【作者】 马文；

【导师】 许余龙；

【作者基本信息】 上海外国语大学 ， 外国语言学及应用语言学， 2004， 博士

【副题名】基于戏剧会话的语料分析

【摘要】 本文对汉语会话中的照应修正现象进行了系统研究。研究旨在对照应修正的结构特征进行系统的描述,并对其内在机制以及指称选择过程加以阐释。本项研究的语料是收集于汉语戏剧的总共280个照应修正的实例,论文采用会话分析的研究手段,结合定量和定性的研究方法,对照应修正现象进行了系统的探讨与分析。研究主要包括以下几个方面:第一,本项研究首次对照应修正现象进行了定义和细致的分类,从而为这一领域的进一步研究奠定基础。为了探究照应修正的组织结构特征及修正机制,论文对照应修正的四种基本类型进行了细致的描述和统计分析。研究发现,汉语照应修正中所存在的结构偏好机制与谢格洛夫、杰斐逊、萨克斯建立在英语会话语料基础上的有关会话修正的总的结构偏好机制存在部分相同,但在许多方面具有差异。论文对这些异同进行了细致的描述,并对造成差异的原因进行了深入的分析。第二,在现有语料的基础上,论文对照应修正的主要修正引导类型及手段以及修正执行策略分别进行了细致的描述及统计分析。其中,修正引导手段是修正引导类型的直接表现形式,而对于不同类型的照应修正,所使用的修正策略也可能有所不同。研究同时表明,照应修正的引导手段在指认待修正语方面存在着力度及能力的差异,并由此构成一个自然等级。通过对语料的统计分析,论文提出了一个“照应修正引导手段的自然等级”,并对这一等级进行了细致描述。第三,为了进一步探究照应修正的内在机制以及照应修正中指称选择的内在规律,论文对照应修正中指称分布的总体情况进行了统计分析,并在此基础上提出了一个由明晰性、可理解性以及恰切性为主要准则的“指称合作原则”。<WP=8>这一原则在总体上操纵着照应修正的产生和执行过程,不同类型的照应修正的产生实际上是由于说话者违反了这一原则的不同准则而导致的。论文同时设计并提出了一个用以描述照应修正过程的流程图,籍此能够对照应修正的产生及执行过程,照应修正出现的位置和时机提供充分的解释。第四,论文分别从语用和认知角度对由代名语充当待修正语的修正类型进行了深入探讨。研究指出,照应修正产生的根本原因是由于说话人与听话人在对所指实体的可及性判断上存在差异,或由于说话人完全忽视了所指实体在听话人大脑中的可及性地位;经济原则和明晰原则直接控制着此类照应修正的产生和使用过程;而在具体的指称选择的层面上,此类修正直接反映为用较低可及性标示语对较高可及性标示语的修正。为了对此类照应修正现象提供一个更加充分的、综合性的解释,论文最终提出了一个“照应修正的语用认知模型”。更多还原

【Abstract】 This dissertation reports on a systematic study of anaphoric repair in Chinese conversation. It aims to describe the routine practices that constitute anaphoric repair and account for both the mechanism and process of anaphoric repair and the referential choice in repair sequence. Altogether 280 instances of anaphoric repair from Chinese dramas were collected for our analysis. The dissertation takes a conversation analytic approach to anaphoric repair in data analysis, using both quantitative and qualitative methods. In this study, the following major works have been conducted:Firstly, anaphoric repair has been defined and classified for the first time in our study, so as to lay a solid foundation for the further research in this field. A detailed descriptive study of the four basic patterns of anaphoric repair helps us achieve a full understanding of the organizational properties of anaphoric repair. Findings from our analysis of these data suggest that the structural preferences of anaphoric repair in Chinese conversation concur with the preference account proposed by Schegloff, Jefferson and Sacks (1977) in some respects, but differ in many others. The commonalities and differences between the two preference accounts have been elaborated and the possible causes of the differences have been analyzed. Secondly, a detailed survey of initiation types and techniques, and repair strategies has been carried out respectively on the basis of our data. It is argued that the initiation techniques are an overt manifestation of the initiation types, and different repair strategies may be adopted in different types of anaphoric repair. Detailed analysis shows that initiation techniques may differ with respect to the <WP=6>strength or the capacity to locate the reparandum, and thus a scale of initiation techniques in anaphoric repair has been proposed and elaborated. Thirdly, in order to probe into the mechanism of anaphoric repair and its referential choice, a statistical study of referential distribution in anaphoric repair has been conducted. On the basis of these analyses, we suggest the Cooperative Principle of Anaphoric Reference (CP of Anaphoric Reference for short), which is composed of three maxims, namely, Clarity, Intelligibility and Felicity. It is argued that this principle and its maxims manipulate anaphoric repair at every stage. Different types of anaphoric repair may be triggered by the violation of different maxims of the principle. In addition, a general procedure of anaphoric repair has been proposed in the form of a flow chart, which can adequately explain where and when anaphoric repair may occur. And fourthly, repairs of pronominal forms are approached from both pragmatic and cognitive perspectives. It is found that this type of anaphoric repair results from either the discrepancy between the speaker’s assumption and the listener’s assessment of the accessibility status of the referent, or the speaker’s ignorance of its accessibility status. The Economy Principle and the Clarity Principle are governing the use of this type of repair. And on the linguistic level, repairs of pronominal forms are indeed a type of repair sequence in which a higher accessibility marker is repaired by a lower accessibility marker. Finally, a pragmatic and cognitive model of anaphoric repair is advanced for a comprehensive and synthetic interpretation of repairs of pronominal forms.更多还原