlanguage Pragmatics: Requests, Complaints and Apologies. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Tsai, I-ting. (2007). Studying Apologies: A Comparison of DCT and Role-play Data. Master thesis, National Sun Yat-sen University.
Walfisch, T., Van Dijk, D., & Kark, R. (2013). Do you really expect me to apologize? The impact of status and gender on the effectiveness of an apology in the workplace. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43(7), 1446-1458.
Wolfson, N., Marmor, T. & Jones, S. (1989). Problems in the comparison of speech acts across cultures. In S. Blum-Kulka, J. House, and Kasper (Eds.), Cross-culture pragmatics: Requests and apologies (pp. 174-196). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Wu, Wan-chi. (2011). Apologies of Mandarin in Taiwan: Pragmatic Strategies and Linguistic Structure. Master thesis, National Taiwan Normal University.
電子全文 Fulltext
本電子全文僅授權使用者為學術研究之目的,進行個人非營利性質之檢索、閱讀、列印。請遵守中華民國著作權法之相關規定,切勿任意重製、散佈、改作、轉貼、播送,以免觸法。
論文使用權限 Thesis access permission:自定論文開放時間 user define
開放時間 Available:
校內 Campus: 已公開 available
校外 Off-campus: 已公開 available


紙本論文 Printed copies
紙本論文的公開資訊在102學年度以後相對較為完整。如果需要查詢101學年度以前的紙本論文公開資訊,請聯繫圖資處紙本論文服務櫃台。如有不便之處敬請見諒。
開放時間 available 已公開 available

QR Code