Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributorChen Jyun Gwangen_US
dc.contributor.authorSupanan Lertmanoraten_US
dc.description.abstract本文對「吧」的分析主要在語義句法和語用二層次。本研究的架構採用李櫻 (2000) 對語尾助詞的分析,指出語尾助詞具有核心功能,而附加該類詞語的語句所透露的情態是聼話者根據語句的命題内容,輔以助詞的基本指示意義,與語境中的相關因素產生互動,並經由言談合作原則的運作所推演出的會話隱涵。根據語用學理論和語料分析發現,「吧」具有單一的核心功能,而附加「吧」句子的多種詮釋是從「吧」的核心功能和溝通當下所遵循的語用原則結合而產生。 在語義句法層次,本文從Searle and Vanderveken (1985)所提出的「言語行爲理論」的角度切入分析,主張被用來以言行事的一句話是由「命題内容」與「言外之力」 組成的。在此層次「吧」弱化了句子的情態部分,也就是「言外之力」的部分。因而本文將其歸類為「情態詞」之一。基於Searle and Vanderveken (1985) 對言語行爲的分類,本文將附加「吧」的語句分爲六種,即「闡述」、「指令」、「承諾」、「徵求確認或意見」、「贊同」以及「非贊同」。至於「吧」的核心功能,各語句的「言外之力」也會有強弱不同的「言外之的之強度」。「吧」的核心功能則為弱化「言外之的之強度」。 在語用層次,「吧」屬於語用標記中的「緩和標記」,主要功能為降低當實施言語行爲時所產生的威脅面子強度。根據語料之分析,附加「吧」語句大多數具有威脅聽話者的面子和威脅説話者的面子之屬性,而「吧」大量被用來維護聽話者的面子。 「吧」的功能在泰語中透過許多種詞語來體現。根據「吧」漢泰語對比分析,泰語對應於「吧」的詞語各有特徵,使得在語義句法和語用層次與「吧」有差異。zh_TW
dc.description.abstractThis study investigates utterance final particle (UFP) Ba (吧)’s syntactic-semantic and pragmatic aspect. The study is mainly based on Li [李櫻] (2000)’s framework, Discourse-pragmatic Analysis of UFC in Taiwanese. She pointed out that the UFP’s in general are pragmatic markers which serve the indexical function of signaling the speaker’s communicative intention. The various expressive functions and meanings are seen to be conversational implicatures that are inferred from the general indexical properties of the UFP’s interacting with the specific contextual features under the operation of pragmatic principles, such as Grice’s (1975) Cooperative Principle, Leech (1983)’s Politeness Principle, etc. According to Searle and Vanderveken (1985)’s Speech Act Theory, the core property of Ba is to reduce the strength of illocutionary point. In the aspect of syntactic-semantic, Ba affects sentence’s modality or the same as illocutionary point. Therefore, it can be regarded as modal particle. Moreover, according to Ba’s occurrence, Ba utterance can be classified into 6 types of distribution, namely, Representatives, Directives, Commissives, Ask for confirmation or opinion, Agreement and Disagreement. As for pragmatic perspective, Ba can be regarded as a kind of pragmatic markers—mitigation marker. It helps reduce unwelcomed affect of speaker’s threatening acts. The study has found that Ba is used to save both speaker and hearer’s face. However, Ba is mostly inclined to safe the hearer’s face. The result of the Chinese-Thai contrastive analysis shows that Ba has at least 6 Thai counterparts. In syntactic-semantic, most of Thai counterparts are utterance type’s indicator, as such maŋ is merely limited to Ba representatives; thɤ can only appear in Directives, etc. In addition, some of them can be preceded by other UFPs. As to pragmatic aspect, the Thai counterparts are similar to Ba —reduce unwelcomed affect of speech act. However, according to corpus analysis, some usages of Thai counterparts towards reducing face threatening are slightly different from Ba.en_US
dc.subjectutterance final particleen_US
dc.subjectmodal particleen_US
dc.subjectmitigation markeren_US
dc.subjectpragmatic markeren_US
dc.titleA Contrastive Analysis of the Utterance-Final Particle Ba in Chinese and Its Counterparts in Thai with Pedagogical Applications for Thai Learners of Chineseen_US
Appears in Collections:學位論文

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.