语用标记语
2008-9
东南大学出版社
韩戈玲
144
196000
无
语用学到底研究什么？这个问题在语用学产生至三十年后的今天似乎还常常会引发一些不同的意见和看法。在我看来，语用学所研究的并非是什么新的东西，而是人们再熟悉不过的语言和再普通不过的语言交际现象。语言和语言交际中的许多现象早已引起了人们的注意并且已经有人做过各种研究。但语用学则是从一个和以往不同的、几乎是全新的角度去对一些我们已知的现象做出新的审视，得出新的结论，从而加深我们对语言和语言交际的认识。本专著所关注的“语用标记语”便是这些现象之一。 “语用标记语”这个术语所涵盖的词项有许多，这些词项被不同的研究者冠以不同的名称，在不同的领域，从不同的角度做了不同的研究。近年来，随着对语用研究的热情日益高涨，把这些标记语冠以“语用标记语”的新名称，纳入到语用研究范畴的实例日益见多。韩戈玲博士所做的这一研究便是其一。本研究和先前的同类研究具有明显的共性，即都以探讨语用标记语的性质和功能为主旨，但同时它又具有自己明显的特性。本研究最主要的特点是它不拘泥于对个别的语用标记语做表面的个案研究，而是提出了一个新的、具有覆盖性的理论框架，将语用标记语纳入到该框架下，对它们的性质和功能进行全面的研究，以求得出一些具有共性的结论。韩博士在综合博弈论、语用学和语篇分析等理论的重要概念、研究方法和成果的基础上，提出了一个三维概念框架：动态合作、交互连贯、双边最佳交际，并将其运用于系统地描述语用标记语在语言交际中的使用以及交际者如何运用语用标记语这一言语策略达到双边最佳交际。我认为该框架的提出具有很大的创新性，尤其是把博弈论这一似乎不属于语言研究范畴的理论引入到该研究中来。第一次听到韩博士的这一想法时，我实感意外，但她其后的工作和结果都证明了她的这一想法是有充分根据的；她本人对该框架的运用也是相当成功的，证明了该框架的可行性和应用价值。
本书论述了会话语篇中语用标记语的性质和功能。作者构建了一个新的概念框架，旨在系统地描述语用标记语在言语交际中的普遍使用以及交际者如何运用语用标记语这一言语策略达到双边最佳交际。 在综合博弈论、语用学和语篇分析等理论的重要概念、研究方法和成果的基础上，作者提出了一个三维概念框架：动态合作、交互连贯、双边最佳交际以阐释语用标记语的多功能性及其运作机制。 本书的理论核心在于人类交际活动的多面性和语用标记语对话语意义表达和阐释的语境制约。鉴于言语交际的不确定性和动态性，交际双方在交际过程中必须及时调整交际策略，包括语言策略，以便正确识别彼此的交际意图。实际上，交际双方通常相互配合、共同努力以取得有利于各自的最佳交际效果。我们认为最佳交际效果是一个交际目标多元化的平衡体。语用标记语作为交际策略或修辞手段在言语交际中十分常见，并且有助于会话语篇中话语的交互连贯。 语用学主要研究语言的使用，作者从语用学角度论述了语用标记语的意义不确定性及其在具体交际语境中的多重功能。我们认为交际中话语所表达的信息是多层次的，因而对话语意义的理解不是一个简单的信息解码过程，而是涉及逻辑推理和语境作用的一个比较复杂的过程。说话人常常借助于语用标记语直接或间接表明其意图；听话人则借助于语用标记语快速明白话语的多层意义并予以得体的应答。研究还表明，不论是叙述还是论证，交际者都会使用语用标记语表明自己的意图和态度。总之，语用标记语不仅是话语显意和会话含义的标记符，而且同时具有概念性和程序性制约功能。 本书的语料主要选自日常会话以及英语和汉语的媒体访谈节目。因为在电视、广播访谈节目中主持人和嘉宾的角色相对固定，有利于定量和定性分析会话中语用标记语的特征和功能。作者通过例证分析表明语用标记语的功能多样性和交际目标的多面性密切相关。语用标记语有助于语篇连贯和组织，有利于改善人际关系以及调整交际策略。语用标记语的功能和作用受制于交际中不同语境因素的制约。 本书适于语言专业研究生、高校教师研究参考使用。
韩戈玲，1967年3月出生于山西省闻喜县，英语语言文学博士，现为上海理工大学外语学院副教授和硕士生导师。主要研究领域包括语用学、语言学、认知语言学、功能语言学、话语分析和外语教学。近年来在《外语界》等期刊上发表论文5篇，参编《英汉语言学词典》等辞书3部。参加国家
AcknowledgementsAbstractA List of Abbreviations and SymbolsA List of Tables and FiguresChapter One IntroductionPreliminary Remarks 1.1 Broad Preview 1.2 Remaining Issues in Previous Studies 1.3 Rationale of the Present Research 1.4 Objective of the Current Study 1.5 Description of the Target Data 1.6 The Organization of the BookChapter Two Literature Review 2.1 Diversified Terminology 2.2 Various Perspectives on Pragmatic Markers 2.2.1 Pragmatic Markers and Logic-syntactic Structure 2.2.2 Pragmatic Markers and Discourse Coherence 2.2.3 Pragmatic Markers and Relevance Theory 2.2.4 Pragmatic Markers from a Pragmatic Perspective 2.3 SummaryChapter Three Theoretical Framework 3.1 Theoretical Grounds for the Research Approach 3.1.1 Game Theory and the Application of Its Ideas 3.1.2 Pragmatic Studies on Implicature 3.1.3 Discourse Analysis and the Main Issues 3.2 Description of the Conceptual Framework 3.2.1 Dynamic Collaboration 3.2.2 Interactive Coherence 3.2.3 Bilateral Optimalization 3.3 SummaryChapter Four Properties of Pragmatic Markers 4.1 Identification of Pragmatic Markers 4.1.1 Previous Definitions of Pragmatic Markers 4.1.2 Operational Definition of Pragmatic Markers 4.2 Distinctive Features of Pragmatic Markers 4.3 Taxonomies of Pragmatic Markers 4.3.1 Interaction Initiating Markers 4.3.2 Sequential Markers 4.3.3 Attitudinal Markers 4.3.4 Illocutionary Force Markers 4.3.5 Tactic Markers 4.3.6 Information Intensifying Markers 4.3.7 Interim Summary 4.4 Interpretative Orientation of Pragmatic Markers 4.5 Pragmatic Markers and Inference of Explicatures and Implicatures 