請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/7006
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 蘇以文(Lily I-wen Su) | |
dc.contributor.author | Chen-Yu Hsieh | en |
dc.contributor.author | 謝承諭 | zh_TW |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-05-17T09:23:45Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2012-08-22 | |
dc.date.available | 2021-05-17T09:23:45Z | - |
dc.date.copyright | 2012-08-22 | |
dc.date.issued | 2012 | |
dc.date.submitted | 2012-08-20 | |
dc.identifier.citation | Aijmer, Karin. 2007. The interface between discourse and grammar: The fact is that. Connectives as Discourse Landmarks, ed. by Agnes Celle and Ruth Huart, 31-46. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2004. Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Aktas, Rahime Nur and Viviana Cortes. 2008. Shell nouns as cohesive devices in published and ESL student writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 7.3-14. Asmus, Birte. 2011. Proposing shared knowledge as a means of pursuing agreement. In Stivers et al, 207-34. Atkinson and John Heritage (eds.) 1984. Structure of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Auer, Peter. 2005. Projection in interaction and projection in grammar. Text 1.7-36. Austin, John L. 1962. How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Biber, Douglas and Edward Finegan. 1988. Adverbial stance types in English. Discourse Processes 11.1.1-34. Biber, Douglas and Edward Finegan. 1989. Style of stance in English: Lexical and grammatical marking of evidentiality and affect. Text 9.1.93-124. Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad and Edward Finegan. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Longman. Biq, Yung-O. 2004. People, things, and stuff: General nouns in spoken Mandarin. Concentric 30.1.41-64. Biq, Yung-O. 2009. Locative particles in spoken Taiwan Mandarin. Studies of Chinese Linguistics: Functional Approaches, ed. by Janet Zhiqun Xing, 133-153. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Bolden, Galina and Jeffrey D. Robinson. 2011. Soliciting accounts with why-interrogatives in naturally occurring English conversation. Journal of Communication 61.94-119. Brown, Gillian and George Yule. 1983. Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brown, Penelope and Stephen C. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Caffi, Claudia. 1999. On mitigation. Journal of Pragmatics 31.881-909. Chafe, Wallace. 1979. The flow of thought and the flow of language. Discourse and Syntax, ed. by Talmy Givon, 159-82. New York: Academic Press. Charles, Maggie. 2003. ‘This mystery. . .’: A corpus-based study of the use of nouns to construct stance in theses from two contrasting disciplines. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 2.4.313–26. Charles, Maggie. 2007. Argument or evidence? Disciplinary variation in the use of the Noun that pattern in stance construction. English for Specific Purposes 26.203-18. Clift, Rebecca. 2001. Meaning in interaction: The case of actually. Language 77.2.245-91. Clift, Rebecca. 2006. Indexing stance: Reported speech as an interactional evidential. Journal of Sociolinguistics 10.5.569-95. Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth and Margaret Selting (ed.) 1996. Prosody in Conversation: Interactional Studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dancygier, Barbara and Eve Sweetser. 2000. Constructions with if, since and because: Causality, epistemic stance, and clause order. Cause, Condition, Concession, Contrast, ed. by Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen and Bernd Kortmann, 111-42. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Dancygier, Barbara and Eve Sweetser. 2005. Mental Spaces in Grammar: Conditional Constructions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Drew, Paul. 1998. Complaints about Transgressions and Misconduct. Research on Language and Social Interaction 31.3-4.295-325. Drew, Paul and Elizabeth Holt. 1988. Complainable matters: the use of idiomatic expressions in making complaints. Social problems 35.4.398-417. Du Bois, John W. 2007. The stance triangle. In Englebretson, 139-182. Du Bois, John W., Stephen Schuetze-Coburn, Susanna Cumming and Danae Palino. 