漢語「對」和「真的」之會話結構與功能分析及教學啟示
No Thumbnail Available
Date
2017
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Abstract
本研究以會話分析理論（Conversation Analysis）的部分理論架構（Sacks，Scheloff and Jefferson，1981）及Halliday的三大語言純理功能（metafunctions）為分析架構，從言談結構的層面，以真實語料為基礎，討論現代漢語「對」和「真的」之會話結構、語用層面的語言現象及其異同，並依研究結果，檢視現行常用華語教材，進一步提出建議與啟示，以期能提供「對」和「真的」之教學參考依據。
本研究以筆者轉寫電視訪談節目《康熙來了》之1091筆語料為本，同時梳理前人研究，以作為本研究分析基礎。我們認為「對」和「真的」是會話中常用的回應標記。本研究分析發現，會話中的篇章組織功能方面，在形式層面「對」和「真的」具有話輪轉換、話輪延續、話輪結束功能；內容層面上，「對」具有延續話題、轉換話題、找回話題、結束話題，而「真的」具有延續話題、轉換話題、結束話題之功能。在《康熙來了》語料中，「對」和「真的」分佈在話輪交替處最頻繁，其中「對」的使用頻率又高於「真的」，乃因使用「對」的語境更常出現在日常對話中。
其次，在語用功能方面，本研究提出「對」具有「同意」、「自我確認」、「反饋」、「尋求確認」四大功能，其中以「同意」功能使用最為頻繁；而「真的」之語用功能為「同意」、「自我確認」、「說服」、「尋求確認」、「驚訝」五大功能，其中以「說服」功能使用最為頻繁。此外，作為會話中的話語標記，「對」的使用頻率高，「真的」則具有情感投入。根據Leech（1983）禮貌原則中的「一致準則」（Agreement maxim）及Brown ＆ Levinson（1987）的面子保全論（Face-saving Theory），我們發現「對」和「真的」在會話中皆具正面應答的意義，滿足了對方的積極面子。
最後，在教學啟示方面，筆者根據以上研究成果，評析五套華語教材，並針對「對」和「真的」之華語教學提出建議，以引導學習者能了解實際日常會話的情形，活用語言知識，增進學習者的溝通能力。
Using partial theories from Conversation Analysis (Sacks, Scheloff and Jefferson, 1981) and Halliday's metafunctions as framework, from the perspective of discourse structure, this study discusses the conversational structures and pragmatic phenomena of "dui" and "zhende" in modern Chinese, based on analysis of authentic materials. Furthermore, the results are used to examine contemporary widely used Chinese textbooks, in order to provide further suggestions and implications for pedagogical purposes. The researcher reviews previous research, and transcribes and analyzes 1091 data from TV show "Kang Xi Lai Le". Consequently, "dui" and "zhende" are considered to be common acknowledgementmarkers in conversation. From the aspect of discourse organization, "dui" and "zhende" are found to be presenting functions of turn taking, turn holding, and full turn on a morphological level. While concerning the content, "dui" presents functions of topic continuation, topic transition, resuming a previous topic, and topic ending; "zhende" presents functions of continuation, topic transition, and topic ending. According to data extracted from "Kang Xi Lai Le", "dui" and "zhende" were mostly used in turn-taking. In addition, compared to "zhende", "dui" was used more, for its context is more common in daily conversation. Secondly, from the aspect of pragmatics, this study proposes that "dui" possesses functions of agreement, self-confirmation, reaction, and confirmation seeking, while agreement function is used the most. On the other hand, "zhende" possesses five major pragmatic functions: agreement, self-confirmation, persuasion, confirmation seeking, and surprise, with persuasion being used the most. Furthremore, both "dui" and "zhende" demonstrate positive response to satisfy the positive face of addressees. As conversational markers, "dui" is frequently used, and "zhende" displays emotional involvement. Lastly, from the aspect of pedagogics, this study analyzes five Chinese textbooks according to above-mentioned discovery. Moreover, pedagogical suggestions were proposed to assist learners in understanding authentic conversation and improving their communicative skills.
Using partial theories from Conversation Analysis (Sacks, Scheloff and Jefferson, 1981) and Halliday's metafunctions as framework, from the perspective of discourse structure, this study discusses the conversational structures and pragmatic phenomena of "dui" and "zhende" in modern Chinese, based on analysis of authentic materials. Furthermore, the results are used to examine contemporary widely used Chinese textbooks, in order to provide further suggestions and implications for pedagogical purposes. The researcher reviews previous research, and transcribes and analyzes 1091 data from TV show "Kang Xi Lai Le". Consequently, "dui" and "zhende" are considered to be common acknowledgementmarkers in conversation. From the aspect of discourse organization, "dui" and "zhende" are found to be presenting functions of turn taking, turn holding, and full turn on a morphological level. While concerning the content, "dui" presents functions of topic continuation, topic transition, resuming a previous topic, and topic ending; "zhende" presents functions of continuation, topic transition, and topic ending. According to data extracted from "Kang Xi Lai Le", "dui" and "zhende" were mostly used in turn-taking. In addition, compared to "zhende", "dui" was used more, for its context is more common in daily conversation. Secondly, from the aspect of pragmatics, this study proposes that "dui" possesses functions of agreement, self-confirmation, reaction, and confirmation seeking, while agreement function is used the most. On the other hand, "zhende" possesses five major pragmatic functions: agreement, self-confirmation, persuasion, confirmation seeking, and surprise, with persuasion being used the most. Furthremore, both "dui" and "zhende" demonstrate positive response to satisfy the positive face of addressees. As conversational markers, "dui" is frequently used, and "zhende" displays emotional involvement. Lastly, from the aspect of pedagogics, this study analyzes five Chinese textbooks according to above-mentioned discovery. Moreover, pedagogical suggestions were proposed to assist learners in understanding authentic conversation and improving their communicative skills.
Description
Keywords
會話分析, 語用功能, 話語標記, 禮貌原則, 面子保全論, Conversation Analysis, pragmatics, discourse marker, Politeness Principle, Face-saving Theory