論漢語口語中的對比言談標記 —「可是」，「但是」，與「不過」

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

回結果列表

研究生：	林媛洳 Yuan-Ju Lin
論文名稱：	論漢語口語中的對比言談標記 —「可是」，「但是」，與「不過」 On Contrastive Discourse Markers—"Keshi", "Danshi", and "Buguo" in Spoken Mandarin
指導教授：	曹逢甫博士 Dr. Feng-Fu Tsao
口試委員:
學位類別：	碩士 Master
系所名稱：	人文社會學院 - 語言學研究所 Institute of Linguistics
論文出版年：	2005
畢業學年度：	93
語文別：	英文
論文頁數：	89
中文關鍵詞：	對比言談標記、語用功能
外文關鍵詞：	contrastive discourse markers, pragmatic functions
相關次數：	點閱：2 下載：0
分享至:	分享至facebook 分享至twitter

查詢本校圖書館目錄查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統勘誤回報

本研究旨在從言談及語用的觀點，探討漢語中「可是」、「但是」與「不過」三個類義的對比言談標記 (contrastive discourse markers)。研究係依據二十四小時的錄音語料轉譯加以分析來的，其中包括團體諮商的言談、日常生活會話、電話中的對話、廣播的扣應節目與訪談。依據關聯理論 (relevance theory) 的研究框架，我們觀察到「可是」、「但是」與「不過」在自然的實際口語言談中，各自扮演著不同的語用意涵。在標示對比的關係，「可是」主要的功能是著重於說話者對其前後論點連結的內心情緒感覺；「但是」則著重於強調其連結的前後論點之對立，並突顯其後所陳述訊息之重要；而「不過」所標示的對比關係，主要呈現其後所連結的論點往往是回指對先前論點的評斷。「可是」與「不過」所表達之對立傾於隱蘊 (implicit)，「但是」的對立則是明確外顯(explicit)。至於三者在語體的分佈使用情況，對照於中央研究院現代平衡語料庫的書面語料，「可是」常出現於非正式的口語言談而「但是」偏好用於正式書面語體，「不過」在口語及書面語體的使用則皆居於二者之間。此結果顯示「可是」在口語的使用，是互動言談中交涉(negotiable)行為的表徵；「但是」偏好於正式書面語體，乃其在文本連貫性中所扮演轉渡功能之重要性。

The present study aims to investigate the three near-synonymous Mandarin contrastive discourse markers keshi, danshi, and buguo from a discourse-pragmatic perspective. The study is based on 24 hours’ recording of natural spoken data, including conversations in group-consultation, daily conversations, telephone conversations, and radio call-in programs and interviews. Observing the naturally occurring spoken discourse in different styles within the approach of Relevancy Theory, various functions of keshi, danshi, and buguo are identified. The main function of keshi is to signal ‘contrast with sensitivity’, and that of danshi is to mark ‘contrast with emphasis’ while ‘contrast with backward remarks’ is examined as the main function of buguo. In addition, keshi and buguo tend to express implicit contrast whereas danshi conveys explicit contrast. As to their distribution, compared with the occurrences in written discourse in Sinica Corpus, keshi occurs more frequently in casual spoken discourse while danshi is preferable in formal written discourse. The result displays that that the use of keshi shows negotiable behaviors in interactional spoken discourse while danshi often occurs in formal written discourse, playing a transitional role in textual coherence.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHINESE ABSTRACT…………………………………………..    i
ENGLISH ABSTRACT………………………………………..    ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS……………………………………….    iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS……………………………………     iv
LIST OF ABBREVIATION……………………….……………...    vi
TRANSCRIPTION CONVENTIONS…………….…………………    vii
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES…………….………………….    viii

