【作者】 刘娅琼；

【导师】 戴耀晶；

【作者基本信息】 复旦大学 ， 现代汉语语言学， 2010， 博士

【摘要】 本文以否定反问句和特指反问句为研究对象。“否定反问句”指的是带有“不、没”等否定词的是非问形式反问句,主要包括“不是…(吗)”“不／没…(吗)”“没看见／听见…(吗)”等,本文根据其句法表层形式将之称为否定反问句。“特指反问句”指的是采用特指问形式的反问句,具体来说,指句子中含有疑问代词,不是用来征询信息的,而是表达与该句字面肯否定形式相反的断言——原句S1中的疑问代词由某个带有存在量词的名词或谓词短语来替换,形成S2,特指反问句表达与S2相反的断言。本文认为反问句采用了问句形式,它表达与句子字面肯否定形式相反的断言。本文在会话分析理论、功能主义语言学、认知语言学(主观性)、语义学、语用学等理论的指导下,设计了“反问句使用环境”的研究框架,即从反问句所在话轮中的位置及其在序列结构(主要是触发反问句的言行和对反问句的回应等)考察反问句使用的语言环境；从会话参与者之问地位的高低考察反问句使用时的人际环境；从反问句针对的情境语义信息内涵考察反问句使用的场景环境；等等。在详尽考察语料中反问句使用环境的基础上,论文提出了反问句的话语功能主要在于表达说话人不同程度的负面事理立场。并根据说话人使用反问句的负面程度高低、是否直接针对听者或他人、对方言行是否影响言者等因素,把反问句表达的负面事理立场四分为：提醒、意外、反对、斥责。所谓“负面事理立场”,指说话人对事物、行为的不合理性做出的判断。语料考察发现,否定反问句所针对的情况基本都是已知或可及性信息,因此认为反问句不是用来传递命题信息而是传递非命题信息是有一定的合理性的。从交际行为来看,在使用否定反问句时,说话人提及了对方应知信息,让对方注意到自己的言行忽视了该信息,或提示对方应激活某些应知信息。从这个角度看,否定反问句构成的是一个带有责过性质的言语评断行为,因此可以说它在整体上表达了说话人对听话人的负面事理立场。而对特指反问句来说,大多数都是因为对方或他人做出了有悖于常识或事实的言行而使用的。而且七成的特指反问句都重复或部分重复了对方或他人的语句或者以代词指称或语言表述对方行为。(剩下的未(部分)重复对方或他人语句的特指反问句,基本都是针对对方或他人行为的,即对方或他人未发出语句)说话人重复或部分重复对方或他人的语句或者指称对方行为等构成特指反问句,旨在表明自己对对方言行的立场。具体地说,是想表明对方的言行与事实或常识不符。从这个角度来说,特指反问句就是说话人对对方或他人言行合理性的判断,这正是事理立场的表现。由此可以认为特指反问句和否定反问句一样,在整体上表达了说话人对听话人的负面事理立场。反问句的使用环境和话语功能因反问句结构类型和语料的差异而有不同的表现。论文依次考察了否定反问和特指反问句在自然会话、影视对白中的使用环境和话语功能。在考察反问句使用环境时,本文发现不同语料中反问句的使用环境有同有异。其中相同之处有：反问句主要使用于较为熟悉的、地位平等的参与者之间；反问句通常都是请对方激活某应知信息,进而认识到自己言行中的疏忽或不合理的；大多数反问句具有直接触发语,换言之,反问句通常具有针对性；个别没有针对性的反问句多数起到提供背景、推进话题、转移话题等作用。关于不同语料中不同反问句使用环境的特殊之处,主要体现在反问句在话轮中的位置、地位较低的参与者使用反问句的频率、反问句回应形式(认同式、延迟式、知悉式、其他类、他人回应、无回应等)的差异等。在考察不同语料中两类反问句表达言者立场的情况时,论文发现：就否定反问句而言,自然会话中“提醒”最多(六成以上),“斥责”最少(2%左右)；而影视对白中,“提醒”最多(59%),“斥责”次之(19%)。单从“斥责”立场的出现频率来看,影视对白是自然会话的数倍。就特指反问句而言,自然会话中“反对”最多(四成以上),“提醒”次之(三成左右),“斥责”最少(不足一成)；而影视对白中,情景喜剧与电影对白不同：情景喜剧“提醒”最多(40%),“反对”次之(32%),“意外”最少(10%)；电影对白中,“斥责”最多(41%),“提醒”次之(33%),“意外”最少(7%)。这些结果表明,特指反问句表达的言者立场负面程度高于否定反问句,影视对白中反问句表达的言者立场负面程度高于自然会话。这与两种反问句的成因以及影视对白语料的娱乐性质有关。论文专节讨论了两类反问句在自然会话和影视对白中表现的差异,并指出这些使用环境或话语功能的差异,应该归于反问句的话语功能——表达言者负面事理立场及其社会效应——和影视对白的表演性质,后者使得影视对白中的语句受到准备性、动作性、娱乐性、时限性等影响。语料分析表明,否定反问句和特指反问句在使用上体现出功能和形式的差别：首先,特指反问句的负面程度高于否定反问句。换言之,在礼貌程度上,特指反问句比否定反问句低一点。这在两种反问句的句法形式中可以找到答案：否定反问句表达的意思是与原句字面相反的断言,即一个肯定形式的断言；而特指反问句表达的意思是否定其预设,即否定一个带有存在量词的命题,换言之,特指反问句表达的是一个空集,也就是说特指反问句表达的命题没有外延。从交际的角度来看,让对方通过自己的语句得出一个肯定断言与一个没有外延的命题,礼貌程度显然不同。其次,在语句形式上,“具有直接触发语”的特指反问句多数重复或部分重复了前文的语句,未重复前文语句的特指反问句一般是由对方或他人行为触发而使用的,句中多以代词指称或以语言表述这些行为。而否定反问句没有这一特点。上述两个差别影响到具体场景下说话人对反问句形式的选择。本文共分为8个部分。其中第1部分为汉语反问句研究综述；第2部分介绍本文的理论方法、研究对象和语料来源；第3部分考察自然口语中的否定反问句；第4部分考察影视对白中的否定反问句；第5部分考察自然口语中的特指反问句；第6部分考察影视对白中的特指反问句；第7部分比较两类反问句在自然口语与影视对白中的差异；第8部分为结语。更多还原

