簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示
| 研究生： |
張國斌 Chang, Kuo-Pin |
|---|---|
| 論文名稱： |
交談中選擇修護類別的語意與語用條件 Choosing repair types in conversation--semantic and pragmatic determinants |
| 指導教授： |
詹惠珍
Chan, Hui-Chen |
| 學位類別： |
碩士
Master |
| 系所名稱： |
外國語文學院 - 語言學研究所 Graduate Institute of Linguistics |
| 論文出版年： | 1998 |
| 畢業學年度： | 87 |
| 語文別： | 英文 |
| 論文頁數： | 111 |
| 中文關鍵詞： | 語言學 |
| 外文關鍵詞： | Linguistics |
| 相關次數： | 點閱：239 下載：0 |
| 分享至: |
| 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 |
一個說話者在交談中做修護，不僅僅只是為了改變語句的句法結構，他會做修護是因為他所說出的語句，與他原本意欲表達的內容比較之下，出現了語意模糊、指涉太廣、或意有不足的地方。雖然修護可依照不同的詞彙與句法的改變來加以分類，但修護類別的產生也應把被修護語(Reparandum)與修護語(Reparan)之間的語意關係列入考量。此外，若修護的出現有一語用的目的，以語意的角度來區別各種不同的修護形式，有助於解釋修護類別與其語用功能之間的互動關係。
本研究之資料係由觀察實際日常交談中的修護而得（包含同性與異性間的對話），基於這些收集到的語料，本研究仔細檢視被修護者與修護者之間的語意關係如何決定一個語用功能的產生，以及此語用功能如何影響修護類別的選取。
研究結果顯示，針對本研究所欲探討的三個語用功能中，每一個語用功能都會有一個修護類別的使用頻率會高於其它的修護類別，而這種優先選取的情形取決於達到語意清晰的效能原則(Effectiveness Principle)與／或效率原則(Economy Principle)。統計數據也證實：(1)要執行釐清(Clarification)的語用功能，較有效率的修護類別實詞化(Substantialization)比意譯(Paraphrase)和添加(Addition)較常為說話者所用；(2)要執行指明(Specification)的語用功能，一樣也是較有效率的闡釋(Elaboration)的使用頻率遠比添加(Addition)來得高；反之，(3)要執行確認(Confirmation)的語用功能，較省時省力的重覆(Repetition)要比實詞化和意譯更常被使用。以上的修護類別的使用順序指出，修穫類別使用頻率高低，不僅取決於其是否耗時費力，而且更重要的是，說話老如何能以最有效率的方式將自己的意思清楚地表達，以確保原語意的清晰。
最後，統計檢定的結果證實，性別對修護類別的選取沒有顯著的不同。
A speaker does not repair just for a change of the syntactic structure of his current utterance. A speaker repairs because he finds something uttered may be vague, ambiguous, too general, or insufficient in the meaning of the message he intends to express. Although repairs can be classified according to various kinds of lexical or syntactic modification, categorization of repairs should take into consideration different semantic relationships between the reparandum and the reparan. Considering that each occurrence of repair must have a pragmatic function to serve, a semantic approach on the classification of conversational repair would be more helpful than a syntactic one in explaining the interaction between the repair strategies and their potential pragmatic functions. And the methodology for this study is to collect the instances of repair from nine conversations, including same-gender and cross-gender ones. Based on these repairs, it is closely examined how the semantic relationship between the reparandum and the reparan determines a pragmatic function and how that pragmatic function influences the choice of the available repair strategies.
"The test results indicate that for each of the three pragmatic functions examined in this study, there is a repair strategy that shows a more significant priority over the other available one(s), and this priority is determined either by the principle of the economy and/or the principle of clarity. The statistic results present evidences that (1) to serve the pragmatic function of Clarification, the more effective repair strategy Substantialization is more favored than Paraphrase and Addition; (2) to serve the function of Specificalion, also lhe more effective Elaboration predominates over Addition; however, (3) to serve the function of Confirmation, the more economic Repetition is used significantly more often than Substantialization and Paraphrase. The above preference orders show that the adoption of the most favored repair strategy depends not only on the effort or time a repair takes, but, more importantly, on how the speaker can most effectively make himself clear to the hearer, securing the clarity of the intended meaning.