4.5.1 Distinction of the Explicit/Implicit, Explicature/Implicature 4.5.2 Conceptual and Procedural Meanings of Pragmatic Markers 4.5.3 Pragmatic Markers and Constraints on Implicature 4.6 SummaryChapter Five Pragmatic Markers in Interactive Discourse 5.1 Pragmatic Markers as Devices of Discourse Coherence in Interaction 5.1.1 Pragmatic Markers Signaling Conversational Development 5.1.2 Pragmatic Markers Functioning as Information Management Devices 5.1.3 Pragmatic Markers Highlighting Interpersonal Relationship 5.1.4 Pragmatic Markers Conveying Communicative Attitude 5.2 Multifunctionality of Pragmatic Markers 5.3 Distribution of Pragmatic Markers in Argumentative Discourse 5.4 SummaryChapter Six Factors Influencing the Use of Pragmatic Markers 6.1 Social Variables 6.1.1 Interaction Situation 6.1.2 Speaker Role 6.1.3 Speech Community 6.2 Speech Genre 6.3 Cultural Values 6.4 SummaryChapter Seven Conclusion 7.1 Summary of the Major Findings 7.1.1 Findings Relating to the Dynamic Process of Verbal Interaction 7.1.2 Findings Concerning Pragmatic Markers in Interactive Discourse 7.2 Implications and Applications 7.3 Limitations of the Present Study 7.4 Suggestions for Further ResearchAppendix 1Appendix 2BIBLIOGRAPHYs
Although the descriptions Of the term are not consistent， it is agreed that the function of pragmatic markers is of utterance rather than of sentence， and their role should be analyzed at discoursal level rather than sentential level. More importantly， pragmatic markers occur at different places in the discourse and give important clues to how discourse is segmented and processed. This means that they are crucial to utterance interpretation in interpersonal communication. Among all the researches on pragmatic markers， the most fruitful ones are within the frameworks of logic-syntactic analysis， discourse analysis， relevance theory and pragmatic theory. The studies have focused an the properties and functions of pragmatic markers as a whole or as individual markers in different languages. Most of the studies concern the constraints imposed by pragmatic markers on the discourse structure of conversations as well as on the explicature and implicature of utterances. Up to now， the study of pragmatic markers has provided useful analysis at the interface of syntax， semantics and pragmatics. However， most analyses of pragmatic markers with linguistic data of recorded daily conversations appear to be localized and unsystematic. Therefore， a more global and systematic study is needed. The present study attempts to probe into the motivation to utilize pragmatic markers in interactive discourse， especially into the contributions of PMs to the expression of the speakers communicative intentions and to the bearers comprehension of the explicit and implicit messages n oral interaction. Discrepancies in the descriptions of pragmatic markers mentioned above reveal that unsolved problems still remain in the existing studies. Some of the pressing problems will be briefly introduced in this section. First of all， disagreement on the definition and the range o{ pragmatic markers results in diversified terminology， which causes the definition to be a prominent issue for researchers working on pragmatic markers. Therefore， criteria are needed to describe the characteristics of PMs and to decide whether a given instance is a PM.
无