【Abstract】 This dissertation focuses on Negative Rhetorical Questions (NRQs) and Wh-word Rhetorical Questions (WhRQs). The Negative Rhetorical Questions are those rhetorical questions with negative words in the forms of alternative questions, such as "Bu-shi... ...(ma)", "Bu/Mei... ...(ma)", "Mei-kanjian/tingjian... ...(ma)" and so on, which are called NRQs because of their syntactic forms. The Wh-word Rhetorical Questions are those rhetorical questions adopting forms of Wh-word questions. In this paper, the negative questions mean those sentences expressing an assertion against their literal forms as well as adopting forms of questions.This paper makes a thorough investigation on the environment and function of Negative Rhetorical Questions and Wh-word Rhetorical Questions, in terms of the theories, such as Conversation Analysis, Functional Linguistics, Cognitive Linguistics (esp. Subjectivity), Semantics, Pragmatics, and so on.The author designs a framework to analyze the working environments of the two kinds of Rhetorical Questions. That is, to investigate RQs’linguistic environments from their position in turns and sequence organizations, to investigate RQs’interpersonal environments from the relationship of participators, to investigate RQs’circumstances from their semantic intension. Based on them, the paper also probes that the discourse function of Rhetorical Questions is to express the speakers’ negative evaluative stance by means of their environments. The negative evaluative stance is divided into four subcategories, that is, Reminding, Opposing, Unexpected, Reprimanding.By "negative evaluative stance", we mean that speakers assess the non-rationality of things or behaviors. The investigations on corpus find what NRQs are directed against are given or accessible information. So it is reasonable to believe that rhetorical questions are to express non-proposition information not proposition. The speakers mention the information partners should know, so the partner pays attention to his or her behaviors or acts which ignore these information. Sometimes, the speakers just remind the partner to activate certain information he or she should know. In this way, NRQs make up an speech evaluative acts with blaming qualities. As for WhRQs, the most are directed against those behaviors or acts contrary to facts or common sense. Moreover, more than 70% WhRQs repeat or repeat partly the former utterances. The repeating and like resources is to indicate one’s stance on the partner’s behaviors or acts. Specially, WhRQs are to tell the partner that his or her behaviors or acts are contrary to facts or common sense. That is representations of evaluative stances.The usages of two kinds of rhetorical questions in different corpus are probed by means of the above framework. There are some features in common, for example, RQs mainly occur among those participators who are familiar and equal; RQs are used to make the partners to activate certain information he or she should know; Most of RQs are triggered by the partners’or the others’behavior or utterances. The differences of two kinds of RQs in different corpus are positions in turns, frequency of low-status participator using RQs, responding forms of RQs, and so forth.The differences of usages between NRQs and WhRQs are inquired on basis of materials analysis. There are two distinctions:the first is the stances of WhRQs are more negative than NRQs. It can be explained in their syntactic forms. The second is WhRQs with direct trigger mostly repeat or repeat partly the utterances before them. It is not true for NRQs. The two differences effect speakers to choose special forms of rhetorical questions.The The speakers’stances of two kinds of rhetorical questions in different materials are studied separately. It is found that the stances of WhRQs are more negative than NRQs. At same time, the stances of rhetotical questions in media dialogues are more negative than those in natural occurring talks. Which are related to the origin of two kinds of rhetorical questions and the entertaining properties of media dialogues.The paper includes eight parts. The first part summarizes the achievements of Chinese Rhetorical Questions in past 110 years. The second part introduces the theory methods, subjects to be researched and corpus. The third part investigates the Negative Rhetorical Questions in natural occurring talks which including conversations by phone and communications face to face. The forth part probes into the Negative Rhetorical Questions in media dialogues which including TV and movie dialogues. The fifth part investigate the Wh-word Rhetorical Questions in natural occurring talks which including conversations by phone and communications face to face. The sixth part probes into the Wh-word Rhetorical Questions in media dialogues which including TV and movie dialogues.The seventh part compares the differences of Negative Rhetorical Questions and Wh-word Rhetorical Questions between natural occurring talks and media dialogues. We put forward that the differences are caused by the discourse functions of Rhetorical Question, i.e. speakers’negative evaluative stance, and the features of entertainment of media dialogues. The eighth part draws conclusions and point out the shortage of this paper.更多还原