1993. A outline of discourse transcription. Talking Data: Transcription and Coding in Discourse Research, ed. by Jane A. Edwards and Martin D. Lampert, 45-87. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum. Emmertsen, Sofie and Trine Heinemann. 2010. Realization as a device for remedying problems of affiliation in interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction 3.2.109-32. Endo, Tomoko Koike. 2010. Expressing Stance in Mandarin Conversation: Epistemic and Non-epistemic Uses of Wo Juede. Los Angles: University of California, Los Angles Dissertation. Enfield, N.J. 2006. Social consequences of common ground. Roots of Human Sociality: Culture, Cognition and Interaction, ed. by N.J. Enfield and Stephen C. Levinson, 399-430. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Enfield, N.J. 2011. Sources of asymmetry in human interaction: Enchrony, status, knowledge and agency. In Stivers et al, 286-312. Englebretson, Robert (ed.) 2007a. Stancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, Evaluation, Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Englebretson, Robert. 2007b. Stancetaking in discourse: An introduction. In Englebretson, 1-26. Feng, Guangwu. 2008. Pragmatic Markers in Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics 40.1687-718. Fillmore, Charles. 1990. Epistemic stance and grammatical form in English conditional sentences. Chicago Linguistic Society 26.137-62. Finegan, Edward. 1995. Subjectivity and Subjectivization: An Introduction. Subjectivity And Subjectivisation: Linguistic Perspectives, ed. by Dieter Stein and Susan Wright, 1-15. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Flowerdew, John. 2003. Signalling nouns in discourse. English for Specific Purposes 22.329-46. Ford, Cecilia. 1993. Grammar in Interaction: Adverbial Clauses in American English Conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ford, Cecilia E. (1997). Speaking conditionally: Some contexts for if-clauses in conversation. On Conditionals Again, ed. by Angeliki Athanasiadou and Rene Dirven, 387-413. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Ford, Cecilia and Junko Mori. 1994. Causal markers in Japnese and English conversation: A cross-linguistic study of interactional grammar. Pragmatics 4.1.31-62. Ford, Cecilia and Sandra A. Thompson. 1996 Interactional units in conversation: Syntactic, intonational, and pragmatic resources for the management of turns. In Ochs et al, 134-84. Ford, Cecilia, Barbara A. Fox and Sandra A. Thompson (ed.) 2002. The Language of Turn and Sequence. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Fox, Barbara. 2001. Evidentiality: Authority, responsibility, and entitlement in English conversation. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 11.2.167-92. Francis, Gill. 1986. Anaphoric Nouns. Discourse Analysis Monographs 11. Birmingham: University of Birmingham Printing Section. Francis, Gill. 1994. Labelling discourse: an aspect of nominal-group lexical cohesion. Advances in Written Text Analysis, ed. by Malcolm Coulthard, 83-101. London: Routledge. Gao, Yang-yang. [高洋洋] 2009. Biada zhuijiayi-de yuyongbiaoji “wentishi”. [表達追加義的語用標記 “問題是”]. Qunwen Tiandi [群文天地] 3.34-5. Gardner, Rod. 2002. When Listeners Talk: Response Tokens and Listener Stance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Goffman, Erving. 1959. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday. Goffman, Erving. 1967 Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior. Chicago: Anchor Books. Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Goldberg, Adele E. 2006. Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Golato, Andrea. 2010. Marking understanding versus receipting information in talk: Achso. and ach in German interaction. Discourse Studies 12.2.147-76. Goodwin, Charles. 