跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(44.222.218.145) 您好!臺灣時間:2024/03/04 00:35
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果 :::

詳目顯示

: 
twitterline
研究生:謝昕芸
研究生(外文):Hsin-yun Hsieh
論文名稱:台語語尾助詞之言談語用功能
論文名稱(外文):The Discourse-Pragmatic Functions of Final Particles in Taiwanese
指導教授:黃宣範黃宣範引用關係
指導教授(外文):Shuanfan Huang
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立臺灣大學
系所名稱:語言學研究所
學門:人文學門
學類:語言學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2001
畢業學年度:89
語文別:英文
論文頁數:165
中文關鍵詞:會話分析語用學語助詞認識信念態度台語
外文關鍵詞:Conversation AnalysisPragmaticsParticleEpistemic BeliefAttitudeTaiwanese
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:1
  • 點閱點閱:1133
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:175
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:5
語尾助詞的使用在台語會話中相當普遍。語助詞除發揮語法功能外,同時也牽涉到說話者在態度上的互動,這項功能在會話中格外重要。語助詞使說話者得以表達更多命題之外的概念,亦即幫助說話者為會話注入不同層面的溝通。本文探討台語會話中六個認識、態度語助詞(a、la、o、le、ne、ma)之言談功能,其中a、o、le之聲調變化亦在觀察範圍之內。其言談功能由認識信念、態度與順序等角度進行分析,而以這六種語助詞為結構成分之部分言談標記也在討論之內。
由認識信念的角度而言,a7標示某話語顯然為真,此乃說話者對該話語所抱持之信念,且其認為聽話者也應該知道。a1則只是a7的聲調變化,二者皆反映說話者之認識信念,惟a1以較高的調值表現較強烈的態度。a3則僅表示說話者相信此話語為真。根據語料,我們主張a7與a1可被分析為彼此在聲調上的變體,然而a3則是截然不同的另一個語助詞。甚者,a3或可被與另一個語尾助詞la歸為一類。la同樣表示說話者相信此話語為真,但是並不涉及其真實性明顯與否。
就認識信念而言,o表示某話語顯然為真,此乃說話者之信念,說話者並相信聽話者有需要知道此訊息,語料並顯示o7、o5與o1皆為o3之聲調變化。le標示某話語為真,且其真相與說話者/聽話者先前之預設或期望有所衝突,我們取le3為基本形式,而le7、le1為le3之聲調變化。與le相似,ne所標示之話語可能和說話者/聽話者先前之預設或期望有所衝突,然而ne更進一步傳達說話者友善的建議,因而帶有提醒與告知的非表意行為。最後,ma表示說話者相信某話語顯然為真,且其真實性應該為聽話者所知,說話者並認為此認知來自於其共同背景的一部份。
就語意學角度而言,話語的意義來自命題本身,然而尤其是在會話中,我們通常會發現說話者所傳達之意念似乎不僅於此,這便顯示了認知與互動層面在會話研究上的重要性。命題可表達敘述性意義,而社會/互動性意義則須藉由各種語言或非語言機制來傳遞,包括語助詞、言談標記、語調、面部表情、手勢等等。而某話語可能在不同的情境下表達不同的人際互動功能,也因此我們認為會話言談是動態的 - 說話者彼此互動,進而動態地發展會話。
透過對台語認識/態度語尾助詞言談功能之研究,本文得以呈現語言的命題功能、文句功能與互動功能各自在會話中的實現。在台語會話中,認識/態度語尾助詞能明白地標示說話者的認識信念、態度與情緒。它們幫助聽話者理解說話者不論在語意或語用層面上確切的意念。藉由這些機制,說話者得以有效地用僅僅一個字便傳達其認識信念並使會話的發展更為便利。

The use of final particles is a pervasive feature in spoken Taiwanese. Particles may have two kinds of functions. They perform grammatical functions, and they are involved with the speakers' affective stance interaction, which is especially important in conversations. These particles allow speakers to express much more than their propositions, and this in turn helps them add extra dimensions to conversation. This thesis investigates the discourse functions of six epistemic-attitudinal particles in Taiwanese conversations - a, la, o, le, ne and ma. The discourse functions of the tonal variants of a, o and le are examined as well. The discourse functions are analyzed from the perspectives of epistemic stance, affect and sequentiality. Some discourse markers with the final particles in question as a constitutive part are also discussed.
