Languages nd Iteration Suis Vol. 16, December 2016, pp. 57-80, OE:10:3966/181147172016120016008 An Analysis of Disagreement Speech Act Performed by Taiwanese Undergraduates: Considering Social Status, Context, and Mode of Conversation as Material Setting Factors SBASZTBHALHR : RHBRAEP GFL Psb ik > SEIS MARAE A Yumi Kurihara* Siaw-Fong Chung** RMR BE SEF Abstract ‘This paper examines the factors of social status, contexts, and mode of conversation in situations of disagreement in Taiwan, A questionnaire of discourse completion test was completed by 164 Mandarin native speakers in Taiwan, The result showed that, in terms of social status, there was no difference between interlocutors of higher and of lower status. As for the context factor, the findings were twofold: first, in more formal settings such as academic and office situations, participants tended to use roundabout expressions; in more casual home situations, relatively emotional expressions of disagreement were generated, As for the mode of conversation, it was found that participants were able to adjust their ways of disagreeing whenever they were prompted to use a particular tone. This showed how situational disagreements could be observed in Mandarin contexts. Keywords: Disagreement, Social Status, context, Mode of Conversation ai BE SSE AC BY EH (disagreement + ft €F J {11 (Social status) + gH 5% ARAN SMS ° HEF, i AEA (Discourse Completion Test) + Ha [1640 838 MARAE ° PHERRSA AS + CER HRA IE + BERRA ES Hirth AUR A THe BS SLA SC Tit» EXTAGEN ROS + (FEED SEAM SRURS + EPA AM + AEE Pe MEE SR + SER a UR AES » BRIE Of LURE SEN AA © DAES + SOAR PGE + ALSO AT + SANE» DRE BRR (context) S438 A. az7E (mode of conversation)fi “Lecturer, Department of Hotel Management, Minghsin University of Science and Technology SATE ROR AR Assistant Professor, Department of English, National Chengchi University DESL AE SEL CR SBF EAS EHLA103-2420-11.002-001-Y 10210) 104-2420-11-004.034-MY 2H EN — + CELA RARER‘An Analysis of Disagreement Speech Act Performed by Teiwancse Undergraduates: (Considering Socal States, Context, and Mode of Conversation as Material Setting Factors 1. it 1.1 PASE ER “ARTIS TAOS ZOR 1 LCREENM + ARS ATES + HLS RR RD aT (ERUPTED it RG ERE ANTE » ARERR A TI © fH Sam AI RMU + RTT AD TTA EE RT UE + SRS MALS Fi ATHY HAL Bardovi-Harlig & Dornyei, 1998; Matsumura, 2001; $796.8 + 2007) + the SSE AAR (Li & Lin, 2015; BGPSE + 2010) « ACSA TES LAL ERIIZ SN + LUCA + AORTA ia Mf) > CRRA 3 ARAUAT CAR d+ Pall... mb Se + (HBC LE AP A ea) > ECABSREAR » PEPE — AR BAY 77 EL AGF © FRR RNG RACER + SEE RAM CMR + (PLE ACP CR AE RTT 1S}7(Chen, 2010; Liu, 2009; Tuan, 2006; PRI + 2015; SMM + 2014) + (NPR eL OrubAiT + HAM LRE: RENAE A METALS « FS SOUR AE RE AT + BR EAR A LION PATE » lta DEFER KS ASE TOE + OS BAAS HL HAS + ANAS LHS +S BANE ARE Re 1.2 OSEAN Cet HUTT + ARRAS EAR METRE > De HL HAL ah GE A A + TER ER ACE RA + BCR RELY ela WITT UR FR © HEIR» A PRA SUSAR EL Hi A + CEH AWA nh AAI ABS WB 7k {EAM * BIA A LARA LE + HR REBELS HAT + BA PRISE SBENT ANE) EAS BA BBY SEU # SSGSAG RATE TTT + REALE A LPR NE WLIRE + SSR RESET ERR Hi UTE ° SiR NER I He CARS» EU RAT HE AER» ES PRT» ZEAE Fi GA HAE ALE + MSA ER + 2, TT SESE at 21 + 4E A FA SHE HE (politeness) fee $e EZ NC A A Lakoff (1973) » Leech (1983)#fIBrown and Levinson (1987)%Languages and International Studies Brown and Levinson (1987) LakofffilLecch#t) SR [HEH 7 it 2 EA GSES + FAUNA BOTH AC + MIME ES FR (universality + SER Aa MRI (+ AE AGBIF ANY