異議語（disagreement），不管是語言或非語言的異議語策略（disagreement strategies），在中介語語用學（interlanguage pragmatics）領域中，一向是較不為關注的語言行為（speech act）。本研究透過四組受試者（60位台灣大學生的中文、60位美國大學生的英文、30位非英語系的台灣大學生、及30位英語系的台灣大學生的英文）的尺度量表（SRQ）和言談情境填充問卷（DCT）的結果比較，探討台灣大學生英語學習者，如何以英文表現異議語。同時也探討不同情境變數（contextual factors），如場合正式與否（formality of context）、社會距離遠近（social distance）、社會地位高低（social status）、說話者性別（speaker gender）、對話者性別（interlocutor gender）、及話題（topic），對說話者語言表現的影響。語料結果呈現出，台灣大學生較常避免異議語，而美國大學生較常使用直接的異議語（direct disagreement），並同時兼用多種具緩和功能的正面語詞（positive remarks）。研究也同時發現，語言認知分析，如尺度量表及拒絕回應理由（opt-out reasons）的分析，能「提供豐富的社會語用評價（sociopragmatic judgments）及語言行為動機（motivating factors），用來解釋語用語言的使用（pragmalinguistic decisions）」（Bonikowska, 1988: 173）。因此，根據語言認知的分析結果及社會學理論，個人主義文化（individualistic culture）注重自我意識（‘I’），鼓勵英語系國家說話者直接的口語表達，而集體主義文化（collectivistic culture）重視「我們」的團體概念（‘we’）及面子顧慮問題，使中國人面對衝突時因而較傾向追求合諧。另外，受試者面對社會距離最遠的陌生人或店員提出異議語時，「群體內」（in-group）及「群體外」（out-group）概念的文化差異，會造成更明顯的語言差異。在中介語（非英語系及英語系的台灣大學生使用英文）方面，非英語系的台灣大學生的英文異議語策略與台灣大學生的中文異議語策略較相似，尤其是「迴避」（‘avoidance’）及「反駁」（‘contradiction’）等策略。英語系的台灣大學生以英文對好朋友提出異議語時，會過度使用「挑戰對話者」（‘challenge to the interlocutor’）的語言策略，以突顯本身的語言能力。此外，這兩組外語學習者都有部份中文轉移的現象，以致他們以英文表現某些語言結構（linguistic features）並不道地。將來，需要更多中介語研究，導引出說話者對語言行為的語言認知，方能提供豐富的社會價值及其它語言動機等的文化差異，進一步協助解讀英語學習者的語言行為表現。

The speech act of disagreement has been one of the speech acts that receive the least attention in the field of interlanguage pragmatics, in terms of both linguistic and non-linguistic realization of disagreement strategies. The present study was aimed to investigate how Chinese EFL learners perform the speech act of disagreement in English by comparing SRQ and DCT data from four groups of speakers, including 60 native speakers of Chinese, 60 native speakers of English, 30 EFL-low proficiency speakers, and 30 EFL-high proficiency speakers. The speakers’ language performance in variation with several contextual factors, such as formality of context, social distance, social status, speaker gender, interlocutor gender and topic, was also examined. The data on linguistic strategies showed that the Chinese speakers avoided disagreement more often while the English speakers frequently used direct disagreement characterized by various and original positive remarks as softening devices. It was also found that the perception data, from the SRQ and the opt-out reasons, suggests rich ‘sociopragmatic judgments and motivating factors that have explanatory power in describing products of pragmalinguistic decisions’ (Bonikowska, 1988: 173). Therefore, as evidenced by the perception data and supported by sociological theories, the individualistic culture’s emphasis on ‘I’ consciousness might have promoted the English speakers’ bald verbal expressions while the collectivistic culture’s priority of ‘we’ concept and face concern have explained the Chinese speakers’ harmony orientation in disagreement. Moreover, cultural difference in distinction between in-group and out-group signified differences in language performance when the speakers were disagreeing with the interlocutor at the longest distance, that is, the stranger or the clerk. As for the interlanguage, the EFL-low speakers behaved closer to the Chinese native speakers in using such strategies as ‘avoidance’ and ‘contradiction’. The EFL-high speakers overperformed ‘challenge to the interlocutor’ when disagreeing with the close friend in order to demonstrate their English proficiency. In addition, both the EFL groups performed non target-like linguistic features partly due to pragmatic transfer from Chinese. In the future, more interlanguage research could elicit the speakers’ perception of the speech act under study, which would supply abundant evidence of cross-cultural differences in social values and other motivating factors that could help interpret the EFL learners’ realization of speech acts.

