權力關係及禮貌策略研究：會議言談插話現象之禮貌策略分析

Power Relations and Politeness in Interruptions: Politeness Strategy Use in Meeting Scenarios

全球移動力促使國際企業以英語作為溝通語言，因此，英語會議溝通成為必備之溝通技巧，然而，對於以英語為非母語之專業人士，英語會議溝通技巧具相當挑戰，其中，會議言談插話技巧因涉及權力關係，尤其不易掌握，過往研究鮮少探討以英語為外語的學習者如何在不同權力關係的英語會議溝通情境下使用禮貌策略。本研究以Brown and Levinson 的禮貌理論為基礎，分析與歸納會議言談插話現象，本研究包含兩項研究焦點：其一，探討大學英語學習者在英語會議溝通情境中所使用的禮貌策略，其二，分析其在干擾型(intrusive)以及合作型(cooperative)的插話現象中，面對不同的權力關係，較高頻率使用的禮貌策略。研究對象總計50 名，英文程度為歐洲共同語言參考標準B2-C1 級。語料來自對話完成問卷（Discourse Completion Test），研究結果顯示，在干擾型以及合作型的插話現象中，消極禮貌策略之使用頻率相對較高。上對下及平等的權力關係中所使用的禮貌策略同質性高，然而，和以上二項權力關係相較，面對下對上的權力關係，學習者提高消極禮貌策略之使用頻率。在干擾型插話中，表達共同立場、表達合作意願、以及降低預設立場的使用 (making minimal presumption or assumption)使用頻率較高。在合作型插話中，除上述策略外，間接策略 (conventional indirectness)亦常使用，本研究對專業英語教學提出教學之建議。

As global mobility has led to the use of English as a corporate language in multinational corporations, developing English meeting skills has been essential for professionals. Previous research has indicated that from non-native English speakers' point of view meeting skills have been challenging. Interruption in meetings is especially difficult for non-native speakers because power relations and face threatening acts are involved. Based on Brown and Levinson's theoretical framework, the study aims at investigating politeness strategies more frequently used by EFL learners when they perform different acts of interruption in different power relations. A total of 50 participants with English proficiency at level B2-C1 of the CEFR were recruited and asked to fill out a discourse completion test (DCT) encompassing eighteen meeting scenarios in which the participants addressed individuals in higher, equal, or lower status. A preference for negative politeness strategies were identified in both disruptive and cooperative interruptions. The results revealed that the performance in high-to-low or equal relations shared similar frequency of strategy use. Compared to the performance in the two relations, that in low-to-high relations tended to use more negative politeness strategies. Within acts of disruptive interruptions, claiming common ground, conveying cooperation, and making minimal presumption or assumption were considered the most prevalently adopted strategies. Within acts of cooperative interruptions, in addition to the above-mentioned strategies, conventional indirectness was worth noting. Results from the investigation are not entirely consistent with Brown and Levinson's claims that strategy use is based on which face is threatened and that higher-status people tend to choose more bald on strategies. Pedagogical implications were drawn based on the findings.