RE] + BRAM F (positive facclMI AA ZA CATTLE AZ Te ~ DREN BEIT Y-(negative face) > — AR TD st > iB aie ais SE OR MS aA OY TMT H+ AL REP AE BBG HAD SR A (positive politeness) ALLify ii 242 FIM (negative politeness) » A RMIT + MALT AWA A ATI Fe 47 #3 (face threatening act » fil #BASFTAYAY AY ATE HE © BORER WL 2GS AE ALFTA + FIRE ZS PSH BAF (on record) » AREA AIH (off record) © 53H} + Brown and Levinson (1987)4 4 F (di PEPTAE MEA A 3 J (Gormula to calculate the weightiness of FTA) Wx=D(S,H)+P(H,S)'Rx « {iPMR2ESD, P, Ri AUR PAM) AEIE + WAR Weightiness (W) > Cit ALFTAMY MAME + D(SH)/E A RAGE (speaker) FLEE AG (hearer) AY #: HEME (social distance) » {Lt REMCHE 2 AUsMa SZ MHL we HALTER A + PCH,S MUR ZS BS 3H ALR BA A ZPD AY HB J) BB (R (power relation) + REI] ft 2250 1b HZ FTAA 58 NA Hi] (ranking of imposition) » {7 Sx (5 AST6] 3C (LFS 77 APTA RS AE FS 71 Ue) > 7S Se ARH EEE S28] Matsumoto (1988), Ide (1989), Gu (1990), Fraser (1990), Sifianou (2012) 382i] - GAPS BS RH GEA BAMHtE + FAAS Brown and Levinson. FHP SC(LEHESAISE MIZE » TUECHEE SCC PAA AG FRAC A A ae OS. A EA th. DU ‘HHL F AVAL Bla] (RB 2012: 117) © PELL AI SRR EL 1 + AA SUC PREFERS + RO SA + ORT AL BOB SEAM LARS » Dib ASE SE SEE Be HSE MURATA ACRE ATE PR + BE PRET RAMUIES CTR + ASLAN AA AIT PTA EEE © 559 + Brown and Levinson3f3 tt & HUA RETA REISE » (LIM AR PRT Hh Ha EE AIEEE» SSR PETA REA AIS SE + (th (hd BUA AAD, PAIRKY3d = INA HG (Brown and Levinson, 1987:17) = ' 75S FLAN + Gil SOUGESTUDARR > GASES + EBT ATH ALORD PRA TAS TR » UH ASHES EL 77 2.2 CEE RAEZ ADE 22 ER #EHEH JJM > Rees-Miller (2000:1088)§% 47 Searle (1975)flSoming (1977) HAM + HARA AA ERR HAT FAE RE ¢ BRAT RSNA AREAS BEG ROAR REE &* [i{SCF3"seems to doa remarkably adequate job in predicting politnest assessments” + *BLSCIBA Speaker S disagrees when s/he considers untrue some Proposition P uttered or presumed to be espoused by an Addressee A and reacts with an utterance the propositional content or implicature af which is Nor P‘An Analysis of Disagreement Speech Act Performed by Taiwancte Under Considering Socal States, Context, and Mode of Conversation as Mate Sifianou (2012:1554) $132 — 242 1H SEAN BE + AGEL — LARGE ARB 8? RAT LUE PALIP EY GE + AUER ONES SLA ER AE aa Ay BC GY A WY RA YS 4) F (utterance) BHAT ° * 2.2.2 SBS Fi) APE rH = SNELL SR ES BN LA Sh ASE CA] HAE Miller (2000) Bee ‘Tuan (2006) Beebe & Takahashi (1989) if Rees-Miller (2000) Matsumura (2001) AAR aa Tee {2#i(2010) RS Ba) Chen (2010) “Beebe & Takahashi (1989) ERE E+ Tuan (2006) PART iE SEARS) Fir fit z it 8 Cee erste tie 77M» EP STN 8 EAB HIIA] + Rees Miller (2000) > Tuan (2006)58FS4h PHBL AGE > {EBeebe & Takahashi (1989) HSGES Re » AU ARSC STRATE + ASU LET « eS TTIBL + UV TE2. RINT RE BBP TA FES Oe HAST AR °F THR GSES FEB AEE TA + ASATEIEMEAT T-ASE ERY SRS ES» TFS EE A — AY TREATES + MIIChen (2010) » Rees-Miller (2000) » Matsumura (2001) #l}aH{251i(20 10) 58% BH} ATE ‘{HiSESH + Beebe & Takahashi (1989) > Tuan (2006) 205(2012) 1 628 SHRI AERA ATM» MUR RRR» SE AT REHEAT E ? RGAPOPRYL + PRL ASTRA RNA SRL 75 TT °° > IGCFS"Disagreement can be defined as the expression ofa view that differs from that expressed by anather speaker” “i 2009: 4H» BEE A ATE TU RR lence) FRR ACHES HCH» (HARBEREISHESifianou 2012: 1584528 EA ‘SSR r= a A HSE (2006:344) HH + Seattle Rew ws - Teh reese sane» Saoeee Tn Ba 60Languages and International Studies seer A LA A BASED Lie eb er ROMA TE SOUGHT A AK Ml PMP AS + HCPC s BIA AE RE M » RUE EER zu & > CARRS o AMSCES CREASE + BESS iat erHbtil + aU Aa RARE AB7iTM © 2.2.3 SRE FESR + EY BONS PORN PRT AAS] > SP I ER SRE URAC + (AF 2 LRAT TION (pragmatic strategy) KM + fil BARees-Miller (2000) » WEAF: (2007) > Liu (2009) ; (#4 Tuan (2006) + Chen (2010) « Rees-Miller(tt 2BE AAT 34 W (seminars and colloquia)(#}#1 154A CME RAGE T AS + MLR Brown and LevinsonftJFTA #41) SR (aif FAI] —)IFE 7} REPUAT + FEISS (Positive politeness + fMIFIS. PP) > if} HASSE (negative politeness, NP) > #FHLFll(not softened, NoS)Fllfii#4 {t(aggravated, Age) + HIF AL F(QOOT AE El AER PEGE SB LSS ea aI » MCR RA + Li Ge BEG EDS EN TB 1073 HBL + SPDR ZAHE © Rees-MillerAl Ht EFAS) RAE ABT] » ETE RPE Ee TS PA Ad USHA) TYPRALSRees-MillerfiyPP + CREE) + CENA) L RULENP + CRA) + Ties FIRENOS + THEH5) HIE Age » TuaniS i wi AG EMG EIS26% OS + WALES A RANGE BRPLALAT + Cheng SSE SEA > RAPRTURA © ATER Rees Millertt) 7} » JUDY — + — + HURL SHE ASR + SRE Ls) FBO SC CAAT TEA SAT CCE TPR E+ BM + FRIEZE fEBrown and Levinson (1987),Z PTA MPSS ATES ESE TURP + STH HT SRLS AE (A) SER ARI TAK PAV LAN R JST SU Rees-Miller(2000) oa AS42838 FE SOfiE PHA + PPA ARTES, NPI BETES, NoSA HAE ‘All, Agatha 1k aH B-F(2007) Fi, 3m TARL + HAVE RE + BER Wa + G6dRS, AaBRHE AT = Liu (2009) Od#, 1073 a8 HM, 241i) ABA: APRA ~ AE RAL a Bea. REA “FIBIS$Rees-Miller 2000 ASEM SERIE ° BORAT ATS PUI + ROSES PEA. ANSEL + FES REI GS IE CA a) > BRE )) » BEHRENS — Bs BRISA ~ AE AOUASLSE) » HR. RENAE SE > ATESE LIF ABSA S BRAC linguistic marker) AC (i 52 AH 5) 6‘An Analysis of Disagreement Speech Act Performed by Taiwancte Under Considering Socal States, Context, and Mode of Conversation as Mate ee PPB AA, Te IME) + ARR + CSPI A MOR Pas CT LLP FSB eB — BEE RIESE + EPRI EL > HB ABs CAR SUED TR A SAAR TL RA ASS A E77 (solidarity) + CARPAL) BSAA A He TUT SY FiAT ETL + REP LARA CBP WO CHER + EL POR RUBS OLB Bt RA 77 SL Re NPR TR) + TRL + CGR A NEBR) SPUR: TRAY) Di TT SURI BCR + 3a RAY Bil A) PETER A) OMB) + TRC) CAR RI RL CRSA. RRB | RUBS + Usa aR SR AD CA eEB EAL FU S —ae ~ ORUF + FG SIF SEA AGRALSEIA SPA © ese UT ae BCR @AlSoftened —_- FATA AETIEIE Positive comment) aii Disagreement) (Positive Politeness) 3% - A finclusive 1st person) $2" ASPB Partial agreement) TEMP, AHI) WiYR (Humor) > Fi}44)(Questions) 15, FE RFC think/I don’t know) (P2064 » 2s265 + Hoty Sakai (Downtoners) (AS—-5E ~ HBR + FTES ARGH (Verb of uncertainty) CHF > BRAT! ARTEL (Negative Politeness) ABAD JZ84990)| (Contradictory statement) ZS} - 1 (Disagreement YJ ALWA(Verbal shadowing) A: 7ARBELEL + BF not softened REL or strengthen) tee, JFH}4)(Rhetorical question) [7S H------lNE > BFEAS » (Aggravated 2) Disagreement) ‘ia Untensifiers) (ASAE ~ ATLL PES AA (Personal, Accusatory you) Tfik J EMMA Judgmental vocabulary) (ATR » MRE T Cll] Rees-Miller,Z Js 18 5h FEB 5PM Zed LAS AWEFEE REM) NoSig MUA UGCRVERPAL #0 CBARAMTRL + CSCRRAH GUITAR Aya CARE SIRLER AAPA BOREL + CRRTMME) ANAS RUEAAGY— AE + HRURRRees Miller (2000) HEHE » HAGA A A — ARIA A ADA ACS NSE > a TA: BES CBAREMEL ° Age MIA CRRA ~ Coit + CRESS RL Al CRRA Piva: CRAG) GRA CEB. > THEA + RSE...) Geet GRRL) AUSTRALE ATL 2Languages and International Studies WRIA RAB A CK ENT «MEAG RRM ON AE GHAINS HME) + CARRIAGE RUS OATS = ARETE T 1 SPERM IAAT IRAE CEL HL, 2.2.4 POH UTA ae > NS LAI ES HEY SIT AS ° BLADE QOL) REE SA BAN TEMAS FE AEE ELE TLASIATE » REREAD 2 aR + RUT SUTRAS LL BULA Eis » Judd (1999)#flBoxer and Pickering (1995) (EAH (ESHER LATE i» BR AS Ras PLAGE ESET A GADD + UM ASEH ATR CEN TOI ETE « 2.3 HEIRS AGH PRE REED