会话互动中的话语标记“好吧”研究

发布时间：2018-02-07 15:13

本文关键词： 话语标记好吧互动功能行吧　出处：《安徽大学》2017年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：话语标记作为一种特殊的语言成分广泛存在于日常言语交际之中。对话语标记进行研究可以推进语言研究的进程,拓宽话语研究的范围,帮助人们更深入地认识和了解语言使用的特点和规律。本文以此为出发点,通过对日常口语实际情况的观察和思考,在前人研究的基础上,以电视剧视频语料为考察对象,对会话互动中的话语标记"好吧"进行深入具体的研究,探讨和解决相应的问题。文章总共分为六个部分:第一部分为绪论部分,主要内容包括对国内外话语标记的研究现状以及"好吧"研究概况的综述,通过整理归纳相关研究成果,指出前人研究中存在的问题和不足;介绍本文的研究目的、研究意义、研究思路和方法以及创新点等。第二部分为本文创建理论基础。立足于前人的观点,在话语标记的名称、概念和判定标准等基本问题上给出自己的分析,做出明确的界定。第三部分是对话语标记"好吧"的身份和范围的界定。在整理统计转写的"好吧"语料的基础上,归纳共时状态下"好吧"的不同用法,运用构建的理论基础对话语标记"好吧"加以界定,并且将表应答的"好吧"和表附加疑问的"好吧"分别与话语标记"好吧"进行对比分析,分析发现:表应答的"好吧"分别在语义背景、词汇化和情感态度等方面与话语标记"好吧"存在不同;表附加疑问的"好吧"在语音、语法化程度、句法和语用功能等方面和话语标记"好吧"相区别。第四部分是对话语标记"好吧"在会话互动中的语用功能的微观研究。重在借鉴英语相关话语标记的功能研究模式,从实际语料出发,分析归纳了话语标记"好吧"在会话互动的不同语境下作为交际主体之间的缓和标记语、延缓标记语、信息明示标记语以及主观性凸显标记语等四大语用功能,具体阐述了话语标记"好吧"的"性价比"内容,并从结构成分的作用、语用原则的限制、外语标记的影响和使用心理的催化等四个方面来简要说明话语标记"好吧"多功能的成因。第五部分为充分体现"好吧"在日常会话中的使用特点,尝试对同类语言结构"好吧"和"行吧"进行对比研究。根据语料的对比,分析二者在用法和功能上的异同,并且试着从交互主观性的角度考察二者在相同用法和功能上的差异所在,分析得出,"好吧"和"行吧"的根本差异在于交互主观性强弱的不同,"好吧"具有强交互主观性,而"行吧"的交互主观性较弱。第六部分为结语部分,对全文主要成果进行总结回顾,并对遗存问题进行补充说明,提出对未来研究工作的展望。
[Abstract]:As a special language component, discourse markers are widely used in daily speech communication. The study of discourse markers can promote the process of language research and broaden the scope of discourse research. This paper takes this as the starting point, through the observation and reflection on the actual situation of daily spoken language, on the basis of the previous studies, taking the TV series video corpus as the object of investigation. In this paper, the discourse marker "OK" in conversational interaction is studied in detail, and the corresponding problems are discussed and solved. The article is divided into six parts: the first part is the introduction. The main contents include a summary of the current research situation of discourse markers at home and abroad and the general situation of "OK" research. By summarizing the related research results, the author points out the problems and shortcomings in previous studies, and introduces the purpose and significance of this study. The second part is the theoretical foundation of this paper. Based on the previous viewpoints, the author gives his own analysis on the names, concepts and criteria of discourse markers. The third part is the definition of the identity and scope of the discourse marker "OK". On the basis of sorting out the statistical data of "OK", the author summarizes the different uses of "OK" in the synchronic state. This paper uses the theoretical basis to define the discourse marker "OK", and makes a comparative analysis between the "OK" of the response and the "OK" of the question added to the table, respectively, with the "OK" of the discourse marker. It is found that the "OK" of the response is different from the discourse marker "OK" in semantic background, lexicalization and emotional attitude, while the "OK" of the additional question is in the phonetic, grammaticalization, etc. The differences between syntactic and pragmatic functions and discourse markers are as follows: part 4th is a microscopic study of the pragmatic functions of discourse markers "OK" in conversational interaction. Starting from the actual corpus, this paper analyzes and sums up the discourse marker "OK" as a moderating marker between communicative subjects in different contexts of conversational interaction, thus delaying the marker. The four pragmatic functions of explicit information markers and subjective salient markers are discussed in detail, including the content of "good" and "cost-effective" of discourse markers, as well as the function of structural elements and the limitations of pragmatic principles. The influence of foreign language markers and the catalysis of using psychology are four aspects to explain briefly the multi-functional causes of discourse markers "OK". Part 5th is to fully reflect the characteristics of the use of "OK" in daily conversation. This paper attempts to make a comparative study of the similar language structure "OK" and "OK Bar". According to the comparison of the corpus, the similarities and differences in usage and function between them are analyzed. And try to examine the differences in the same usage and function from the angle of interactive subjectivity. The analysis shows that the fundamental difference between "OK" and "OK" lies in the difference between the strong and weak of interaction subjectivity. "OK" has strong interactive subjectivity. However, the interaction subjectivity of "OK bar" is weak. Part 6th is the conclusion part, which summarizes and reviews the main achievements of the full text, and gives a supplementary explanation to the question of the remains, and puts forward the prospect of the future research work.
【学位授予单位】：安徽大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：H136

【参考文献】