CHAPTER ONE  INTRODUCTION………..………………………...    1
1  Motivations and Goals……………………………………    1
2  Contrastive Discourse Markers………………………..    4
2.1  Definition … ………………………………………….    4
2.2  Relationships of Contrast..……………………...    5
3  Data and Methodology……………………………………    7
3.1  Data…………………………………………...…….    7
3.2  Methodology…………………………………………...    8
4  Organization of the Thesis…………………………..    9
CHAPTER TWO  LITERATURE REVIEW………...…………………    11
1  Studies on English Contrastive Connectives………    11
2  Traditional Accounts of Keshi,Danshi,and Buguo…    13
2.1  Chao (1968)………………………………………………    13
2.2  Lü (1980)…………………………………………………    14
3  Recent Studies on Keshi, Danshi, and Buguo……….    14
3.1  Ross (1978)…………………………………………….    14
3.2  Li and Thompson (1981)………………………………    16
3.3  Miracle (1991)…………………………………………    17
3.4  Wang (2002)………………………………………………    20
4  Summary…………………………………………………….    23
CHAPTER THREE PRAGMATIC FUNCTIONS OF KESHI,DANSHI,BUGUO
                                            ….    25
1  Pragmatic Functions of Keshi………………………    25
1.1  Keshi as a Mitigator………………………………    27
1.2  Keshi as a Hesitation Marker……………………..    31
1.3  Keshi as a Turn-inviting Marker………………….    33
1.4  Frequency………………………………………………    35
2  Pragmatic Functions of Danshi………………………    36
2.1  Danshi as An attention-getter…………………….    37
2.2  Danshi as a Topic Marker…………………………..    40
2.3  Danshi as an Information Enhancer………………..    43
2.4  Danshi as a Marker of Challenge…………………    45
2.5  Danshi as a Marker of Explanation………………    46
2.6  Frequency……………………………………………..    48
3  Pragmatic Functions of Buguo……………………….    49
3.1  Buguo as a Mitigator………………………………..    50
3.2  Buguo as an Attention-getter……………………..    54
3.3  Buguo as a Topic-Shift Marker……………………..    56
3.4  Buguo as a Marker of Summarization………………    58
3.5  Buguo as an Indicator of Reservation……………    59
3.6  Buguo as a Marker of Explanation………………….    63
3.7  Frequency………………………………………………    65
4  Summary………………………………………………….    66
CHAPTER FOUR  THE COMPARISON OF KESHI, DANSHI, BUGUO…………….    67
1  The Main Function……………………………………….    67
1.1  Keshi: Signaling Contrast with Sensitivity…    70
1.2  Danshi: Signaling Contrast with Emphasis………    72
1.3  Buguo:Signaling Contrast with Backward Remarks.    73
1.4  The Differences of Keshi, Danshi, and Buguo….    74
2  The Distribution………………………………………….    77
3  Grammaticalization………………………………………    79
3.1  The Syntactic Behaviors…………………………….    80
3.2  Traugott’s Framework…………………………………    82
4  Summary…………………………………………………….    85
CHAPTER FIVE  CONCLUSION……………………..…………….    86
1  Summary of the Findings………………………………..    86
2  Limitations and Suggestions for Further Resear…    88
REFERENCE………………………………………………………..    90

                                