AEA ESPN EE O73 (1 OEY IRA, » SGU RE AO LA SY FAZe + BYIRTuan (LOGE » HEARERS LAER © ARC » BEE ~ RFPS OE Pin REARS ANOLE SR, > LC OAD PPERNPOY TOR AAG SL ATS ~ FL ‘A SSE GERAIS DSC,» ELA HCH IE FINOSURA gel HK = SESS TAL > ASHE REL UAE. INT PT AE OS HSL» UP ABU TE SRE > AGH BALLIN GULAIPE + NPAYTI SC + SEES ABHSIETE AAA » PRUULIBLERIG/HNOS HA get) 77 ste CRE) OTTER si AHSCT tt stig LA ULE SAS + SSL AAHRPP < NP SAL Mi 9h Be 5 AEG HHEFTINOS » Age © aE AEGON SHARE A + SUNT ALBRAG (EAP SNPs RE (EFFINOS » Age © Ae RE SR RE SAN SAY TS Ro SEN Ae Me RH OB LH CELA aA SBE ME + BGR Fa aR + SI A i @7 GE FIPP ~ NP i StS Sh {ir (er Hl @ BE FHINOS » Age ° FR NP>PP AERA AE 7G TET» ARUP FE ARAL ARTE EVR ANY ES + ARATE MAE AA HEM ZN ER + CRAM eR» ARS BBL » fee PRASETE EL OLIN » LAER ° 6‘An Analysis of Disagreement Speech Act Performed by Teiwancse Undergraduates: (Considering Socal States, Context, and Mode of Conversation as Material Setting Factors BASF ATT + ARSON ATTA. + HUT ASAT FA RS JT AT + RPT EES AFR A HAT A + (ALMA ATF PAPERS CEL BAS TT PIN AY TA © 3. DERE IE 31 SB ATRUS LRG BS 1641 MASE + FETTER SHE + STEERS CHE © CA) ese ea ALE N M sD B 7 22.86 4.71 K 87 20.39 1.35 eat 164 21.55 1.68 {LAS ERG AB 21 SSR + ERAL TEES L.O8 « ESRESE + ah 43% + FUAIASA 23% » Ms Had 20% 3 Bl > + HH 14% © HE GME + O89) EIEN + RAE 2% » {HIF ASAE + SRI °* 3.2 BAF TEASER HT ie EO» ART AT EGME SE MORRO SE aH + eRe Hf EAL AERLOP ATT + AREA RW © 1 PRES RRA EY LG PR PLRCEIAY » ESR RHRRRERY AE TRAE AL + GA ESE OTS + iB AR MUL PRIS SP AT LO LD ATES + HUEHRESIA + (EL DTS IS A BCR A ZIBIAY Bj (interaction) » FHA: REM AA MR ° FEDS ARE Ai SO UP tL eS LAG» AR ae O° ST BG + PETES LA fo AI TO HS) > CAEP Ae IRE BENG» RS AER + FASO SCTE, © AURA AA SA © ETE RUBRI » SEMEAT T AVR A (pilot study) + FAPYIT SEA SESE + HAAS + AAS PUREE —/ NE > SUSE K + ES TRI AAU > RET DRRRPUARA + Bs Cs DUUDSIELGE + SETTER ARE ° FASE + RANT LAR) 8G + RETOIT OCS 47 9 FBT REPRI ERIE + A BS Cs DIFP AS AAT HUE + A MTRA ET + RE + TALS US «PA ORES AL RAE EG LN Et aegatmansmaces HIST RSLAC NA » BETS EAIL mMRE UBER» GREIRAR) + Dim BEER 64Languages and International Studies AMAL + BDAY Ded = ASUTTHAE + MOLARS ~ SPAR LRASR + BAM AREAL Sah A rT PE © Se REMME(T IE AMGA © A+B + C + DESRGRREEH + SUBLUY - HBREFE IR ARR HtENS-255 HZ (GS EDC ARS SS a eR Y FTE AMER + ES RISE REA TERM A ZEAE © FS TREE > CRE RAK + HEATH IE AASPSS 19.0 fie 3.3 ERTL AGRI PERLE LASHES Aas the HRT EN IER + SE SRE BSAA = Hp kX SBE & FR SE IR 4 BE LD FORE + S24 ALA, B,C, DE > ACAI PR ° RY Cy RRA TE PHA ES DOULA» FRESE ABR LAIR © (2en) simi Swe ABE RUE tae AE AE Bly AE Hitt BE “Tuan (2006), Chen (2010) 45 846 AURAL» ASTER IS IC MERCER‘An Analysis of Disagreement Speech Act Performed by Teiwancse Undergraduates: (Considering Socal States, Context, and Mode of Conversation as Material Setting Factors + Wie tenet @ FEATS + MERRITT BARGAIN + HOGER + AOL A ESET 2 ‘Sl > ARITPIERRAI(E2 2.32 MitURecs Miller 7PASRH » A SSNS RT4O Fr OBER ASE a PP LETTS (+4 sta, BRE, AE] RAUL + BER AM » FT E...