LIST OF TABLES VIII
LIST OF FIGURES XI

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 RATIONALE OF THE STUDY 1
1.2 PURPOSE OF THE STUDY 3
1.3 OVERVIEW OF CHAPTERS 3

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 4
2.1 WESTERN AND EASTERN POLITENESS THEORIES AND SOCIAL VALUES 4
2.1.1 Brown and Levinson’s Concept of Face and Politeness Theory 4
2.1.2 Chinese Concept of Face and Politeness 6
2.1.2.1 Chinese Concept of Face 6
2.1.2.2 Chinese Politeness Principle 8
2.1.3 North American and East Asian Cultures: Individualism & Collectivism 9
2.2 INTERLANGUAGE PRAGMATICS 11
2.2.1 Sociolinguistic Competence & Transfer 11
2.2.2 Proficiency Levels on Interlanguage 12
2.3 PREVIOUS STUDIES ON DISAGREEMENT 14
2.3.1 Context & Disagreement 15
2.3.1.1 Disagreement as a Dispreferred or Preferred Act 16
2.3.1.2 Effect of Contextual Factors on Disagreement 17
2.3.2 Politeness Theory & Disagreement 18
2.3.2.1 L1 Study 18
2.3.2.2 Interlanguage Studies 19
2.3.2.3 Cross-cultural Studies 21
2.3.2.4 Chinese Disagreement Studies 22
2.3.2.5 Linguistic Disagreement Strategies 23
2.3.2.6 Non-linguistic Disagreement Strategies 27
2.3.3 Gender Difference & Disagreement 28
2.3.4 Summary 29

CHAPTER 3 METHOD 31
3.1 PARTICIPANTS 31
3.2 INSTRUMENTS 32
3.2.1 Discourse Completion Task (DCT) 33
3.2.2 Opt-out Reasons 36
3.2.3 SRQ 37
3.3 PROCEDURE 38
3.4 CODING SYSTEM OF DCT 39
3.4.1 No Disagreement 41
3.4.2 Indirect Disagreement 50
3.4.3 Direct Disagreement 52
3.4.4 Positive Remarks 58
3.5 DATA ANALYSIS 62
3.5.1 Analysis of Pragmatic Transfer 62
3.5.2 Statistical Procedures 64

CHAPTER 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 66
4.1 GENERAL RESULTS FROM SRQ AND DCT 66
4.1.1 Perception of Disagreement 67
4.1.1.1 SRQ 67
4.1.1.2 Opt-out Reasons 69
4.1.2 Pragmatic Strategies 73
4.1.2.1 Disagreement Strategies 73
4.1.2.2 Positive Remarks 79
4.1.3 Summary 83
4.2 RESULTS FROM SRQ AND DCT BY CONTEXTUAL FACTORS 84
4.2.1 Public or Private Context 84
4.2.1.1 SRQ 84
4.2.1.2 Opt-out Reasons 88
4.2.1.3 Disagreement Strategies 92
4.2.1.4 Positive Remarks 94
4.2.1.5 Summary 97
4.2.2 Social Distance 98
4.2.2.1 Perception and Pragmatic Strategies 99
4.2.2.2 Public vs. Private Situations 107
4.2.2.3 Summary 112
4.2.3 Social Status 113
4.2.3.1 Perception and Pragmatic Strategies 113
4.2.3.2 Public vs. Private Situations 125
4.2.3.3 Summary 129
4.2.4 Speaker Gender 130
4.2.4.1 Perception and Pragmatic Strategies 130
4.2.4.2 Public vs. Private Situations 132
4.2.4.3 Summary 134
4.2.5 Interlocutor Gender 134
4.2.6 Topic 137
4.3 TRANSFER OF LINGUISTIC FEATURES 141
4.3.1 Usage of ‘But’ 141
4.3.2 I don’t Think It’s Good/ I Think It’s not Good. 144
4.3.3 Address Term 145
4.3.4 Formulaic Expressions 146

CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION 148
5.1 SUMMARY 148
5.2 IMPLICATION 151
5.3 LIMITATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS 151

REFERENCES 153
APPENDIXES 164
APPENDIX I: CHINESE VERSION OF QUESTIONNAIRE 164
