現在位置首頁 > 博碩士論文 > 詳目
  • 同意授權
論文中文名稱:言談標記「好」在議會質詢中的語用功能 [以論文名稱查詢館藏系統]
論文英文名稱:The Pragmatic Functions of Discourse Marker Hǎo in Parliamentary Discourse [以論文名稱查詢館藏系統]
院校名稱:臺北科技大學
學院名稱:人文與社會科學學院
系所名稱:應用英文系碩士班
畢業學年度:105
畢業學期:第二學期
出版年度:106
中文姓名:陳亭伊
英文姓名:Ting-Yi Chen
研究生學號:100548007
學位類別:碩士
語文別:英文
口試日期:2017/03/25
論文頁數:77
指導教授中文名:洪媽益
指導教授英文名:Michael Tanangkingsing
口試委員中文名:段人鳳;林彥良
口試委員英文名:Ren-Feng Duann;Yen-Liang Lin
中文關鍵詞:言談標記語用功能禮貌原則策略議會質詢
英文關鍵詞:Discourse MarkerPragmatic FunctionPolitenessParliamentary Discourse
論文中文摘要:言談標記是常見於自然口說語言中的語言表達現象,說話者使用言談標記連貫字句以達到口語流暢的目的。除了維持字句之間的連貫性,透過言談標記的使用,說話者於溝通互動當中得以思考如何表達及擴展思維以符合說話者的溝通意圖。在人際溝通中,論及交際者欲避免衝突的發生以及維持社會人際關係的期望,言談標記的語用功能應當受到重視。言談標記研究於語用學領域當中迅速竄起,強調言談標記在人際互動層面的功能,語用研究方法用於理解人們如何理解特定話語以及闡明言談標記在實際使用中的運作,以達到維繫社會人際關係的目的。過去,研究者探討言談標記於非正式對話、青少年對話、同儕互動及電視廣播中的言談語用功能。然而,過去研究對於特定單一言談標記在涉及交際者權力差異的特殊語境之中的語用功能並沒有太多著墨。因此,本研究主要探究中文言談標記「好」在議會質詢中的語用功能,並進一步利用禮貌原則策略作為分析觀點,探討言談標記「好」在牽涉交際者權力差異之語境中的運作情形。研究語料言談標記「好」總計1011筆,取自議員與政府官員議事質詢逐字稿,為一官方公開紀錄文件,語料收集範圍為一個會期,質詢期間自2014年3月27日至6月4日。
本研究結果顯示,言談標記「好」於議事質詢中傳達十四種語用功能,分別為表同意、表理解、表看法、開啟新議題、解釋說明、表要求、吸引注意、表示回應、保有發言權、表提問、表不同意、搶發言權、表承諾以及表示結束討論協商。此外,本研究語料中的交際者分為議員及政府官員具權力差異的兩方,根據禮貌原則策略的分析角度,雙方於商討議題之時皆使用得體、一致以及讚譽準則。除此之外,議員方採取積極及消極保留面子行為以滿足對方的面子需求,並減緩對對方消極面子的威脅及傷害。相較於議員,政府官員則專用積極禮貌策略於溝通商議之中。
論文英文摘要:Discourse markers, linguistic expressions, can be observed in spontaneous speech. Speakers use discourse markers as cohesive devices for giving fluent speech. Other than maintaining cohesion (Schiffrin, 1987), discourse markers enable speakers to figure out how to express ideas that fit the speakers’ intention in communicative interaction. With regard to the desire to avoid conflicts and the wish to maintain social relationship, the pragmatic functions deserve more attention in the field. Studies of discourse markers within pragmatics grow rapidly. Discourse markers that function on the interpersonal level are emphasized. A pragmatic approach is taken to shed light on how people interpret particular utterance and how the marker operates in actual usage to maintain social relationships. Researchers have carried out research studies to explore the discourse-pragmatic functions of discourse markers in casual conversation, adolescent talk, peer interaction and TV/radio interview. However, little attention has been paid to pragmatic functions of a particular individual marker within a specific context regarding power differential in previous studies. Therefore, the purpose of the study is to delve into pragmatic functions of Chinese discourse marker hǎo in parliamentary discourse. Drawing on the analytic framework of politeness, how discourse marker hǎo operates in the context in relation to power differential was further interpreted. The data included 1011 tokens of hǎo in total collected from parliamentary discourses, which consists of exchanges by parliamentarians and government officials and have been orthographically transcribed. The discourses were selected from the official documentary records, which are the unsolicited transcription archives, of a session which was held from March 27 to June 4 in 2014.