(#102) BARB DA He NL, HGS, Belo] BUM Sh» (#78) BPS (+ Ak erst, GAT, Zeisa] AAD + (H..G#148) NP FV) [EL setts, ARE, Fei] BLA |) + BRP? (#42) DRS (ee iT, SH, FATA] ARBRE Me CRAY (1158) SANGRE [+E erste, AGN, ZB] SCAB PS BI RD EL Ane (#9) No. CREED [ Osta i, FRE, FE) RAVENS ABI (148) Syed AAS [+ Ea i, OE, TAS BEE I) SE (4) Agg BCE y (La, REE, HC] CARAT ERI? (#20) ‘HRS [Hint QUE, TEMA] ANE! (#23) ASATia? (#28) PRA AAR +t sic, SP, fi) eG HI29) PABLELEE (A Oe HiIT, BEF] MUSE! (#124) m1te2.2.3. + RTGS ASGFE LAGE BRAC ATL » Bt — a) SCY LL ASS A» LL Paty |B TESIER RINPREY CRRESEBIE CEA ACG EC AID + RUMORS © 66Languages and International Studies Pach A ra LARUE | MRR) BS METRE (74148) NP se 77H» 3 (ACA Rees-Millertty 265 + ABBE AR ° (Ala SADE » MRT GSH: ae AA = EEE AS TA « IIS a: PPekEs ee) + NP TAGE) + NosHile#S ABE) » Agels CSRs ° ASIA YREASSCON TE Bibi: CARES TINT + FA BSwUNTER AGRIC NEB: CURA AR ZOE HY | UGE: CHANEY PR {ARE USAR FL RRL a eR I | 4. ST BL at 41 HOR AAAS ADE 2647, + HRS RELAY MET L256 © C25) aE SOF Be HIP IL pitt th abt 1 H=1,305 253 1,23 F=149 701 aR 2 H=12,909*** 002 2,23 F-9.84444* 000 3 H=215.525*** 000 FH6.140"** 001 069 3,23 026 6,23 142 ED Be RAY 5} AG RL» ESE EAB A hod (58 FD PD SE BPRS FGNOS + (45 42.6020(535 $8) + HORESNP > f'i24.60% (309%) > Aget!i21.66%(272%8) > HD GEMIATIEPP + RA 11.15%(14028) © FS PIMA » ATA SEMETT CREAT ADAT ° FTSELLGE-BC ECE (Kruskal-Wallis) S47 EL‘An Analysis of Disagreement Speech Act Performed by Teiwancse Undergraduates: (Considering Socal States, Context, and Mode of Conversation as Material Setting Factors ULTEIL «iY + SRST .05 © JGR RALRees-Miller (2000) + Tuan (2006)f)4F 925 E- ATAEAB » SCH¥Beebe & Takahashi (1989) » (1) HEL SaTAE + SRR + TEE 4) SORE: SES OM | SEIAG + FUE BUESH (NoS) (2) HELP HAIL » RES + ELBE G89) OMT : ES STRATA + SES MEDIA BT ieee BAS : BHA Lice (Nos) 350 310 Wine 300 250 225 200 175 172 150 134 100 69 7 50 ° Power+ Power- PP = NP MNOS mAgg Chal) beset 68Languages and International Studies RRIF SEAS SEAR A UGE TS BH + SZIS = EEF HUE HF thE NOS AllAge © HELL LAMEAT FAL» HESSEN ASS 4 oS TB LA AE ARS» ETL Bie tA RES + 43 ii {ERG + ES ASNoSHT LOG + HACESNPAIIO + Age fi7I3E + PPR A425 « REGS, AYE AR + HAS ANOS + HOKEENPHlAgg + PPAR/D » SE — MN AIT HUA A AAT] + BABNOS + HARRAH Age » NPFIPP © REET AE ALMA a = AG SES PAN JE EE H(2)=12.909*** » p=001 © 250 200 150 100 50 0 ACAD HOME OFFI mPP mNP mNoS mAgg Cia) aa ‘i LBL mY a > AS OUR REL BRN)» PPE“ (42M : S49) + HORA Age (7148 + 83S8)FT NP(96%E > 1364E) » NoSHLS (166% > 1524€) » (MAKES — MAW Aa WA A AM + NoSHlAgety ill B+ SAUTBAUSE > LAMM SAS » S ALRRTR HAE > ARPAISCUEIN RS SUR EIB kK (<.001) > BRAG ALAR EA me PAE SEK MEQ <.01) © DLE RMT APTA BRIE > SUES SENINOSALA gate] Le HCAS ARIES 2 (EF TRAIUF ATLA RAM + UAT RE CES SET, SUE © ATR IS TE SCG E> (ELSE IAS HSE TE SCSI + BCG HH T FREE — BSNS ATL Aggtt BIBER ATR ° 9‘An Analysis of Disagreement Speech Act Performed by Teiwancse Undergraduates: (Considering Socal States, Context, and Mode of Conversation as Material Setting Factors G) HL RPSL > Seve + ASEH (153) SELF TRIMAE | + RUGS i LI (Age) + GRE + Bei (035) REE: REBRONEA LE > VEEP Sie + Etta nl Se AEA» ACL DTA TT a a BE IR (PP) 4A TERE WLR IS MULE FSNOS + 7108 + LR IKARARNPAIPP + Aggllllipt> « ATL BEER OUR FF tL ANIA] + SLSAGNOS + HKIGNPAIPP » HD TS Age + [LEAR RUINOSIERES + 1837 + IEA IES, PPS NPAAge » RAMA id MME ALSEIL= MHSE AA ALU ATRAGASE FD > Agel » tA ASNOSHINP > ARDESPP > HERERERMH AT LIE AT RICR » H(G)=215.525"** + p<.000 + AAAS AREAL LRN ERE NHN © GE PHBH RY Al > ARE ATES Ra A EME a) aU HAUTE + A Za aR Sh AAI + LAIST SPP FLAME + FR BAAS) A HOLTER CANAAN | GE TIE + IRE HA ge RMLAT ESE 200 183 183 Wife: Ae 150 107108 108 - 100 | 6g 61 50 45 - 41 4s ieee”) 7 0 Bei FRE ae ‘Ret mPP BNP mNoS mAgg CIPS) asses SERN T 23.3070 PELE + TRUE ELBE 7 PED EEF ae RE OT SS BA SLY OE fe ALGAE EA A +S AIL RU BB A NL SAE ok Hp <.001) » FLT AELHE A 70Languages and International Studies OS RBIAE