APPENDIX II: ENGLISH VERSION OF QUESTIONNAIRE 172

Ambady, N., Koo, J., Lee, F., & Rosenthal, R. (1996). More than words: Linguistic and nonlinguistic politeness in two cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70 (5), 996-1011.
Atkinson, J. M., & Drew, P. (1979). Order in Court. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press.
Bachman, L. (1990). Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Baxter, L. A. (1984). An investigation of compliance gaining as politeness. Human Communication Research, 10, 427-456.
Beebe, L. M., & Cummings, M. C. (1985). Speech act performance: A function of the data collection procedure. Paper Presented at the Sixth Annual TESOL and Sociolinguistics Colloquium at the International TESOL Convention. New York.
Beebe, L. M., & Cummings, M. C. (1996). Natural speech act data versus written questionnaire data: How data collection method affects speech act performance. In S. M. Gass, & J. Neu (Eds.), Speech Acts across Cultures: Challenges to Communication in a Second Language (pp. 65-86). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Beebe, L. M., & Takahashi, T. (1989a). Do you have a bag?: Social status and patterned variation in second language acquisition. In S. Gass, C. Madden, D. Preston, & L. Selinker (Eds.), Variation in Second Language Acquisition Volume1: Discourse and Pragmatics. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Beebe, L. M., & Takahashi, T. (1989b). Sociolinguistic variation in face-threatening speech acts: Chastisement and disagreement. In M. Eisenstein (Ed.), The Dynamic Interlanguage: Empirical Studies in Second Language Variation (pp. 199-218). New York: Plenum.
Beebe, L., Takahashi, T., & Uliss-Weltz, R. (1990). Pragmatic transfer in ESL refusals. In R. C. Scarcella, E. Andersen, & S. D. Krashen (Eds.), Developing Communicative Competence in a Second Language (pp. 55-73). New York: Newbury House.
Benedict, R. (1943). A note on Chinese culture and personality. Mimeo. Washington, D. C.
Blum-Kulka, S. (1982). Learning how to say what you mean in a second language. Applied Linguistics, 3, 29-59.
Blum-Kulka, S. (1987). Indirectness and politeness in requests: same or different? Journal of Pragmatics, 11, 131-146.
Blum-Kumka, S. (1989). Playing it safe: The role of conventionality in indirectness. In S. Blum-Kulka, J. House-Edmondson, & G. Kasper (Eds.), Cross-cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies (pp. 37-70). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Blum-Kulka, S., Danet, B., & Gherson, R. (1985). The language of requesting in Israeli society. In J. Forgas (Ed.), Language and Social Situations (pp. 113-139). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G. (1989). Cross-cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. Norwood, NJ: Alblex Publishing Corporation.
Blum-Kulka, S., & Olshtain, E. (1984). Requests and apologies: A cross-cultural study of speech-act realization patterns (CCSARP). Applied Linguistics, 5/ 3, 196-213.