From the perspective of epistemic belief, a7 can mark an utterance as evidently true, since that is what the speaker believes about the utterance, and by implication the speaker believes or knows that the hearer should know it, too. A1 is just a tonal variant of a7. They both reflect the epistemic belief of the speaker, but with higher tone value, a1 signals iconically stronger attitude. A3 marks that the speaker believes the utterance to be true. Based on the data, we claim that while a7 and a1 are analyzable as tonal variants of each other, a3 is an altogether different particle. It may be plausible to group a3 with another final particle la. La marks that the speaker believes the utterance to be true, but it does not necessarily suggest that the truthfulness of the utterance in any way evident.
In terms of epistemic belief, o marks an utterance as true and significant, since that is what the speaker believes, and the speaker believes or knows that the hearer needs to know it. Corpus data show that o7, o5 and o1 are tonal variants of o3. Le marks an utterance as true, and that its truth contradicts a previous assumption or expectation of the hearer or the speaker himself. We take le3 as the basic form and le7 and le1 as tonal variants of le3. Similar to le, the utterance marked with ne may contradict some previous assumption or expectation of the hearer or the speaker himself. However, ne further conveys the speaker's friendly suggestion and thus carries the illocutionary force of reminding and informing. Finally, ma marks the speaker's epistemic belief that the utterance it attaches to is obviously true and that its truth should be known by the hearer, since the speaker assumes that it is clearly part of the common ground.
In the sense of semantics, the meaning of the utterance comes from the proposition itself. However, especially in conversations, we usually find that the speaker seems to convey more than that, which indicates the importance of cognitive and interactional perspectives on studies of conversation. While the descriptive meaning is conveyed by the proposition, the social meaning can be conveyed via various linguistic or non-linguistic devises, including particles, discourse markers, intonation, facial expressions, gestures and so forth. An utterance may perform different interpersonal functions under different circumstances. This is also why we consider conversational discourse as dynamic. Speakers interact with each other and develop the conversation dynamically.
This thesis demonstrates the realization of propositional, textual and inter-personal/interactional function in conversations via investigating the discourse functions of epistemic-attitudinal final particles in Taiwanese. In Taiwanese conversation, epistemic-attitudinal final particles can explicitly mark the speaker's epistemic belief, attitude and affect. They help the hearer to understand what exactly the speaker means, both semantically and pragmatically. By means of these devises, speakers can effectively convey their epistemic belief within just one word and facilitate the development of conversation.

