1. NCCU Academic Hub
  2. 學術產出
  3. College of Foreign Languages and Literature
  4. Theses
  5. Item

學術產出-Theses

Article View/Open

Publication Export

Google ScholarTM

政大圖書館

Citation Infomation

  • No doi shows Citation Infomation
題名 漢語兒童在同儕互動中言談標記「好」和「對」的使用
Mandarin-speaking Children`s Use of Discourse Markers Hao `Okay` and Dui `Right` in Peer Interaction
作者 葉侃彧
Yeh, Kanyu
貢獻者 黃瓊之
Huang, Chiung Chih
葉侃彧
Yeh, Kanyu
關鍵詞 言談結構
同儕關係
溝通技巧
言談標記
discourse structure
peer relation
communicative skill
discourse marker
日期 2012
上傳時間 1-May-2013 11:46:49 (UTC+8)
摘要 本研究使用Schiffrin (1987) 提出的言談結構（discourse structure）為分析架構，旨在觀察漢語兒童在同儕互動中使用口語中常出現的言談標記「好」和「對」的情形，藉以檢驗其如何反映漢語兒童的溝通技巧以及同儕互動的特性。研究語料來自六位五歲的漢語兒童兩兩之間互動的對話，共237分鐘。
研究發現五歲漢語兒童能掌握言談標記「好」和「對」在三個言談結構的功能，且他們使用此兩個言談標記的不同功能時有所異同。首先，「好」和「對」主要使用於交談順序結構（exchange structure）作為表同意的標記。雖然在成人對話中「好」和「對」皆可用於交談順序結構及語意結構（ideational structure），作為表知曉（acknowledgement）的反饋應答標記和話題轉換（topic transition）標記，但研究結果發現漢語兒童在交談順序結構中只使用「好」作為表知曉的反饋應答標記；在語意結構只用「對」作為話題轉換標記。研究結果顯示五歲漢語兒童在與同儕互動時，已能夠使用反饋標記「好」表現參與對方話題的意願，而他們不使用「對」則可能與「對」作為反饋應答標記時的用法和應答詞（backchannels）相似有關。根據先前研究指出應答詞屬於兒童較晚才習得的溝通技巧（Hess & Johnston, 1988）。此外，五歲漢語兒童亦展現出使用話題轉換標記「對」的能力，顯示他們已知道如何使用言談標記幫助建構言談連貫性（discourse coherence）；而他們選擇使用「對」而非「好」來轉換話題，則可能與「好」的此項功能所隱含的發話者權威性有關（Chen & Liu, 2009），若使用這類帶有發話者權威的言談標記，則可能損害其與同儕間的關係。本研究因而推論漢語兒童在同儕互動中言談標記「好」和「對」各種功能的使用，不僅僅顯示出他們的溝通技巧，同時也反映了同儕互動的特性。
The thesis aims to investigate Mandarin-speaking children’s use of two frequently appearing discourse markers, hao ‘okay’ and dui ‘right’, when interacting with peers in order to examine how their use of these markers may reflect their communicative skills and the characteristics of peer relation. The data included 237 minutes of 5-year-old Mandarin children’s conversations with friends while playing. Schiffrin’s (1987) model of discourse structures, which includes the exchange structure, the action structure, the ideational structures, the participation frameworks, and the information state, was used for the analysis.
The results showed that Mandarin-speaking children used hao in the information state, the exchange structure and the action structure while dui in the information state, the exchange structure and the ideational structure. The functions of hao and dui in the present data demonstrated several similarities and differences. Both markers were used by the children in the exchange structure to show the speaker’s agreement. However, only hao functioned as an acknowledgement marker to indicate the receipt of information in the exchange structure while only dui marking topic transitions in the ideational structure, even though both markers can serve these two functions in adult conversation. Mandarin-speaking children’s use of hao and dui to express agreements, which indicates their collaborative stances, may help them establish alliances with each other (Wang et al., 2010). Moreover, Mandarin-speaking children at age five demonstrated their ability to use hao as an acknowledgement marker to show their intention to participate in their peer’s current talk. In addition, that only hao but not dui served as an acknowledgement marker may result from the similarity between the acknowledging function of dui and that of backchannels, which has been considered among the last acquired communicative skills (Hess & Johnston, 1988). Furthermore, Mandarin 5-year-old children had the ability to use dui as a topic transition marker to establish discourse coherence. Meanwhile, that dui, instead of hao, was chosen by the children as a transition marker may reflect the relatively equal relations between peers, since hao is usually used by a speaker with higher status to control the topics in adult conversation (Chen & Liu, 2009). It is concluded that Mandarin children’s use of the two markers not only demonstrates their communicative skills but also reflects the particular nature of peer interaction.