AME «PORT AEA as aH. VRE RR + ANZSI ~ PRES HOY AER LTE BL A + (EA ASP AEEY + SRR TINY Te + AURAL AL PRU PCEIN | + AHR ZCE RN | + MIRREN Babe Ae PMR URES AT na SS I STA (S) PLGA, » BE > Fes (#43) Sk + PACAP | SEAR + ELAM PRA A EHS SHLAA TRS + ARE LE TPP) (6) ALS LTL > SRURE > ASTPLHE (#98) Seb PAMELA | Sa + MEINE ! (Age) (7) testi » BRE + THE 141) HK: FALMER | H+ RALLBEA AiR (NP) (8) +H stit + Seu + ATRL (#20) bk AER | SH: AC AMR AIA [ERA (Age) 45 SEN it LL SOE Ae SPT Sta ie ZN Be AT EP + SOS HHL ARE «RAT RH, ‘PALES ARI Ak ME (>.05) » TRAP ARAL HIT) + CEM OAT + SE + BS SL + Ai ars AD vs ELSES Sh ATT YAS PAE Eo HE A tT a» CEA SSR + tara A he eS + (9) +E sarsibfi + MAES + Asie (#17) SEE: HHS RUSTY + RS REO a SEAS + MUMS TA SERGE + EAE THR + ERAT PER TU@P) (10) FE est» MRR + ZH (#81) n‘An Analysis of Disagreement Speech Act Performed by Teiwancse Undergraduates: (Considering Socal States, Context, and Mode of Conversation as Material Setting Factors FRRS A STAT LMM CEE » SEER RMA LURE « SLA + EASES + (ELAM CEST EH + MERE % Haw (PP) 4.6 FASE RAEN eS 8 Se EY A +E A RAS BH ok ME (p>.05) + RVI MAL CLE FAL > RU + HRSA CS = LSE eA SH AR IE EAE RD 9 EF UT tT a + EIR] APLGESEE + DOERR (EFT + SEAR RS ARYA AAA ETI ¢ (11) HEP HLLEE > Bei + Sib (HBA) SRE: OR BESL TIAL | SERA + BGR LES Ay T (NP) (12) Hb Pst» BEBE + ASTELEE (#127) SORE: REESE | SEACH + AURAL) + WIRE PIELER BRS HUET] (NP) (13) HEL PHI AIL » SRE + ELBE GIS) SORE: BEES TRIM | SRL + BURG HITATTE TEA [EAR ALY (NP) (14) +H erst + SRORE > TARE 50) SORE: ARLES CMY | SES + AMEE (NP) 47 BE SESE REE OF BEAT HL HUT REIS LET) ° CEL HEAT F + PURE DAE Ok i 9 (ELA PH TIE F > ZU Yea RISEN RS ok ME <.001) + RELA REA ‘SRR EE 7k AE (<1) 5 (ELAR SR SY PT La SR BS ok ME (p05) + Zeb ASHE + GEL EMER ° UR RART + SEH a TNT F + AO AAR TS + HN TE EAE SEIS os > AR aH Tein 7h EH er ATA T Fe ST LUN RID BABE + IEE MR IS RAMA + HT LIES a Hi Age ~ PEER °Languages and International Sues (15) +H e7HUAE + Bene > HEAR (#75) SORE RAE ES | Shi + MUR sean dee HAR RS + RE EIR (PP) (16) +E SHEE» ewe + HeRAL (H4) abe PARE AR | SAG : AMON | MGI T | (Age) (17) #E PSHE» BRB + Bb (162) Palle PARADA LRH | See: WE + (RICA BTR + SSRN BETS BRIE] + SOT Aes SS HE PP) 5. SSG SOC SE SYREN + CSAS LAER SLE ACR AA «ASAT REGS TP ATA RL BB ae Judd (1999) 52 ES AGHA AA BITRE ANE + BAY ICY Te aT SIRE + th ED Fe WE SST ES» ANNE AHA ROR ° (ROSCA + AGA SCSE ES EE ACF b> GRR FEA SRS TR ERA + ERA AMO LAY IRA SEE + HAP RB RE ° MR EY A Ze iA + ETRE NLR EL CATIR ARIUS + HAF AIEEE 7 AONE + DR ARSE AER EI La AS HEBD BERTI ET iil + Judd (199 PRAY BAN HF BT EA RE: READ: BRENT + Ora. MRR EAL AS CT HP, PULTE © CEEOL ae > EOE TE DCSE EE aR TE CHE TD AB TPL SP SL LG FART PRAT + (EL... J VASES AMVETS COPHE + REBES) VASE ARRAS © (LALIT SFE ALAM AGTER » BURGER AZRTES + TIENEN A ALM CRITE « RHBARENABAN ERA BO hl AS AMD RR + RR RY BAZAR © BMAF RA SE FAS PR HRA RR P CE & 2B‘An Analysis of Disagreement Speech Act Performed by Teiwancse Undergraduates: (Considering Socal States, Context, and Mode of Conversation as Material Setting Factors 6. itt 6.1 PESEREL ASTI SCFEL oP aH PE ART AE GA FARR IMLS TEAL HULL ATT > ASE SE SD A ALT AMIR ASF LAE SS hI ATT SLIVER + (84.257 TR SR» SCRE AEA LOH AS BH RNSREL AS 1 > BRACES ICE a GE ATPPALIND » (ESE th ER BTL AYNoSAlAge © Ie)ERHL > BE HRC SS th BUICALIPP AINE ° (Ea SE 77 LN SRS ASSET RABE» IRE AL Za OS» TER RE ES SS ATE SCREASIE SCE © FARIA MOISIE SUGESsE + FR OESUMB ISIE TE SCANS » DOLE A EM PP AINE + AMANOSAA REIT A BS » HRA MEIC TAR» GR TAL HULL + GREER SYPFTANVEEAE IN A AT RAS ° TEA RE HU + AGAFETE2.3. ETRY PA a RETR BE AEE + MLS Sta YAS SRA ES HTN AY SR © HES) 8 AI tH LH ST A EBS SR EAT B+ PVA) CARR ANH AT + NLT HL a ea + RMN ST Zea a tei BRAD AE ARACEAE RPP AE IC LL RLU» 6 oR 8] LUISE Ra HA SMa Ha aE AR ET LAPEER AAP + HEC EET HE A HEB © CER EL( ENS + FUR ELUNE ER IR aR EACLE IT) + SE AL A CAL ee BSH RIE PRRRSC ALE © ABSIT RATER RAR» REA AU REE BSE» SRR AHL ‘PTAA RAE SIS + BEA Le CS A ese + ET CAINE + ARR BEER + HOPES ACE ORT RLE © SBSH Pete A + 4.1 PAPI FASE AUIS © EABSNPRY SEAR EL PP OES» ARE BEES EA OES TS BDAY ACTS = EC IL ASC» PRA CA CALE EE + Be HERE 7 FIAT ES © AGES SATE © RN CE2 SAY = 6.2 DERLAM SOSA ARE + CARY AZ + REBT Ft [EVER Mkat ATTRL + ME PRA TTE IE (ALSTOM HA PELE eT A SL» AL ARTE eR ER CEP RAR EH + RRS A MCAS A ADE RL ANA ASANO: AORTA EEE» (RE FE > EUR © RPS OS — tk HE» (BBR AA Yt PER AR eS ©Languages and International Studies ‘Thomas (1995)Al[Acginitou (1995)}5 iH > #1: rFRAL ALL CHALLIS» ES PRED Te IR ¢ BIb > 13 TALC > ATR T PUSS © (HRSA AERA + RSLS MERE TBA» ML» CAR) A CAEL BE PERRET TL HEL A Rs UR PR AEE + Ue RE A a eA Rg OR # AEE RATE EIA ALE SS SRR + AAR A He a SIA » Sar mT EE NTT ° ii + AEE LS StL a + A RES MARS HSH FR «HOURS iM SE HE ASR Se PD HS ALL TAL SR eH HS © 5} Dh» ASICBIE IE BRE BA TNA ES 5 FE» EE SPS STE SY RE 2 A OA — A GFE BE > EL A RR A Bk] y+ UM AAR Be TE ft Et SEY HM» LMG OTA SAS SA ANABUAAN + AIRE ESE RUSMMA © is‘An Analysis of Disagreement Speech Act Performed by Teiwancse Undergraduates: ‘Considering Socal States, Context, and Mode of Conversation ax Material Setting Factors Buy Aeginitou, V. 1995, Facework and politeness in the Greek classroom. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Laneaster, UK: Lancaster University. Bardovi-Harlig, K. & Domyei, Z. 1998. Do Language Leamers Recognize Pragmatic Violations? Pragmatic Versus Grammatical Awareness in Instructed L2 Learning. TESOL Quarterly. 32,2: 233-262. Beebe, M. L. & Takahashi, T. 1989. Sociolinguistic Variation in Face-Threatening Speech Acts: Chastisement and Disagreement. In Miriam Eisenstein, ed., The dynamic interlanguage: Empirical studies in second language variation. 199-218. New York: Plenum. Boxer, D. & Pickering, L. 1995. Problems in the presentation of speech acts in ELT materials: The case of complaints. ELT journal. 49,1: 44-58, Brown, P. & Levinson, S.C. 1987. Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Chen, S. C. 2010. Politely Disagreeing in Online Asynchronous Debates in English as a Foreign Language. Unpublished MA thesis. Kaohsiung, TAIWAN: National Kaohsiung First University of Science and Technology. Fraser, B. 1990, Perspectives on Politeness. Journal of Pragmatics. 14:219-236. Gu, Y. G. 1990, Politeness Phenomena in Modern Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics. 14: 237- 257. Ide, S. 1989. Formal forms and discernment: neglected aspects of linguistic politeness. Multilingua. 8,2: 223-248. Judd, E. L. 1999. Some issues in the teaching of pragmatic competence. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Culture in second language teaching and learning. NY: Cambridge University Press. Lakoff, R. 1973. The Logic of Politeness: Minding your P's and Q's. Proceedings of the Ninth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. 292-305. Leech, G. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman. Li, X. & Lin, L. 2015. A Pragmatic Study on the Speech Act of Refusal by Chinese EFL Leamers. Languages and International Studies. 