中文交談中修復之社會語言學分析

Abstract

國立政治大學研究所碩士論文提要\r\n研究所別：語言學研究所\r\n論文名稱：中文交談中修復之社會語言學分析\r\n指導教授：詹惠珍 博士\r\n研究生：魏詩婷\r\n論文提要內容：\r\n 在交談情境中，當說話者(Interlocutor)無法清楚表達其訊息時就必須進行修復(Repair)。修復的種類不僅止於句法結構，在說話者發現語意不足時，就有做語意修復的必要性。而修復的種類也會依其所行使的語用功能(Pragmatic Function)而有所不同。修復的方式更有可能因交談者雙方的年齡差距大小而改變。因此，本研究針對說話者行使的語用功能及交談者的年齡差距來探討修復的語言形式與使用情形。\r\n 本研究所使用的語料來自十份日常生活會話。其中，三份來自於20-30歲的說話者，三份來自於40-55歲的說話者；其餘四份來自於跨年齡層的交談者。另外，交談者的關係若非好友則為親戚，因此較沒有距離感。每份語料長約三十至四十分鐘，主題均與日常生活相關，以便蒐集到最自然的語料。\r\n語料又根據修復的方式分為句法層次（Syntactic Level）及語意層次(Semantic Level)。其中句法層次又包含刪除（Deletion與添加(Addition)兩重種策略；語意層次則包括替換(Replacement)及添加(Addition)兩個策略。語用功能則分為釐清(Clarification)、確認(Confirmation)、解釋(Explanation)、贊成(Agreement)、強調(Emphasis)及弱化(Alleviation)六種。\r\n所有語料先經分類後，再加以統計檢定。研究結果發現：(一)說話者使用語意修復的頻率顯著高於句法修復，(二)在語意修復中，又以縮限(Narrowing)的使用情形最多。(三)修復大多用來行使釐清語意的功能。(四)說話對象的年齡對修復的使用有部分顯著的影響。(五)年紀小的說話者較少對年紀大的聽話者進行修復。除了量化分析之外，本研究亦追加訪談，以便雨量話分析的結果做初步比對。訪談內容發現，大部分的說話者認為他們的確會因為不同的語用目的而使用不同的修復，但交談者的年齡並不會完全影響修復的使用情形。\r\n\r\n關鍵字：社會語言學，交談分析，語用學，修復

Abstract\r\n\r\n Perfect utterances do not occur all the time during the conversation. An unclear message is usually repaired to maintain the clarity of meaning. Repair forms at Syntactic and Semantic levels are examined in this study. Also, it is proposed that formal distribution of repair forms are conditioned by pragmatic and social factors. On pragmatic aspect, the principles of Clarity and Expressivity are conformed. For social constraint on repair forms, the influence of interlocutors’ age is suggested.\r\n Data analyzed in this study are collected from ten dyadic, face-to-face daily conversations, with each lasting more than 30 minutes. Subjects in the ten conversations share the same ethnic background—Taiwanese. In addition, they are from two different age groups, with half of them at the age between 20 to 30 and the other half between 40 to 55. Among the ten conversations: three of them are conducted by both interlocutors being old, three by both interlocutors being young, and four by interlocutors from different age groups.\r\nRepair forms found in the data are categorized into two linguistic categories. In Syntactic aspect, repairs are derived from Deletion and Addition strategies, the former consists of Word-Deletion, Ellipsis, and Marker Deletion, and the latter Modal Addition, Addition of Marker for Focus Changing, and Addition of Marker for Attitudinal Adjustment. As for Semantic repairs, they are those resulted from strategies of Replacement and Addition. The former includes Synonyms, Substantializatoin, Hyponymy, and Hypernymy; while the latter is composed of Narrowing.\r\n Results of quantitative analysis yield several patterns. First, repair forms at Semantic level score significantly higher than those on Syntactic level. Moreover, within the Semantic realm, Narrowing is the strategy most frequently used. Second, there seems to be a significantly stronger preference for repairs to conform Clarity principle than to comply Expressivity principle. Among pragmatic functions under Clarity principle, Clarification is the pragmatic function that recieves first priority. Interlocutors’ age is only partially influential to a speaker’s choice of repair forms with interlocutors from younger age group being noticed to be putting more emphasis on the importance of hearers’ age than those from older age group.\r\n Follow-up interviews suggest that interlocutors manifest repair differently for certain purposes. However, most interviewees point out that the consideration of both interlocutors’ age does not influence the choice of repair forms. Instead, it is hearers’ age, solely, that lay significant effects on the use of repairs for pragmatic functions.\r\n\r\nKey Words: Sociolinguistics, Conversation Analysis, Pragmatics, Repair