2001 HUB5 Mandarin Transcripts. Linguistic Data Consortium (LDC). Catalog number LDC2003T01 and ISBN: 1-58563-252-x
Blakemore, Diane. 1989. Denial and contrast: a Relevance theoretic analysis of but. Linguistics and Philosophy 12: 15–37.
Blakemore, Diane. 2000. Indicators and procedures: nevertheless and but. Journal of Linguistics 36: 463–486.
Brinton, L.J. 1996. Pragmatic Markers in English: Grammaticalization and Discourse Functions. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Brown, Penelop and Stephen C. Levinson. 1978.　Universals in language usage: politeness phenomena.　In Questions and Politeness, ed. by Esther N. Goody, 59-289.　Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brown, Penelop and Stephen C. Levinson. 1987.　Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage.　Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chao, Yuan Ren. 1968. A Grammar of Spoken Chinese. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press
Fraser, Bruce. 1990. An approach to discourse markers. Journal of Pragmatics 14: 383-395.
Fraser, Bruce. 1998. Contrastive discourse markers in English. In Discourse Markers, Jucker, Andreas H. and Yael Ziv (eds.), 277-300.
Fraser, Bruce. 1999. What are discourse markers? Journal of Pragmatics 31: 931-952
Geis, Michael L. 1989. A linguistically motivated theory of conversational sequences. In Papers from the 25th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, Part 2: Parasession on Language in Context, Music, Bradley, et al. (eds.) Chicago: University of Chicago Linguistics Department.
Grundy, Peter. 2000.　Doing Pragmatics.　New York: Oxford University Press.
Halliday, M. A. K. 1978. Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning. London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K. 1994. An Introduction to Functional Grammar (second edition). London: Edward Arnold.
Hopper, Paul J. and Elizabeth Traugott. 1993. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lakoff, Robin. 1971. If’s, and’s, and but’s about conjunction. In Fillmore and Langendoen (eds.), Studies in Linguistic Semantics, 115-150. New York: Holt, Reinhart and Winston.
Levison, Stephen. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Li, Charles N. and Sandra A. Thompson. 1981. Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference Grammar. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Liu, Hongyin (劉紅嬰). 2003. Forensic Linguistics (法律語言學). Beijing: Beijing University Press.
Liu, Qingping. 2001. The Comparison of “Que” and “Danshi”. Unpublished MA Thesis, Jinan University (China).
Lü Shuxing. 1980. Xiandai Hanyu Babai Ci (800 Words in Modern Chinese). Hong Kong: Commercial Press, Hong Kong Division.
Miracle, W. Charles. 1991. Discourse Markers in Mandarin Chinese. Ohio: the Ohio State University Ph.D. Dissertation.
Park, Yong-Yae. 1998. A discourse analysis of contrastive connectives in English, Korean, and Japanese conversation: with special reference to the context of dispreferred responses. In Jucker, Andreas H. and Yael Ziv (eds.), Discourse Markers, 277-300.
Pomerantz, Anita. 1984. Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In Atkinson, J. M. and Heritage, J. (eds.), Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, 57-101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press:
Ross, Claudia. 1978. Contrasting Conjunctions in English, Japanese, and Mandarin Chinese. Michigan: University of Michigan Ph.D. Dissertation.
Schiffrin, Deborah. 1987. Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schourup, L.1999. Discourse markers. Lingua 3-4: 227-265.
Searle, J. R. 1975. The classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society 5:1-24.
Sperber, Dan and Deirdre Wilson. 1986. second edition 1995. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.
Sun, Yihua (孫懿華). 1997. Forensic Linguistics (法律語言學). Beijing: Zhongguo Zhengfa University Press.
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1982. From propositional to textual and expressive meanings: some semantic-pragmatic aspects of grammaticalization. In Winfred P. Lehmann and Yakov Malkiel (eds.), Perspectives on Historical Linguistics, 245-72. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs.1989. On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: an example of subjectification in semantic change. Language 65: 31-55.
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs and Ekkehard König. 1991. The semantics-pragmatics of grammaticalization revisited. In Elizabeth Closs Traugott and Bernd Heine (eds.), Approaches to Grammaticalization, Vol 1: 189-218. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs and Richard B. Dasher. 2002. Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Thomas, Jenny.1995.　Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics. New York: Longman.
Tsao, Feng-Fu (曹逢甫). 2000. A study and teaching of Mandarin particles: take ne for example. 〈華語虛詞的研究與教學－以『呢』字為例〉 In World Chinese Education Association (ed.), Proceedings of the Sixth World Chinese Teaching Conference, Vol. 1: Linguistic Analysis《第六屆世界華語文研討會論文集第一冊：語文分析組》, 1-25. Taipei: World Chinese Publishing.
Unger, Christoph. 1996. The scope of discourse connectives: implications for discourse organization. Journal of Linguistics 32: 403 438.
Van Dijk, Teun A. 1989. Text and Context. Longman.
Wang, Yu-Fang. 2002. Contrast in discourse cohesion and coherence: the contrastive markers in Mandarin conversation. In Yuchau E. Hsiao (ed.) Proceedings of the First Cognitive Linguistics Conference, 375-402. Taipei: National Chengchi University.
Wang, Xia. 2003. The original and grammaticalization of the conjunction buguo. Journal of Hebei Normal University (Philosophy and Social Science) 26-2: 90-94.
Wu, Hsiao-Ching. 2003. A case study on the grammaticalization of guo in Mandarin Chinese—polysemy of the motion verb with respect to semantic changes. Language and Linguistics 4: 857-885.

全文公開日期本全文未授權公開 (校內網路)
全文公開日期本全文未授權公開 (校外網路)
全文公開日期本全文未授權公開 (國家圖書館：臺灣博碩士論文系統)

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

相關論文