Bodman, J., & Eisenstein, M. (1988). May God increase your bounty: The expression of gratitude in English by native and non-native speakers. Cross currents, 15(1), 1-21.
Bond, M. H., & Smith, P. B. (1996). Cross-cultural social and organizational psychology. Annual Review of Psychology, 47, 205-235.
Bonikowska, M. P. (1988). The choice of opting out. Applied Linguistics, 9(2), 169-181.
Boxer, D. (1989). Building rapport through indirect complaints: Implications for language learning. Penn Working Papers in Educational Linguistics, 5(2), 28-42.
Brooks, V. R. (1982). Sex differences in student dominance behaviour in female and male professors’ classrooms. Sex Roles, 8, 683-690.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. D. (1978). Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. In E. N. Goody (Ed.), Questions and Politeness (pp. 56-289). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. D. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chen, R. (1993). Responding to compliments: A contrastive study of politeness strategies between American English and Chinese speakers. Journal of Pragmatics, 20, 49-75.
Chen, X., Ye, L., & Zhang, Y. (1995). Refusing in Chinese. In G. Kasper (Ed.), Pragmatics of Chinese as Native and Target Language (Technical Report #5, pp. 119-163). Honolulu, Hawaii: University of Hawaii, Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center.
Coates, J. (1989). Gossip revisited: language in all-female groups. In J. Coates, & D. Cameron (Eds.), Women in Their Speech Communities: New Perspectives on Language and Sex (pp. 94-122). London and New York: Longman.
Cohen, A. D. (1996). Speech acts. In S. Mckay, & N. Hornberger (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and Language Teaching (pp. 383-420). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Cohen, A. D., & Olshtain, E. (1981). Developing a measure of sociocultural competence: The case of apology. Language Learning, 31(1), 113-134.
Condon, J. C. (1984). With Respect to the Japanese. Tokyo: Yohan.
Coser, L. (1956). The Functions of Social Conflict. New York: Free Press.
DeCapua, A. (1988). Complaints: A comparison between German and English. Unpublished manuscript. Bronxville, NY: Concordia College, English Language Center.
Dogancay-Aktuna, S., & Kamisli, S. (1996). Discourse of power and politeness: Through the act of disagreement. Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Association for Applied Linguistics (18th, Chicago, IL, March 23-26, 1996).
Edelsky, C. (1981). Who’s got the floor? Language in Society, 10, 383-421.
Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and Power. London and New York: Longman.
Felton, M. (2001). The development of argumentative discourse skill. Discourse Processes, 32/2-3, 135-153.
Fraser, B. (1990). Perspectives on politeness. Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 219-236.
Fraser, B., & Nolen, W. (1981). The association of deference with linguistic form. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 27, 93-109.
Frescura, M. A. (1993). A Sociolinguistic Comparison of “Reactions to Complaints”: Italian L1 vs. English L1, Italian L2, and Italian as a Community Language. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Toronto: University of Toronto, Graduate Department of Education.
Georgakopoulou, A. (2001). Arguing about the future: On indirect disagreements in conversations. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 1881-1900.
Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-face Behavior. New York: Anchor Books.
Goldstein, B. Z., & Tamura, K. (1975). Japan and America: A Comparative Study in Language and Culture. Tokyo: Charles E. Tuttle.
Goodwin, M. H. (1983). Aggravated correction and disagreement in children’s conversations. Journal of Pragmatics, 7, 657-677.
Green, G. (1989). Pragmatics and Natural Language Understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Grice, P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole, & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Speech Acts (pp. 41-58). New York: Academic Press.
Grimshaw, A. (Ed.). (1990). Conflict Talk: Sociolinguistic Investigation of Arguments in Conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gu, Y. (1990). Politeness phenomena in modern Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 237-257.
Gumperz, J. J. (1982). Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: University Press.
Helt, R. C. (1982). Developing communicative competence: A practical model. Modern Language Journal, 66, 255-262.
Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Ho, D. Y. F. (1975). On the concept of face. American Journal of Sociology, 81(4), 867-884.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Work-related Values. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. London: McGraw-Hill.
Holmes, J. (1989). Women’s and men’s apologies: Reflectors of cultural values. Applied Linguistics, 10(2), 194-213.
Holmes, J. (1991). Language and gender. Language Teaching, 24:4, 207-220.
Holtgraves, T. (1997). Yes, but… Positive politeness in conversation arguments. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 16, 222-239.
Holtgraves, T. (1998). Interpersonal foundations of conversational indirectness. In S. R. Fussell, & R. J. Kreuz (Eds.), Social and Cognitive Approaches to Interpersonal Communication (pp. 71-89). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Holtgraves, T., & Yang, J. (1990). Politeness as universal: Cross-cultural perceptions of request strategies and inferences based on their use. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 719-729.
Holtgraves, T., & Yang, J. (1992). The interpersonal underpinnings of request strategies: General principles and differences due to culture and gender. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 246-256.
Hsu, C. S. (1996). “Face”: An Ethnographic Study of Chinese Social Behavior. Ann Arbor: UMI.
Hu, H. C. (1944). The Chinese concepts of ‘face’. American Anthropologist, 46(1), 45-64.
Hwang, K. K. (1997). Guanxi and mientz: Conflict resolution in Chinese society. Intercultural Communication Studies, 7(1), 17-42.
Ide, S. (1989). Formal forms and discernment: Two neglected aspects of universals of linguistic politeness. Multilingua, 8, 223-248.
Janney, R., & Arndt, H. (1993). Universality and relativity in cross-cultural politeness research: A historical perspective. Multilingua, 12, 13-50.
Johnston, B., Kasper, G., & Ross, S. (1998). Effect of rejoinders in production questionnaires. Applied Linguistics, 19(2), 157-182.
Kakava, C. (1993). Conflicting argumentative strategies in the classroom. In E. A. James (Ed.), GURT 1993: Strategic Interaction and Language Acquisition: Theory, Practice, and Research (pp. 402-420). Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.
Kakava, C. (1995). Directness/indirectness in student-professor disagreement sequences: Issues of power and politeness. Paper Presented at the Annual AAAL Conference, Long Beach, CA.
Kakava, C. (2002). Opposition in modern Greek discourse: Cultural and contextual constraints. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 1537-1568.
Kalick, S. (1975). ‘…like Ann’s gynaecologist or the time I was almost raped’ – personal narratives in women’s rap groups. Journal of American Folklore, 88, 3-11.
Kasper, G. (1990). Linguistic politeness: current research issues. Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 193-218.
Kasper, G. (2000). Data collection in pragmatic research. In S. O. Helen (Ed.), Culturally Speaking: Managing Rapport through Talk across Cultures (pp. 316-341). London & New York: Continuum.
Kasper, G., & Blum-Kulka, S. (1993). Interlanguage Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kasper, G., & Rose, K. R. (1999). Pragmatics and SLA. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 19, 81-104.
Kasper, G., & Rose, K. R. (2002). Pragmatic Development in a Second Language. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Kim, U., Triandis, H. C., Kagitcibasi, C., Choi, S. C., & Yoon, G. (Eds.). (1994). Individualism and Collectivism: Theory, Method, and Applications. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications.
Kotthoff, H. (1993). Disagreement and concession in disputes: On the context sensitivity of preference structures. Language in Society, 22, 193-216.
Krainer, E. (1988). Challenges in a psychotherapy group. In S. Axmaker, A. Jaisser, & H. Singmaster (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (pp. 100-113). Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.
Kuo, S. H. (1992). Formulaic opposition markers in Chinese conflict talk. Georgetown University Round Table on Language and Linguistics (pp. 388-402).
Kuo, S. H. (1994). Agreement and disagreement strategies in a radio conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 27(2), 95-121.