Results of statistic tests do not verify the hypothesis that male and female speakers would display significantly different patterns in their choices among the five repair strategies.
Acknowledgements-----iv
List of Tables-----viii
List of Diagrams-----ix
List of Abbreviations-----x
List of Conventions for Data Transcription-----xi
Chinese Abstract-----xii
English Abstract-----xiv
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION-----1
I. The Problem-----1
II. General Goals and Scope-----1
III. Repair Strategies: Semantic Categorization of Repair-----2
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW-----5
I. Definition of Repair-----5
A. Repair in General Scope-----5
B. Self-repair-----6
II. Categories of Repair-----8
A. Different Repair vs. Abandonment-----10
B. Appropriateness Repair-----10
C. Error Repair-----13
D. Covert Repair-----13
III. Pragmatic Functions of Repair-----17
A. Clarification-----18
B. Confirmation-----19
IV. Social Significance-----22
CHAPTER THREE: THE VARIABLES AND THE HYPOTHESES-----25
I. Classification of Repair-----25
A. Repetition and Completion-----28
B. Interpretation: Paraphrase and Elaboration-----30
C. Substantialization-----32
D. Replacement-----32
E. Addition-----35
II. Pragmatic FTincticms of Repair-----36
A. Content-oriented Repair-----37
1. Clarification-----37
2. Specification-----39
3. Confirmation-----41
4. Correction-----44
B. Mechanism-oriented Repail-----44
1. Reformulation-----45
2. Message-organizing-----46
III Social Significance-----48
IV. Hypotheses-----49
CHAPTER FOUR: METHODOLOGY-----51
I. Variables-----51
II. Corpus of Data-----51
A. Types of Conversation and the Constraints of Its Collection-----52
B. Sampling-----52
1. Source of Subjects-----53
2. Social Characteristics of Subjects-----53
III. Date Transcription-----54
IV. Data Analysis-----55
CHAPTER FIVE: DATA ANALYSIS-----57
I Types of Repair vs. Pragmatic Functions-----57
A. General Differences among Features of Each Repair Strategy for
Available Pragmatic Functions-----61
B. The Preferential Order of Repair Strategies for Each Pragmatic Function-----68
1. Repair for Clarification-----69
a. Process-----69
b. Qualified types of repair for clarification-----70
c. Explanations for the priority of repair types for clarification-----73
2. Repair for Specification-----78
a. Process-----79
b. Qualified types of repair for specification-----80
c. Explanations for the priority of repair types for specification-----82
3. Repair for Confirmation-----84
a. Process-----84
b. Qualified types of repair for confirmation-----85
c. Explanations for the priority of repair types for confirmation-----87
II. Gender as a Social Variable infhiencing a Speaker's Choice of Repair Types for Pragmatic Functions-----92
III. Summary-----95
CHAPTER Six: CONCLUDING REMARKS-----101
Bibliography-----109
List of Tables
Table 1. Classifications of repair bv Levelt (1983) and Chui (1996)-----16
Table 2. Classifications of repair by Levelt (1983), Chui (1996), and Chang-----26
Table 3. Categories of repair by Chang and the respective semantic features of the leparandnm and the reparan-----27
Table 4. Pragmatic functions of each repair type-----47
Table 5. Selected types of repair and pragmatic functions in this study-----48
Table 6. Social characteristics of the subjects-----54
Table 7. Percentages of each repair strategy for each pragmatic function-----58
Talde 8. Recalculated percentages of the five repair types Tised for three pragmatic functions-----60
Table 9. Four characteristics of five repair types used for each of the three pragmatic functions-----63
Table 10. Results of the independent samples test on each pair out of the three repair strategies for the pragmatic function of Clarification-----73
Table 11. Results of the independent samples test on each pair out of the three repair strategies for the pragmatic function of Confirmation-----88
Table 12. The respective percentages in the use of repair types for each pragmatic function by two sexes-----93
Table 13. Recalculated percentages from. Table 11-----93
Table 14. The results of Independent Samples Test on the differences between males and females in the five repair strategies for the three pragmatic functions-----94
List of Diagrams
Diagram 1. Model of repair for Clarification-----70
Diagram 2. Model of repair for Specification-----79
Diagram 3. Model of repair for Confirmation-----85
(限達賢圖書館四樓資訊教室A單機使用)