13, 23: 23-45 Liu, J. ¥. 2009 Disagreement in Mandarin Chinese: A Sociopragmatic Analysis. Unpublished MA thesis. Taipei, TAIWAN: National Chengchi University. Matsumoto, Y. 1988. Reexamination of the Universality of Face: Politeness Phenomena in Japanese, Journal of Pragmatics. 12: 403-426. 16Languages and International Studies Matsumura, S. 2001. Learning the Rules for Offering Advice: A Quantitative Approach to Second Language Socialization. Language Learning. 51,4: 638-679. Rees-Miller, J. 2000. Power, severity, and context in disagreement. Journal of Pragmatics. 32: 1087-1111 Searle, J. 1975. Indirect speech acts. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics, Vol. 3: Speech Acts (pp. 59-82). New York: Academic Press. Sifianou, M. 2012, Disagreements, face and politeness, Journal of Pragmatics. 44: 1554- 1564. Somning, K. 1977. Disagreement and contradiction as communicative acts. Journal of Pragmatics. 1:347-374. Thomas. J.1995. Meaning in interaction: An introduction to pragmatics. London: Wesley Longman Limited. Tuan, H. T. 2006. An Analysis of Disagreement Speech Act in Taiwanese EFL Speakers. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation. Kaohsiung, TAIWAN: National Kaohsiung Normal University. Omerseseath i GaN (Gk TE» RIALLOVIE) © PERRIN» TB ARIEGE TANTS + CPRESCBREERED «IER NN (RRLIOLE ) +B PRIDE > CIE LAUR TT RE PRATER AR PRBS) BCLS + RIL + ERA KEE» RRIROOIE) « BLE»

«CCAR» SH CHUARLOMEES A) > BRIER + CHER TH URBH96%F6H) + FL99 « BHM >< ERR UIEA HDURELRIC> > REPEAL)» SPURS I RRS = 1A) > W126 MART PMA BU SRE RRA — ATE OBR S> HRAT BEA SAAS (RRIGHEIA) © (MH T2007. F LAY, BNE AIR ERE + FA TAR RSC A HSU. AH @ a POR IAAG] BUEHG > > CREATE) > OS 48 (RBI9912A) > HILL BUA > BOE B‘An Analysis of Disagreement Speech Act Performed by Teiwancse Undergraduates: (Considering Socal States, Context, and Mode of Conversation as Material Setting Factors BY Sk AG (NAIL > MAGES + BC DABIIATIH) PLT SA: IAAL te RO a a a FRE © FST BET EAR AR A Li a a OR > Pa A A sD PRE o GEA BR MES > LL BR RAY HL A Be Be Sl SS LE SiR + REA I e+ GABE Ls SRE + THRE EY BS (8 TH EE FA + 7S yO A GSE PT 8 3, MACHT ! BL BA BED TRACE GHD Z ERP ) LfEBI = C19 Ox 2a mx SBA BES) : Bais GEE: ae Lan LIRA) Cae (aie: One Da Dee (sad (RRE: CSF Oa 1a) Oth RE: LF 0 LA) 4ot38 : 1938 (RE: CRF Cai CART Of — BE: CF OI CA (28: ORF Oa DP) S.RESR TERE (EAR TAS + ' ABA» i OY Be AT LE» SU RT AB He es 2» ALO 8 1 lH mE Ras > AE BE BERR HL ME + (2 15 KOR BC 7 EB Ed AL 2 AOE > a af ROG: RR BRN BARD » BEEBE A CaF Sia + STAPLE AH ° tmLanguages and International Studies fe EE +o) AC fi Te] ABC Bo AK tin FL Bae a as 9 a o™ x» 7A HG AY FB A ©) B32 £5 KUM Sie Bahay ir Is Ae MAREE « BBO LAS BE SS He “ANBRL = BRS sy Be A PR EE ABA LAR DE CR eee te: RAR + BATHE LESOR > A KH EAB © LABS MDS RARE RRR SHS Ee RAEN MOORE Fis 25 RIE GH fy AM RAE LN I — ree ‘ ERURORR- MY waaay: ent eS Ne LTE BCBS | REAR RE TC A a OS Seas BL IF a‘An Analysis of Disagreement Speech Act Performed by Teiwancse Undergraduates: (Considering Socal States, Context, and Mode of Conversation as Material Setting Factors , (te L BE + ch BS ES PIAA UE + 98 7 Be me A OR 1) EA AL Ce OR BE AS EMH TAGE IRE A LiF AE + IL © is 2 nw 5 =» EL MAAR HERE: RS CRAY AT AREA + 2228 13 AE IL Tike He ERTL BAMA © Re fi 1 — Be Yb ith 2S] Le BE © fs FA A] PRAAE SR HA GS BE BARE AE + ML AH eR 5] ES 8 Po (EPR AB PALA HEE © SRE: REGATTA MAR Rs ARAM TUE SU LUNES BE « fi = FE AEN a HF |