1986. Between and within: alternative treatments of continuers and assessments. Human Studies 9.205-17. Goodwin, Charles and Marjorie Harness Goodwin. 1992. Assessments and the construction of context. Rethinking Context, ed. by Alessandro Duranti and Charles Goodwin, 147-89. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Goodwin, Marjorie Harness. 2006. The Hidden Life of Girls: Games of Stance, Status, and Exclusion. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Gumperz, John J. 1982. Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gunthner, Susanne. 2007. N-be-that-constructions in everyday German conversation: A reanalysis of “die Sache ist” (‘the thing is’)-clauses as projector phrases. Retrieved from GIDI-Working Paper, at http://noam.uni-meunster.de/gidi/ Harre, Rom and Luc VanLangenhoeve. 1991. Varieties of positioning. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior 21.393-407. Hayano, Kaoru. 2011. Claiming epistemic primacy: Yo-marked assessments in Japanese. In Stivers et al, 58-81. Hayashi, Makoto. 2003. Joint Utterance Construction in Japanese Conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Hayashi, Makoto and Kyung-eun Yoon. 2009. Negotiating boundaries in talk. Conversation Analysis: Comparative Perspectives, ed. by Jack Sidnell, 250-78. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Heinemann, Trine, Anna Lindstrom and Jakob Steensig. 2011. Addressing epistemic incongruence in question-answer sequences through the use of epistemic adverbs. In Stivers et al, 107-30. Halliday, Michael A.K. and Ruqaiya Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in English. London/New York: Longman. Helasvuo, Marja-Liisa. 2001. Emerging syntax for interaction: Noun phrases and clauses as a syntactic resource for interaction. In Selting and Couper-Kuhlen, 25-50. Helasvuo, Marja-Liisa. 2004. Shared syntax: the grammar of co-constructions. Journal of Pragmatics 36.1315-36. Heritage, John. 1984a. A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In Atkinson & Heritage, 299-345. Heritage, John. 1984b. Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press. Heritage, John. 2002. Oh-prefaced responses to assessments: a method of modifying agreement/disagreement. The Language of Turn and Sequence, ed. by Cecilia Ford, Barbara Ford and Sandra A. Thompson, 196-224. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Heritage, John. 2005. Cognition in discourse. Conversation and Cognition, ed. by Hedwig Te Molder and Jonathan Potter, 184-202. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Heritage, John. 2011. Territories of Knowledge, territories of experience: Empathic moments in interaction. In Stivers et al, 159-83. Heritage, John. 2012a. Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction 45.1-29. Heritage, John. 2012b. The epistemic engine: Sequence organization and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction 45. Heritage, John and Geoffrey Raymond. 2005. The terms of agreement: Indexing epistemic authority and subordination in assessment sequences. Social Psychology Quarterly 68.1.15-38. Heritage, John and Geoffrey Raymond. In press. Navigating epistemic landscapes: Acquiescence, agency and resistance in responses to polar questions. Questions: Formal, Functional and Interactional Perspectives, ed. by Jan P. de Ruiter. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Heritage, John and Sue Sefi. 1992. Dilemmas of advice: Aspects of the delivery and reception of advice in interactions between health visitors and first time mothers. Talk at Work, ed. by Paul Drew and John Heritage, 359-419. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hoey, Michael.1994. A common signal in discourse: How the word reason is used. Advances in Written Text Analysis, ed. by Malcolm Coulthard, 67-82. London: Routledge. Holmes, Janet. 1982. Expressing doubt and certainty in English. RELC Journal 13.2.9-28. Hopper, Paul J. and Sandra A. Thompson. 2008. Projectability and clause combining in interaction. Crosslinguistic Studies of Clause Combining: The Multifunctionality of Conjunctions, ed. by Ritva Laury, 99-124. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Hsieh, Chester Chen-Yu. 2010. A shell for (inter-)subjectivity: A corpus-based case study of the shell noun, yisi ('meaning, idea, intention'), in Mandarin Chinese. Paper presented at 4th Conference on Language, Discourse and Cognition, National Taiwan University. Hsieh, Chester Chen-Yu. 2011a. Meaning in interaction: The use of abstract nouns and the co-construction of stance in conversation. Paper presented at English Linguistic Society of Japan 4th International Spring Forum, Shizuoka University. Hsieh, Chester Chen-Yu. 2011b. There is more than one reason: A preliminary study on Chinese causal nouns. Paper presented at the 11th International Cognitive Linguistics Conference, Xi’an International Studies University. Hsieh, Fuhui and Shuanfan Huang 2005. Grammar, construction and social action: A study of the qishi construction. Language and Linguistics 6.4.599-634. Hunston, Susan and John Sinclair. 2000. A Local Grammar of Evaluation. In Hunston & Thompson, 74-101. Hunston, Susan and Geoffrey Thompson (ed.) 2000. Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Huang, Shuanfan. 2000. The story of heads and tails– On a sequentially sensitive lexicon. Language and Linguistics 1.2.79-107. Huang, Shuanfan. 2003. Doubts about complementation: A functionalist analysis. Language and Linguistics 4.2.429-55. Huang, Hsiang-Ru. 2011. Co-construction in Mandarin Conversation. Taipei: National Taiwan Normal University MA thesis. Hutchby, Ian. 1995. Aspects of recipient design in expert advice-giving on call-in radio. Discourse Processes 19.2.219-238. Iwasaki, Shoichi.1993. Subjectivity in Grammar and Discourse: Theoretical Considerations and a Case Study of Japanese Spoken Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Jaffe, Alexandra (ed.) 2009. Stance: Sociolinguistic Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kamio, Akio. 1997. Territory of Information. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Karkkainen, Elise. 2003. Epistemic Stance in English Conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Karkkainen, Elise. 2007. The role of I guess in conversational stancetaking. In Englebretson, 189-220. Keevallik, Leelo. 2010. Marking boundaries between activities: The particle nii in Estonian. Research on Language and Social Interaction 43.2.157-82. Keevallik, Leelo. 2011. Grammar for adjusting assumptions: The Estonian enclitic –gi/-ki in interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 43.12.2879-96. Keisanen, Tiina. 2007. Stancetaking as an interactional activity: Challenging the prior speaker. In Englebretson, 253-282. Kim, Mary Shin. 2011. Negotiating epistemic rights to information in Korean conversation: An examination of the Korean evidential marker –tamye. Discourse Studies 13.4.435-59. Kockelman, Paul. 2004. Stance and subjectivity. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 14.2.127-50. Koshik, Irene. 2005. Beyond Rhetorical Questions: Assertive Questions in Everyday Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Lerner, Gene H. 1991. On the syntax of sentences-in-progress. Language in Society 20.3: 441-458. Lerner, Gene H. 1996. On the ‘semi-permeable’ character of grammatical units in conversation: conditional entry into the turn space of another speaker. In Ochs et al, 238-76. Levinson, Stephen C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Levinson, Stephen C. 2006. On the human “interaction engine”. Roots of Human Sociality: Culture, Cognition and Interaction, ed. by N.J. Enfield and Stephen C. Levinson, 39-69. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Li, Zhong-jiang. [李宗江]. 2008. Biada fumianpingjia-de yuyongbiaoji “wentishi”. [表達負面評價的語用標記 “問題是”]. Zhongguo Yuwen [中國語文] 5.423-26. Li, Charles N. and Sandra A. Thompson. 1981. Mandarin Chinese: a Functional Reference Grammar. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Liu, Fanny Fang-chun. 2002. Zheyang(zi) in Taiwan Mandarin: Discourse Functions and Grammaticalization. Taipei: National Taiwan Normal University MA thesis. Lyons, John. 1977. Semantics, 2 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mahlberg, Michaela. 