【作者】 王颖；

【导师】 文旭；

【作者基本信息】 西南师范大学 ， 英语语言文学， 2003， 硕士

【摘要】 话语标记语(discourse markers)在日常语言使用中几乎无处不在，对其得体的使用和恰如其分的理解是语用能力中很重要的一个方面。因此，对话语标记语的研究有着重要的理论价值和实践意义。最近十多年来，话语标记语的研究成了语言研究中发展迅猛的一个领域，每年都有数十篇的论文发表(Fraser，1999：932)。把话语标记语从其所依附的话语中去掉并不影响该话语的语法正确性也不影响其命题内容，但却影响其语用得体性和社会层面上的人际适应关系；这一事实表明，话语标记语的使用不是出于句法或语义上的需要，而是出于语用方面的因素(Schourup，1999)。由此，对话语标记语的研究一直伴随着语用学的发展而发展可能就不是巧合了。无论是在句法学、语义学或是语用学领域，学者们都倾向于把话语标记语看作是主要出现于会话中且发挥一定的语用功能的语言现像。 虽然话语标记语研究的成果颇丰，但远不能说是彻底的、一致的。总的来说，在对话语标记语的研究中，有四种不同的视角，即以话语连贯为中心的研究视角、句法一语用视角、认知语用学的视角和把话语标记语看作元语用意识标识语的研究视角。“话语标记语”这一术语对不同的研究者而言有着不同的意义，对于一种语言中什么样的语言成分是话语标记语，可谓仁者见仁、智者见智。不同的研究者对自己的研究对象往往冠以不同的标签，这些标签的所指又常常互相重叠。此外，还没有哪一个研究系统连贯地讨论过下面这三个相互联系的问题：话语标记语为何被使用?它们在话语产出中是如何运作的?它们在话语理解中又发挥什么样的作用?基于已有的话语标记语研究，本文旨在论证评析各种研究的优点与缺陷，并尝试以yi Prpatic Pempcttl．－rre on Discourse Marke一Verschueren的语言顺应理论为框架来阐释话语标记语，以期对话语标记语的进一步研究有所贡献。 本文分五章，其中第一章是引言。 第二章中，在评析人们对话语标记语所下定义的基础上，考虑公认的话语标记语的特征，并为话语标记语作出了一个工作定义。该定义几乎涵盖了为不同学者所论及的话语标记语，使我们能在同一概念下讨论多种具有典型共性的语言成分。在考察己有的话语标记语的定义的同时，本章还讨论了话语标记语研究的两个视角，即以话语连贯为中心的研究视角和句法一语用视角。分析表明，从这两个视角出发的研究尽管都考虑到了部分语用因素，但因其注意力分别集中在话语标记语如何用于创造连贯和它们所标志的话语单位之间存在何种关系这两个问题上，所以都不能回答上述关于话语标记语的三个相互联系的基本问题。 第三章考察了从认知语用学的视角出发的研究。结论指出，这些在关联理论的框架内所作的研究以认知限制动机、语境或认知效果等为参数，就话语标记语在话语理解中的作用作出了给人深刻印象的阐释。但因其过于强调使用话语标记语的认知动机，因而无法就话语标记语为何被使用、如何在话语的产生和理解中运作这三个问题作出全面的、令人满意的解释。 第四章讨论 Verschueren （ 999）对话语标记语的阐释。Verschueren把话语标记语看作是元语用意识的标识语。他的阐释强调了话语标记语具有标志说话人做出语言选择时的心智状态的功能。与从其他视角出发的研究一样，Verschueren简短的阐释也只是突出了话语标记语的某一个方面。这是因为他主要关注的是构建一个全面的语用学新视角，目的在于从认知的、社会的和文化的整体角度，对人类诸种行为中的语言现像进行综观。Verschueren的语用观具体体现在他的语言顺应理论上。该理论把语言的使用看作是不断地做出选择的过程。我们认为，尽管VerSChueren对话语标记语所作出的的阐释远非全面，但他的语言顺应理论却极有可能对话语标记语作出全面的语用学阐释。所以本章中，结合关于话语标记语的三个基本问题，我们尝试应用这一理论对话语标记语作出阐释。 作为语言选择的结果，话语标记语可能被说话人用来满足各种各样的交际目的，而不仅仅是像从认知语用学的视角出发的研究所认为的那样，说话者使用话语标记语就是为了引导听话人得出其所意欲传达的意思从而节省听话人作出的推理努力。换言之，言语交际中使用话语标记语的原因是多样的，无法穷尽。同时，并非所有的话语标记语的使用都是同等地有意识的或同样地具有目的性，换言之，话语标记语的使用涉及到语言使用过程中不同层次的意识突显性或元语用意识。在有的情况 ——一一一——一P—一————————一二———————————————————－—－ AAsng Vi i一下，话语标记语的使用几乎是自觉的或潜意识的，而在另外的情况下则带有很强的动机，即是高度有意识的。但是，无论话语标记语是说话人高?更多还原