The results show that the discourse marker hǎo in parliamentary discourse signaled fourteen pragmatic functions, including to agree, to express understanding, to express an opinion, to bring up an issue, to elaborate, to request, to attract attention, backchannels, to hold the floor, to query, to express disagreement, to vie for a turn, to make a promise, and to complete negotiation. Moreover, in terms of the perspectives of politeness maxims as well as politeness strategies, based on the dichotomy of participants, parliamentarians and government officials, the present data showed that speakers in parliamentary interaction used tact, agreement and approbation maxims (Leech, 1983) while negotiating issues. Other than politeness maxims, the parliamentarians enacted both positive and negative face saving acts (Brown & Levinson, 1987) to meet the fact want and to mitigate threats to the negative face of others, while the government officials adopted only positive politeness strategy in the communication.
論文目次:Abstract (Chinese) i
Abstract (English) iii
Acknowledgements v
Table of Contents vi
List of Tables vii
List of Figures viii
Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Motivation 1
1.2 Research Questions 5
1.3 Significance of the Study 6
1.4 Outline of the Study 7
Chapter 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 8
2.1 Discourse Analysis 8
2.2 Discourse Markers 11
2.2.1 Discourse Approach 13
2.2.2 Semantic Approach 15
2.3 Politeness 17
2.3.1 Politeness Maxims 18
2.3.2 Politeness Strategies 21
2.4 Previous Studies on Discourse Markers 24
2.5 Linguistic Features of Parliamentary Discourse 28
Chapter 3 METHODOLOGY 31
3.1 Data 31
3.2 Procedure 33
3.3 Data Analysis 40
Chapter 4 DISCUSSIONS 42
4.1 Frequency of Hǎo in Parliamentary Discourse 42
4.2 Pragmatic Functions of Hǎo in Parliamentary Discourse 44
4.3 Politeness Maxims and Strategies 59
4.3.1 Parliamentarians 60
4.3.2 Government Officials 63
4.4 Comparison Between Parliamentarians and Government Officials 67
Chapter 5 CONCLUSION 71
5.1 Summary 71
5.2 Limitation and Suggestions for Future Studies 72
REFERENCES 73
論文參考文獻:Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Austin, J. L. (2002). How to do things with words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Brown, G., & Yule, G. (1983). Discourse analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness. Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Blakemore, D. (1987). Semantic constraints on relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.
Blakemore, D. (2002). Relevance and linguistic meaning: The semantics and pragmatics of discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Blakemore, D. (2005). Discourse markers. In L. R. Horn, & G. Ward (Eds.), The handbook of pragmatics (pp.221-240). Oxford: Blackwell.
Cai, Y. -F. (2013). A corpus-based analysis and study of the discourse-pragmatic functions of mandarin suoyi. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Kaohsiung Normal University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
Cheng, Y. -M. (2011). A corpus-based study of the discourse-pragmatic functions of the mandarin ni zhidao. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Kaohsiung Normal University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
Cutting, J. (2002). Pragmatics and discourse: A resource book for students. London: Routledge.
Eggins, S., & Slade, D. (1997). Analysing causal conversation. London: Cassell.
Feng, Guangwu. (2010). A theory of conventional implicature and pragmatic markers in Chinese. UK: Emerald Group.
Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis. London: Longman.
Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power. Harlow: Longman.
Fischer, K. (2006). Approach to discourse particles. Oxford: Elsevier.
Fraser, B. (1990). An approach to discourse markers. Journal of Pragmatics, 14(3), 383-398.
Fraser, B. (1996). Pragmatic markers. Pragmatics, 6(2), 167-190.
Fraser, B. (1998). Contrastive discourse markers in English In A.H. Jucker, & Y. Ziv (Eds.), Discourse markers: Descriptions and theory (pp. 302-326). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Fraser, B. (1999). What are discourse markers. Journal of Pragmatics, 31(7), 931-952.