La Barre, W. (1946a). Some observations on character structure in the Orient: The Chinese. Part one. Psychiatry, 9, 215-237.
La Barre, W. (1946b). Some observations on character structure in the Orient: The Chinese. Part two. Psychiatry, 9, 375-395.
Lakoff, R. (1973). The logic of politeness, or minding your p’s and q’s. Chicago Linguistics Society, 9, 292-305.
Lakoff, R. (1975). Language and Woman’s Place. New York: Harper and Row.
Leech, G. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. New York: Longman.
Leet-Pellegrini, H. M. (1980). Conversational dominance as a function of gender and expertise. In H. Giles, P. Robinson, & P. Smith (Eds.), Language: Social Psychological Perspectives (pp.97-104). Oxford: Pergamon.
Leichty, G., & Applegate, J. L. (1991). Social-cognitive and situational influences on the use of face-saving persuasive strategies. Human Communication Research, 17, 451-484.
Leung, K., & Bond, M. (1984). The impact of cultural collectivism on reward allocation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47(4), 793-804.
Lin, Z. Y. (1999). Disagreement in Mandarin Chinese Conversation. MA thesis. Taipei: National Chengchi University.
Linnell, J., Porter, F. L., Stone, H., & Chen, W. L. (1992). Can you apologize me? An investigation of speech act performance among non-native speakers of English. Penn Working Papers in Educational Linguistics, 8(2), 33-53.
Loveday, L. (1982). The Sociolinguistics of Learning and Using a Non-native Language. Oxford: Pergamon.
Maeshiba, N., Yoshinaga, N., Kasper, G., & Ross, S. (1996). Transfer and proficiency in interlanguage apologizing. In S. Gass and J. New (Eds.), Speech Acts across Cultures: Challenge to Communication in a Second Language (pp.155-187). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Maltz, D. N., & Borker, R. A. (1982). A cultural approach to male-female miscommunication. In J. J. Gumperz (Ed.), Language and Social Identity (pp. 196-216). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mao, L. R. (1994). Beyond politeness theory: ‘Face’ revisited and renewed. Journal of Pragmatics, 21, 451-486.
Matsumoto, Y. (1988). Reexamination of the universality of face: Politeness phenomena in Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics, 12, 403-426.
Mulac, A., Wiemann, J. M., Widenmann, S. J., & Gibson, T. W. (1988). Male/female language differences and effects in same sex and mixed-sex dyads: The gender-linked language effect. Communication Monographs, 55, 315-335.
Munro, F. (1987). Female and male participation in small-group interaction in the ESOL classroom. Unpublished terms project. Graduate Diploma in TESOL. Sydney: Sydney College of Advanced Education.
Muntigl, P., & Turnbull, W. (1998). Conversational structure and facework in arguing. Journal of Pragmatics, 29, 225-256.
Nakajima, Y. (1997). Politeness strategies in the workplace: Which experiences help Japanese businessmen acquire American English native-like strategies? Working Papers in Educational Linguistics, 13(1), 49-69.
Nwoye, O. (1992). Linguistic politeness and socio-cultural variations of the notion of face. Journal of Pragmatics, 18, 309-328.
O’Donnell, K. (1990). Difference and dominance: How labor and management talk conflict. In A. D. Grimshaw (Ed.), Conflict Talk: Sociolinguistic Investigations of Arguments in Conversations (pp. 210-240). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Olshtain, E., & Blum-Kulka, S. (1984). Cross-linguistic speech act studies: Theoretical and empirical issues. In L. Mac Mathuna, & D. Singleton (Eds.), Language across Cultures (pp. 235-248). Dublin: Irish Association for Applied Linguistics.
Olshtain, E., & Blum-Kulka, S. (1985). Degree of approximation: Nonnative reactions to native speech act behavior. In S. Gass, & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 303-325). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Philipsen, G., & Huspek, M. (1985). A bibliography of sociolinguistic studies of personal address. Anthropological Linguistics, 27(1), 94-101.