2005. English General Nouns: A Corpus Theoretical Approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Martin, James R. and Peter R.R. White. 2005. The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Maynard, Senko K. 1993. Discourse Modality: Subjectivity, Emotion and Voice in the Japanese Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Mori, Junko. 1999. Negotiating Agreement and Disagreement in Japanese: Connective Expressions and Turn Construction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Ochs, Elinor, Emanuel A. Schegloff and Sandra A. Thompson. 1996. Interaction and Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Oh, Sun-Young. 2000. Actually and in fact in American English: A database analysis. English Language and Linguistics 4.243-68. Partington, Alan. 1998. Patterns and Meanings: Using corpora for English Language Research and Teaching. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Pomerantz, Anita. 1984. Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In Atkinson & Heritage, 57-101. Psathas, George. 1995. Conversation Analysis. The Study of Talk-in-Interaction. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Raymond, Geoffrey. 2003. Grammar and social organization: yes/no interrogatives and the structure of responding. American Sociological Review 68.939-67. Raymond, Geoffrey and John Heritage. 2006. The epistemics of social relationships: Owning grandchildren. Language in Society 35.5.677-705. Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson. 1974. A simplest systematic for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50.696-735. Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1979. The relevance of repair to syntax-for-conversation. Discourse and Syntax, ed. by Talmy Givon, 261-86. New York: Academic Press. Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1996a.Confirming allusions: Toward an empirical account of action. American Journal of Sociology 102.1.161-216. Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1996b. Turn-organization: One intersection of grammar and interaction. In Ochs et al, 52-133. Schegloff , Emanuel A. 2007. Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schegloff, Emanuel A. and Harvey Sacks. 1973. Opening up closings. Semiotica 7.289-327. Schegloff, Emanuel A., Gail Jefferson and Sacks Harvey. 1977. The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language 53.361-82. Scheibman, Joanne. 2002. Point of View and Grammar: structure Patterns of Subjectivity in American English Conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Scheibman, Joanne. 2007. Subjective and intersubjective uses of generalizations in English conversations. In Englebretson, 111-138. Schmid, Hans-Jorg. 1999. Cognitive effects of shell nouns. Discourse Studies in Cognitive Lingusitics, ed. by Karen van Hoek, Andrej Kibrik and Leo Noordman, 111-32. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Schmid, Hans-Jorg. 2000. English Abstract Nouns as Conceptual Shells: From Corpus to Cognition. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Schmid, Hans-Jorg. 2001. ‘Presupposition can be a bluff’: How abstract nouns can be used as presupposition triggers. Journal of Pragmatics 33.1529-52. Searle, John R. 1969. Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Searle, John R. 1976. A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society 5.1-24. Selting, Margret and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen (ed.) 2001. Studies in Interactional Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Song, Zuoyan and Hongyin Tao. 2009. A unified account of causal clause sequences in Mandarin Chinese and its implications. Studies in Language 33.1.69-102. Sorjonen, Marja-Leena. 2001. Responding in Conversation: A Study of Response Particles in Finnish. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Sperber, Dan and Deirdre Wilson. 1986/1995. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell. Stivers, Tanya. 2008. Stance, alignment and affiliation during story telling: When nodding is a token of preliminary affiliation. Research on Language in Social Interaction 41.29-55. Stivers, Tanya and Federico Rossano. 2010. Mobilizing Response. Research on Language in Social Interaction 43.1.1-31. Stivers, Tanya, Lorenza Mondada and Jakob Steensig (ed.) 2011a. The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Stivers, Tanya, Lorenza Mondada and Jakob Steensig. 2011b. Knowledge, morality and affiliation in social interaction. In Stivers et al, 3-25. Svennevig, Jan. 2008. Trying the easiest solution first in other-initation of reapir. Journal of Pragmatics 40.333-48. Su, Lily I-wen. 2005. Conditionals as a Reflection of Mind. Language and Linguistics 6.4.655-80. Tanaka, Hiroko. 1999. Turn-taking in Japanese Conversation: A Study in Grammar and Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Tao, Hongyin. 1996. Units in Mandarin Conversation: Prosody, Discourse and Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Thompson, Sandra A. 2002. Object complements and conversation: Towards a realistic account. Studies in language 26.1.125-63. Thompson, Sandra A. and Paul J. Hopper. 2001. Transitivity, clause structure, and argument structure: Evidence from conversation. Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure, ed. by Joan Bybee and Paul J. Hopper, 27-60. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs and Richard B. Dasher. 2002. Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tsui, Amy B. M. 1991. The pragmatic functions of I don’t know. Text 11.4.607-22. Tuggy, David. 1996. The thing is is that people talk that way. The question is is Why?. Cognitive Linguistics in the Redwoods. The Expansion of a New Paradigm in Linguistics, ed. by Eugene H. Casad, 713-52. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. van Dijk, Teun A. (ed.) 2011. Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction. London: Sage Verhagen, Arie. 2005. Constructions of Intersubjectivity: Discourse, Syntax, and Cognition. New York: Oxford University Press. Wang, Yu-Fang, Pi-Hua Tsai and Ya-Ting Yang. 2010a. Objectivity, subjecitivy and intersubjectivity: Evidence from qishi (‘actually’) and shishishang (‘in fact’) in spoken Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics 42.705-27. Wang, Yu-Fang, Pi-Hua Tsai, David Goodman and Meng-Ying Lin. 2010b. Agreement, acknowledgement, and alignment: The discourse-pragmatic functions of hao and dui in Taiwan Mandarin conversation. Discourse Studies 12.2.241-67. Wang, Yu-Fang, Pi-Hua Tsai, Shih-Yao Chen and Yi-Hsuan Hsiao. 2011. Making claims and counterclaims through factuality: The examples of Mandarin Chinese qishi (‘actually’) and shishishang (‘in fact’) in spoken institutional settings. Discourse Studies 13.2.235-62. Wu, Aaron Yao-Ren and Yung-O Biq. 2011. Lexicalization of intensifiers: Two X-shi constructions in spoken Mandarin. Chinese Language & Discourse 2.2.168-97. Wu, Ruey-jiuan Regina. 2004. Stance in Talk: A Conversation Analysis of Mandarin Final Particles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Zhang, Wei. 1998. Repair in Chinese Conversation. Hong Kong: The University of Hong Kong Dissertation. | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/7006 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 近年來,許多學者開始將語言當作是一種社會行動,而非單單只是一個認知能力來研究。在這個前提下,語言的使用被視為是一個動態的互動過程,而非靜止的心理狀態。這樣的觀點讓研究者得以解釋許多語言與人際互動相互作用下所導致的現象。過去的文獻中指出許多語言表達的形式可以做為社會互動的工具,但卻鮮少有研究著墨於抽象名詞或空殼名詞 (Schmid 2000) 在人際互動中的功能,如對話輪進行與立場採取的影響。故本論文有兩大目標 ─ 第一,我們將研究空殼名詞或空殼名詞標記在中文對話的使用;第二,希望能夠藉由本研究,來展現語言作為社會行動的複雜性與相互關聯性。