Chapter 1 Introduction1
1.1 Particle: definition1
1.2 Previous studies on epistemic-attitudinal particles3
1.3 Previous studies on final particles in Taiwanese8
1.4 Linguistic meanings and functions10
1.5 Epistemic-attitudinal final particles in Taiwanese13
1.6 The corpus17
Chapter 2 The Discourse Functions of A7 and A118
2.1 Information states and a718
2.2 Epistemic belief19
2.3 Sequentiality22
2.3.1 Question-answer sequences22
2.3.2 Agreement sequences25
2.4 Story-telling discourse27
2.5 Discourse markers and formulae29
2.5.1 Isolated discourse markers30
2.5.2 Turn-initial discourse markers34
2.5.3 Turn-medial discourse markers37
2.5.4 Turn-final discourse markers38
2.6 Discourse functions of a140
2.7 Conclusion42
Chapter 3The Discourse Functions of A344
3.1 Information states and a344
3.2 Aspect marker46
3.3 Epistemic belief48
3.4 Sequentiality49
3.4.1 Question-answer sequences50
3.4.2 Request-promise sequences51
3.5 Discourse markers and formulae53
3.5.1 Discourse markers: heN a3, si a3, hio a354
3.5.1.1 Isolated discourse markers55
3.5.1.2 Turn-initial discourse markers58
3.5.1.3 Turn-final discourse markers59
3.5.2 Other discourse markers and formulae60
3.5.2.1 Discourse marker bo a360
3.5.2.2 Discourse marker totioh a363
3.5.2.3 Discourse marker anne a366
3.5.2.4 Other discourse marker: tio a368
3.6 Conclusion69
Chapter 4The Discourse Functions of La71
4.1 Epistemic belief72
4.2 Sequential positions of la in discourse75
4.2.1 Turn transition76
4.2.2 Topic shift78
4.2.3 Adjacency pairs79
4.3 Serial use of la82
4.4 Interpretations of la86
4.5 Discourse markers and formulae89
4.5.1 Discourse markers: heN la, haN la, si la, hio la, tio(h) la89
4.5.1.1 Isolated discourse markers91
4.5.1.2 Turn-initial discourse markers93
4.5.1.3 Turn-medial discourse markers94
4.5.1.4 Turn-final discourse markers95
4.5.2 Other discourse markers and formulae97
4.5.2.1 Discourse marker bo la97
4.5.2.2 Discourse marker totio(h) la100
4.5.2.3 Discourse marker anne la103
4.5.2.4 Discourse marker boiaukin/boakin(沒要緊)la105
4.6 Conclusion107
Chapter 5The Discourse Functions of O, Le, Ne and Ma110
5.1 Discourse Functions of O110
5.1.1 Epistemic belief111
5.1.2 Sequentiality116
5.1.3 Discourse formulae117
5.1.3.1 Discourse formulae: bokkoai(莫怪)o3118
5.1.3.2 Discourse formulae: gaucha(豪早)o3120
5.1.3.3 Other discourse formulae120
5.2 Discourse Functions of Le122
5.2.1 Epistemic belief122
5.2.2 Discourse formulae127
5.2.2.1 Discourse formulae: kanna(假若)…le3 / na(若)…le3128
5.2.2.2 Discourse formulae: goa(偌)…le3 / goa(偌)…e3130
5.2.2.3 Discourse formula: chiok(足)…le3 / chiok(足)…e3133
5.3 Discourse Functions of Ne133
5.4 Discourse Functions of Ma137
5.5 Conclusion141
Chapter 6Conclusion144
6.1 Key findings144
6.1.1 Discourse functions of a7 and a1144
6.1.2 Discourse functions of a3145
6.1.3 Discourse functions of la146
6.1.4 Discourse functions of o, le, ne and ma148
6.2 Semantics vs. pragmatics in conversation150
6.2.1 Epistemic-attitudinal as interactional devise in Taiwanese150
6.3 Further studies151
References153

Chafe, Wallace. 1994. Discourse, Consciousness, and Time. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Chang, Miao-hsia. 1997. Discourse Functions of Negatives bo and m in Taiwanese. Doctoral dissertation. National Taiwan Normal University.
Chappell, Hilary. 1991. Strategies for the assertion of obviousness and disagreement in Mandarin: a semantic study of the modal particle me. Australian Journal of Linguistics 11, 39-65.
Chen, Chiou-mei. 1989. A Study on Taiwanese Sentence-Final Particles. M.A. Thesis. National Taiwan Normal University.
Clark, Herbert H. 1996. Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Coulthard, Malcolm and David Brazil. 1992. Exchange structure. in Coulthard, Malcolm (ed) Advances in Spoken Discourse Analysis, 50-78.
Cumming, Susana and Tsuyoshi Ono. 1997. Discourse and grammar. in Dijk, Teun A. (ed) Discourse as Structure and Process, 112-137.
Dimmendaal, Gerrit J. 1996. Attitude markers and conversational implicatures in Turkana speech acts. Studies in Language 20:2, 249-274.