Fraser, B. (2006). Towards a theory of discourse markers. In K. Fischer (Eds.), Approach to discourse particles (pp. 189-204). Oxford: Elsevier.
Fraser, B. (2009). The English contrastive discourse marker on the contrary. In B. Fraser, & K. Turner (Eds.), Language in life and a life in language (pp. 87-95). UK: Emerald Group.
Fraser, B., & Turner, K. (2009). Language in life and a life in language. UK: Emerald Group.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). Functional grammar (2nd ed.). London: Edward Arnold.
Holker, K. (1991). Franzosisch: Partikelforschung. Lexicon der romanistischen Linguistic, v(1): 77-88. Tubingen: Niemeyer.
Horn, L. R., & Ward, G. (2004). The handbook of pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell.
Huang, H. -M. (2010). A study on the pragmatic-discourse functions of jiushi and
zhishi in spoken Chinese. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Kaohsiung Normal University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
Hymes, D. (1964). Toward ethnographies of communicative events (ed.). P. P.
Giglioli.
Jucker, A. H., & Ziv, Y. (1996). Discourse markers: Descriptions and theory.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Jorgensen, M., & Phillips, L. J. (2002). Discourse analysis as theory and method.
London: Sage.
Leech, G. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. Harlow: Longman.
Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lewis, D. M. (2006). Discourse markers in English: A discourse-pragmatic view. In K. Fischer (Eds.), Approach to discourse particles (pp. 43-60). Oxford: Elsevier.
Lai, Z. -H. (2011). The pragmatic functions of discourse marker woxiang (“I think”) in spoken Chinese discourse and pedagogical application. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Kaohsiung Normal University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
LoCastro, V. (2012). Pragmatics for language educators: A sociolinguistic perspective. New York: Routledge.
Lai, C. -M. (2006). Semantic and discourse contrastive analyses of the Chinese lexeme hao and okay in English. Unpublished master’s thesis, Providence University, Taichung, Taiwan.
Li, C. -L. (2014). A study on the pragmatic-discourse functions of ruguo and yaoshi in spoken Chinese. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Kaohsiung Normal University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
Nunan, D. (2015). Teaching English to speakers of other languages: An introduction. New York: Routledge.
Prechter, S. (2001). The significance of discourse markers in the development of social roles. Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier.
Redeker, G. (1990). Identical and pragmatic markers of discourse structure. Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 367-381.
Schiffrin, D. (1986). Functions of and in discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 10(1), 41-66.
Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schiffrin, D. (1994). Approaches to discourse. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Schiffrin, D. (2001). Discourse markers: language, meaning, and context. In D. Schiffrin, & D. Tannen, & H. E. Hammilton (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 54-75). Oxford: Blackwell.
Schiffrin, D., & Tannen, D., & Hamilton, H. E. (2001). The handbook of discourse analysis. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Schiffrin, D. (2006). Discourse marker research and theory: Revisiting and. In K Fischer (Eds.), Approach to discourse particles (pp. 315-338). Oxford: Elsevier.
Schmitt, N. (2002). An introduction to applied linguistics (2nd ed.). London: Hodder Education.
Schourup, L. (1999). Discourse markers. Lingua, 107(3-4), 227-265.
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sinclair, J. McH., & Coulthard, R. M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wang, Y. -F., & Tsai, P. -H. (2005). Hao in spoken Chinese discourse: relevance and coherence. Language Sciences, 27 (2), 215-243
Wang, Y. (2011). A discourse-pragmatic functional study of the discourse markers Japanese ano and Chinese nage. Intercultural Communication Studies, 41-61.
Xue, Y. -J. (2012). A corpus-based study of the discourse-pragmatic functions of the mandarin Chinese Fanzheng. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Kaohsiung Normal University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Yeh, K. -Y. (2013). Mandarin-speaking children’s use of discourse markers hao ‘okay’ and dui ‘right’ in peer interaction. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Chengchi University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Youtube. “SS小燕之夜完整版外國人的台灣好朋友”. Retrieved March 30, 2016, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVo45mUHWfE
論文全文使用權限:同意授權於2017-06-25起公開