本論文使用自然產生之口語語料,來研究四個空殼名詞標記,「問題是」、「事實上」、「這樣(子)」與「什麼意思」在中文對話中的使用。運用會話分析與互動語言學之理論,本研究將深入探討空殼名詞在不同層次的社會互動中,所具有的功能與扮演的角色。 本論文首先將呈現每一個空殼名詞標記的結構組成與分布情況。研究發現除了Schmid (2000) 所列之四大構式外,中文中仍有其他結構用來連結抽象名詞與語境中的命題訊息,名詞與命題也不需由同一位說話人產出。本研究同時呈現出不同標記由於結構或功能上的因素,而在話輪中傾向出現的位置,藉此也增進我們對空殼名詞使用的了解。其次,基於這樣的會話語料,我們更進一步分析各個標記之互動功能與其所作用之社會活動。我們認為「問題是」是用來調整對話中特定假設;「事實上」是用來標記概括性的言論;作為回應標記的「這樣(子)」,讓說話人能夠與對話的對象協商知識與活動的界線;最後藉由「什麼意思」,說話人可以對前一個說話人的發言,表達懷疑或挑戰,並促使前一個說話人對其內容進行修正。而四個標記最重要的功能在於協助說話人在對話中,對知識的處理與合作的達到上,採取一特定之立場。基於Stivers et al. (2011b)對於知識立場與互動合作概念的分類,我們主張,僅管這四個標記各自表達特定的知識狀態與肯定度,但其實都是用來讓說話人能夠聲明自己的知識權力,並同時躲避自身的知識責任。雖然這四個空殼名詞標記似乎大多表達較不合作的立場,但他們的使用事實上是為了要保存說話人的面子與協商是誰同意誰,藉此達到最後更高程度的社會合作。 本研究對於空殼名詞與語言作為社會行動的研究皆多有貢獻。就空殼名詞而言,本論文應為第一個對非歐洲語言的空殼名詞使用作出的研究,也是少數探討對話中空殼名詞使用的研究。就語言作為社會行動來說,我們區分了不同層次的社會行動,同時也討論了空殼名詞在各個層次的實現與應用。藉由本研究,我們揭露了語言與社會互動的微妙與複雜。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | In the past few decades, an increasing number of researchers have studied language as social action as opposed to a pure mental capacity. The use of language, based on this premise, is treated as a dynamic interactive process instead of a fixed cognitive state. This perspective enables researchers to account for a number of phenomena in the interface of language and social interaction, such as turn-taking and stancetaking. A variety of linguistic devices have been reported to serve such social interactive ends; however, abstract nouns or shell nouns (Schmid 2000), albeit their pervasiveness and importance, are rarely investigated under this framework. The aim of the present study is thus twofold: First, we intend to investigate the use of shell nouns or shell-noun-based markers in Mandarin conversations, and second, with such an investigation, we attempt to showcase the complexity and interrelatedness of different levels of language use as social action.
Using a database composed of naturally occurring Chinese conversations, we inspect the use of four shell-noun-based expressions, wentishi, shishishang, zheyang(zi) and shemeyisi, in Mandarin conversations. Adopting the framework of Conversation Analysis and Interactional Linguistics, we reveal in great detail how linguistic devices such as shell nouns function at different levels of social interaction. The present study first presents the structural and distributional patterns of each marker. We find that lexico-grammatical patterns other than those outlined in Schmid (2000) can help link shell nouns to a proposition, and the co-interpreted shell noun and shell content are not necessarily produced by the same speaker. We also advance the research of shell nouns by pinpointing the preference of each shell-noun-based expression for particular turn locations, which is, as we argue, largely shaped by its structural and functional properties. Based on the conversational data, we further put forth a new analysis for the interactional function of each marker, identifying the social act that they respectively support in interaction. We claim that while wentishi adjusts specific assumptions, shishishang marks generalizations that can strengthen one’s argument and the solidarity between interactants; the response token use of zheyang(zi) allows the recipient to negotiate the boundary of information and activities, whereas shemeyisi expresses the second speaker’s challenge against or doubt about the prior turn, prompting the prior speaker to make repair. Finally, we propose that these markers most importantly function to facilitate the conversationalists’ act of stancetaking in managing knowledge and pursuing cooperation. Adopting the taxonomy proposed by Stivers et al. (2011b) concerning the key elements in the study of knowledge exchange and cooperation in interaction, we argue that while each expression indexes a particular speaker-hearer knowledge state and certainty, they are all exploited to claim speakers’ epistemic rights and disclaim their responsibility. Although most of them seem to imply a less cooperative stance in the course of interaction, they are in fact designed to save face and negotiate over “who agrees with whom”, so as to achieve a great extent of social cooperation in the end. The present research contributes to both the study of shell nouns and our understanding of language as social action. In terms of shell nouns, the current thesis is, to our knowledge, not only the first thesis-level effort that investigates the set of nouns in a non-European language, but also one of the few studies that inspect their use in spoken interaction. With respect to language as action, we distinguish between different levels of social action and manifest the use of shell nouns at each level. By this study, we unveil the delicacy and complexity of language and social interaction. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-05-17T09:23:45Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-101-R98142004-1.pdf: 801201 bytes, checksum: 005cf06f05b9cd92cc644ab33e0e4df9 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2012 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | Acknowledgements i
English Abstract iv Chinese Abstract vii Table of Contents ix Transcription Conventions xii List of Abbreviations xiv List of Tables xv Chapter 1 Introduction 1 1.1. Why shell nouns 3 1.2. Research questions 5 1.3. Data and analytical framework 6 1.4. Organization of the thesis 8 Chapter 2 Literature Review 9 2.1. Approaches to unspecific abstract nouns 10 2.1.1. Textual approach 10 2.1.2. Evaluative approach 11 2.1.3. Cognitive approach 14 2.1.3.1. The definition of shell nouns 15 2.1.3.2. The cognitive properties of shell nouns 17 2.1.3.3. The strengths and limitations of Schmid (2000) 18 2.2. Stancetaking in social interaction 19 2.2.1. Intersubjective stance 19 2.2.2. Knowledge management and social cooperation 21 2.3. Chapter summary 23 Chapter 3 Structural and Distributional Patterns of Shell Nouns 24 3.1. Shell nouns in constructions 25 3.1.1. “Canonical” shell-noun constructions 26 3.1.2. “Non-canonical” shell-noun constructions 29 3.2. Shell-noun-based markers in turns 33 3.2.1. Positions in a turn 34 3.2.1.1. Turn-initial 34 3.2.1.2. Turn-medial 39 3.2.1.3. Turn-final 42 3.2.2. As an independent turn 49 3.3. Chapter summary 53 Chapter 4 Social Interactional Functions of Shell Nouns 56 4.1. Assumption-adjusting: Wentishi 56 4.1.1. Previous research 57 4.1.2. Adjusting assumptions in one’s own argument 61 4.1.3. Adjusting assumptions in the prior speaker’s turn 66 4.2. Generalization-making: Shishishang 75 4.2.1. Previous research 76 4.2.2. Making generalizations 78 4.3. News-marking: Zheyang(zi) 89 4.3.1. Previous research 90 4.3.2. Marking a receipt of information 96 4.3.3. Negotiating the boundary of interaction 105 4.4. Repair-initiating: Shemeyisi 115 4.4.1. Previous research 116 4.4.2. Initiating repair and eliciting account 117 4.5. Chapter summary 136 Chapter 5 Stancetaking via the Use of Shell Nouns 137 5.1. Epistemic management 137 5.1.1. Epistemic access 138 5.1.1.1. Access to knowledge 139 5.1.1.2. Degree of certainty 151 5.1.2. Epistemic primacy 156 5.1.3. Epistemic responsibility 159 5.1.4. Interim summary 161 5.2. Social cooperation 162 5.2.1. Alignment and affiliation 163 5.2.2. Face and the terms of agreement 170 5.3. Chapter summary 184 Chapter 6 Conclusion 186 6.1. Recapitulation 186 6.2. Future studies 191 References 193 | |
dc.language.iso | en | |
dc.title | 中文空殼名詞之互動功能: 以問題是、事實上、這樣(子)和什麼意思為例 | zh_TW |
dc.title | Interactional Functions of Chinese Shell-Noun Expressions: A Study on Wentishi, Shishishang, Zheyang(zi) and Shemeysi | en |
dc.type | Thesis | |
dc.date.schoolyear | 100-2 | |
dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 黃宣範(Shuanfan Huang),畢永峨(Yung-O Biq) | |
dc.subject.keyword | 空殼名詞,語言作為社會行動,會話分析,互動語言學,語輪組織,立場採取,互為主觀性,知識權力,知識責任,社會合作,面子, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | shell nouns,language as social action,Conversation Analysis,Interactional Linguistics,turn organization,stancetaking,intersubjectivity,epistemic rights,epistemic responsibility,social cooperation,face, | en |
dc.relation.page | 207 | |
dc.rights.note | 同意授權(全球公開) | |
dc.date.accepted | 2012-08-20 | |
dc.contributor.author-college | 文學院 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.author-dept | 語言學研究所 | zh_TW |
顯示於系所單位: | 語言學研究所 |
文件中的檔案:
檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
---|---|---|---|
ntu-101-1.pdf | 782.42 kB | Adobe PDF | 檢視/開啟 |
系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。