Du Bois, John et al. 1993. Outline of discourse transcription. In J. Edwards and Martin D. Lampert (eds) Talking Data: Transcription and Coding Methods for Language Research, 45-89.
Fox, Barbara A., Makoto Hayashi and Robert Jasperson. 1996. Resources and repair: a cross-linguistic study of syntax and repair. in Ochs, E., E.A. Schegloff and S.A. Thompson (eds) Interaction and Grammar, 185-237.
Givon, Talmy. 1982. Logic vs. pragmatics, with human languages as the reference: Toward an empirically viable epistemology. Journal of Pragmatics 6, 81-133.
Hartmann, D. 1998. Particles, in Mey, Jacob (ed), Concise Encyclopedia of Pragmatics, 657-663.
Halliday, M. A. K. 1989. Language, Context, and Text: Aspects of language in a social-semiotic perspective. London: Oxford University Press.
Huang, Shuanfan. 2000. The story of heads and tails - on a sequentially sensitive lexicon. Language and Linguistics 1: 2, 79-107.
Huang, Shuanfan. (to appear). Particles as epistemic attitudinals - toward a theory of particles, in Shuanfan Huang, The Discourse Basis of Grammar.
Huang, Shuanfan and K. Chui. 1988. Particles as epistemic-attitudinals: toward a theory of particles. Paper presented at the Second International Conference on Chinese Language Teaching and Research. Taipei, Dec. 27-31.
Kawanishi, Yumiko. 1994. An analysis of non-challengeable modals: Korean -canha(yo) and Japanese -janai, in Akatsuka, Noriko (ed), Japanese/Korean Linguistics Volume 4, 95-111.
Kubler, Cornelius and George T.C. Ho. 1984. Varieties of spoken Standard Chinese, Volume 2: A speaker from Taipei. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.
Li, Charles and Tompson, S. A. 1981. Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference Grammar. Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Li, Ing Cherry. 1999. Utterance-Final Particles in Taiwanese: A Discourse-pragmatic Analysis. Taipei: The Crane Publishing Co.
Lien, Chin-fa. 1988. Taiwanese sentence-final particles, in Cheng, R.L. and S. Huang (eds), The Structure of Taiwanese: A Modern Synthesis, 209-240.
Lyons, John. 1977. Semantics. Vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Maynard, S. K. 1989. Japanese Conversation: Self-contextualization Through Structure and Interactional Management. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex.
Maynard, S. K. 1999. On rhetorical ricochet: expressivity of nominalization and da in Japanese discourse. Discourse Studies 1: 1, 57-81.
Prince, Ellen. 1981. Toward a taxonomy of given/new information. in P. Cole (ed) Radical Pragmatics. New York: Acdemic Press.
Sacks, Harvey, E.A. Schegloff and G. Jefferson. 1974. A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50: 696-735.
Schegloff, Emanuel. 1996. Turn organization: one intersection of grammar and interaction. in Ochs, E., E.A. Schegloff and S.A. Thompson (eds) Interaction and Grammar, 52-133.
Schiffrin, Deborah. 1987. Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Stubbs, Michael. 1983. Discourse Analysis: The Sociolinguistic Analysis of Natural Language. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Suh, Kyung-Hee, and Kyu-hyun Kim. 1991. The Korean modal markers keyss and (u)lkes: an interactional perspective. Paper presented at Harvard Workshop on Korean Linguistics, Harvard University, Mass.
Suh, Kyung-Hee, and Kyu-hyun Kim. 1993. The Korean modal marker keyss as a marker of affect: an interactional perspective, in Clancy, Patricia M. (ed), Japanese/Korean Linguistics Volume 2, 98-114.
Verschueren, Jef. 1998. A pragmatic model for the dynamics of communication. in Kasher, Asa (ed) Pragmatics: Critical Concepts Volume V: Communication, Interaction and discourse, 139-148.

QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top