【Abstract】 Discourse markers are so pervasively used in daily language that the proper use and interpretation of them consist of a considerable part of pragmatic or communicative competence. The study of this linguistic phenomena thus bears both theoretic and practical significance. In the past ten years, the study of discourse markers turned into a growth industry in linguistics, with dozens of articles appearing yearly (Fraser, 1999: 932). The fact that taking a discourse marker away from the host discourse segment it is attached to does not affect the sentence’s grammaticality judgments or its prepositional content but does affect the pragmatic appropriateness and interpersonal adaptation on the social level indicates that their employment is not syntactically or semantically oriented but pragmatically motivated (Schourup, 1999). It thus might not be a coincidence that the study of discourse markers emerges and grows with the development of pragmatics. Scholars, whether in syntax, semantics or pragmatics, tend to regard discourse markers as a linguistic phenomenon mostly appearing in conversational discourse and serving certain pragmatic functions.However, researches on discourse markers, though rich and fruitful, are far from being homogeneous and complete. We identify four distinctive pragmatic perspectives on discourse markers, namely, the discourse-coherence-based perspective, the syntactic-pragmatic perspective, the cognitive-pragmatic perspective and the perspective which treats discourse markers as indicators of metapragmatic indicators. The termdiscourse marker has different meanings for different groups of researchers, there is no agreement about what elements in a particular language should be referred to as discourse markers, and studies on discourse markers have been done under a variety of overlapping labels. In addition, the following three questions have never been discussed in a unified account: Why are discourse markers used? How do they function in utterance production? and What role do they play in utterance interpretation? The present research, assuming that a comprehensive account of discourse markers is supposed to answer all the questions raised above, conducts a general survey into the existing pragmatic perspectives on discourse markers and tentatively employs Verschueren’s theory of linguistic adaptation to account for discourse markers, aiming at some findings which can shed light on further researches pursuing a comprehensive and thorough account of discourse markers.The present dissertation consists of five chapters, with the introduction as Chapter One.In Chapter Two, on the basis of a survey into the earlier attempts to define discourse markers, the present study, taking into account of their commonly cited features, sets forth a working definition of discourse markers, which, having a wider coverage of the expressions that have been treated as discourse markers by different scholars, enables the research to deal with a variety of elements under the same conceptual umbrella. In the process of examining the earlier definitions, the discourse-coherence-based perspective and the syntactic-pragmatic perspective are discussed. It is demonstrated that these two perspectives do take into consideration some pragmatic factors, but their attention is mainly concentrated respectively on how discourse markers are used to create coherence or what relationships they signal between discourse units. Neither of them can account for the three interrelated fundamental questions, which we assume any comprehensive pragmatic account of discourse markers is supposed to answer.Chapter Three investigates the researches on discourse markers conducted from the cognitive-pragmatic perspective, which is based on a relevance-theoretic framework. It is concluded that these researches do give an impressive account for the role of discourse markers in utterance interpretation in terms of the motivations of cognitive constraints, contextual or cognitive effects, but fail to offer satisfactory account f更多还原