Piotrowska, M. (1987). An investigation into the sociolinguistic competence of Hong Kong University students with specific reference to “making complaints.” Unpublished manuscript. Hong Kong: University of Hong Kong, Language Center.
Pomerantz, A. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/ dispreferred turn shapes. In J. M. Atkinson, & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ranney, S. (1995). Politeness to mask control: Power and TA discourse. Paper presented at the Annual AAAL Conference, Long Beach, CA.
Rees-Miller, J. (2000). Power, severity, and context in disagreement. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 1087-1111.
Riley, P. (1981). Towards a contrastive pragmalinguistics. In J. Fisiak (Ed.), Contrastive Linguistics and the Language Teacher (pp. 121-146). Oxford: Pergamon.
Sacks, H. (1973). On the preferences for agreement and contiguity in sequences in conversation. Public lecture at the Linguistic Institute, University of Michigan. In G. Button, J. R. E. Lee (Eds.), Talk and Social Organization (pp. 54-69). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Sacks, H. (1987). On the preferences for agreement and contiguity in sequences in conversation. In G. Button, & J. R. E. Lee (Eds.), Talk and Social Organization (pp. 54-69). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Sakamoto, N., & Naotsuka, R. (1982). Polite Fictions: Why Japanese and Americans Seem Rude to Each Other. Tokyo: Kinseido.
Schick Case, S. (1988). Cultural differences, not deficiencies: An analysis of managerial women’s language. In S. Rose, & L. Larwood (Eds.), Women’s Careers: Pathways and Pitfalls (pp. 41-63). New York: Praeger.
Schiffrin, D. (1984). Jewish argument as sociability. Language in Society, 13, 311-335.
Schiffrin, D. (1985). Everyday argument: The organization of diversity in talk. In T. A. van-Dijk (Ed.), Handbook of Discourse Analysis, vol. 3, Discussion and Dialogue (pp. 35-46). London: Academic Press.
Schmidt, R. W., & Richards, J. C. (1981). Speech acts and second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 129-157.
Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Cultural dimensions of values: Towards an understanding of national differences. In U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S. C. Choi, & G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and Collectivism: Theoretical and Methodological Issues (pp.85-119). Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications.
Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. W. (1995). Intercultural Communication: A Discourse Approach. Oxford: Blackwell.
Shea, H. K. (2003). Japanese Complaining in English: A Study of Interlanguage Pragmatics. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Teachers College, University of Columbia. Dissertation Abstracts International, 64(05), 1629A. (UMI No. 3091292)
Sherzer, J. (1987). A diversity of voices: Men’s and women’s speech in ethnographic perspective. In S. U. Philips, S. Steele, & C. Tanz (Eds.), Language, Sex, and Gender in Comparative Perspective (pp. 95-120). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Shimamura, K. (1993). Judgment of Request Strategies and Contextual Factors by Americans and Japanese EFL Learners. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii at Manoa, Department of English as a Second Language.
Simmel, G. (1955). Conflict. Trans. By K. H. Wolff. Glencoe, III.: Free Press.
Smith, P. B., & Dugan, S. (1998). Individualism: Collectivism and the handling of disagreement. A 23 country study. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 22 (3), 351-367.
Smith, P. B., Dugan, S., & Trompenaars, F. (1996). National culture and managerial values: A dimensional analysis across 43 nations. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 27, 231-264.
Sornig, K. (1977). Disagreement and contradiction as communicative acts. Journal of Pragmatics, 1, 347-374.
Stubbe, M. (1991). Talking at Cross-purposes: The Effect of Gender on New Zealand Primary Schoolchildren’s Interaction Strategies in Pair Discussions. MA thesis. Wellington: Victoria University.
Swacker, M. (1979). Women’s verbal behaviour at learned and professional conferences. In B. L. Dubois, & I. Crouch (Eds.), The Sociology of the Languages of American Women (pp. 155-160). San Antonio, Tex.: Trinity University.
Takahashi, S. (1995). Pragmatic transferability of L1 indirect request strategies perceived by Japanese learners of English. Dissertation Abstract International, DAI-A 56(05), (UMI No.9532631 )
Takahashi, S. (1996). Pragmatic transferability. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18(2), 189-223.
Takahashi, T., & Beebe, L. M. (1987). The development of pragmatic competence by Japanese learners of English. JALT Journal, 8(2), 131-155.
Takahashi, T., & Beebe, L. M. (1993). Cross-linguistic influence in the speech act of correction. In G. Kasper, & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlanguage Pragmatics (pp. 138-157). New York: Oxford University Press.
Takahashi, S., & DuFon, M. A. (1989). Cross-linguistic influence in indirectness: The case of English directives performed by native Japanese speakers. ［ERIC Document ED 370 439.］
Tannen, D. (1990). You Just don’t Understand: Women and Men in Conversation. New York: William Morrow.
Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 91-112.
Thomas, J. (1984). Cross-cultural discourse as “unequal encounter”: Towards a pragmatic analysis. Applied Linguistics, 5, 226-235.
Triandis, H. C. (1990). Cross-cultural studies of individualism and collectivism. In J. J. Berman (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (Vol. 37, pp. 41-133).
Trosborg, A. (1995). Interlanguage Pragmatics. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Tu, W. M. (1985). Selfhood and otherness in Confucian thought. In A. J. Marsella, G. DeVos, & F. L. K. Hsu (Eds.), Culture and Self: Asian and Western Perspectives (pp. 231-251). New York: Tavistock Publications.
Walker, A. G. (1987). Linguistic manipulation, power, and the legal setting. In L. Kedar (Ed.), Power through Discourse (pp. 57-80). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Wang, Y. F. (1997). Dispreferred responses in Mandarin Chinese conversation. Proceedings of the First Symposium on Discourse and Syntax in Chinese and Formosan Languages (pp. 103-134). Taipei: NTU.
Weidemann, D. (2001). Learning about “face” – “subjective theories” as a construct in analyzing intercultural learning processes of Germans in Taiwan. Forum: Qualitative Social Research (on-line journal), 2(3). Available at: http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs/fqs-eng.htm.
Weizman, E. (1989). Requestive hints. In S. Blum-Kulka, J. House-Edmondson, & G. Kasper (Eds.), Cross-cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies (pp. 71-95). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
West, C. (1998). When the doctor is a ‘lady’: Power, status and gender in physician-patient encounters. In J. Coates (Ed.), Language and Gender: A Reader (pp. 396-412). Oxford: Blackwell.
West, C., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1983). Small insults: A study of interruptions in cross-sex conversations between unacquainted persons. In B. Thorne, C. Kramarae, & N. Henley (Eds.), Language, Gender and Society (pp. 102-117). Cambridge, MA: Newbury House.
West, C., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1985). Gender, language, and discourse. In T. A. Van Dijk (Ed.), Handbook of Discourse Analysis, Vol. 4: Discourse Analysis in Society (pp. 103-124).
Wolfson, N. (1989). Perspectives: Sociolinguistics and TESOL. New York: Newbury House.
Woods, N. (1989). Talking shop: sex and status as determinants of floor apportionment in a work setting. In J. Coates, & D. Cameron (Eds.), Women in Their Speech Communities (pp. 141-157). London: Longman.
Yu, M. C. (2003). On the universality of face: evidence from Chinese compliment response behavior. Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 1679-1710.
Zhang, Y. (1995). Indirectness in Chinese requesting. In G. Kasper (Ed.), Pragmatics of Chinese as Native and Target Language (pp. 69-118). Honolulu, HI: Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center, University of Hawaii Press.
Zhao, G., & Gao, W. (1990). Minzu Yu Wenhua 【Nationality and Culture】. Nannin: Guangxi People’s Publishing House.