參考文獻 Andersen, E. (1990). Speaking with style: The sociolinguistic skills of children. London: Routledge.
Andersen, E. (1996). A cross-cultural study of children’s register knowledge. In D. Slobin, J. Gerhardt, A. Kyratzis, & J.-S. Guo. (Eds.), Social interaction, social context, and language: Essays in honor of Susan Ervin-Tripp (pp. 125-142). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Andersen, E. S., Brizuela, M., DuPuy, B., & Gonnerman, L. (1999). Cross-Linguistic Evidence for the Early Acquisition of Discourse Markers as Register Variables. Journal of Pragmatics: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Language Studies, 31(10), 1339-1351.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hill.
Bandura, A., & Walters, R. H. (1963). Social Learning and Personality Development. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Biq, Y.-O. (1998). Overlap in Mandarin conversation. Proceedings of the Ninth North American Conference on Chinese Linguistics (NACCL 9), 2, 1-18.
Biq, Y.-O. (2004). From collocation to idiomatic expression: The grammaticalization of hao phrases/constructions in Mandarin Chinese. Journal of Chinese Language and Computing, 14(2), 73-95.
Brown, P., & Levison, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bybee, J. L. (1994). The grammaticalization of zero. In W. Pagliuca (Ed.), Perspectives on grammaticalization (pp. 236-254). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Chen, J.-G., & Liu, H.-Y. (2009). A multi-level analysis of “hao” in Chinese with pedagogical applications (漢語「好」的多視角分析與教學應用). Hua Yu Wen Jiao Xue Yan Jiu (華語文教學研究), 6(2), 45-98.
Choi, I. (2007). How and when do children acquire the use of discourse markers? CamLing, 2007, 40-47.
Chu, C. C. (1999). A Cognitive-Functional Grammar of Mandarin Chinese. Taipei: The Crane Publishing Co. Ltd.
Chui, K. (2002). Ritualization in evolving pragmatic functions: A case study of DUI. Language and Linguistics, 3(4), 645-663.
Dodge, K. A., & Feldman, E. (1990). Issues in social cognition and sociometric status. In S. R. Asher & J. D. Coie (Eds.), Peer rejection in childhood: Origins, consequences and intervention (pp. 119-155). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Doise, W., & Mugny, G. (1984). The social development of the intellect. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Feng, G. (2008). Pragmatic Markers in Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Language Studies, 40(10), 1687-1718.
Fraser, B. (1990). An approach to discourse markers. Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 383-395.
Goffman, E. (1981a). Replies and responses. In Forms of talk (pp. 5-77). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Goffman, E. (1981b). Footing. In Forms of talk (pp. 124-157). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Haiman, J. (1994). Ritualization and the development of language. In W. Pagliuca (Ed.), Perspectives on grammaticalization (pp. 3-28). Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to Functional Grammar. London:Edward Arnold.
Hess, L. J., & Johnston, J. R. (1988). Acquisition of Back Channel Listener Responses to Adequate Messages. Discourse Processes: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 11(3), 319-335.
Holmes, J. (1986). Functions of you know in women`s and men`s speech. Language in Society, 15, 1-22.
Holtgraves, T. (1997). YES, BUT… Positive politeness in conversation arguments. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 16(2), 222-239.
Hoyle, S. M. (1994). Children`s use of discourse markers in the creation of imaginary participation frameworks. Discourse Processes, 17(3), 447-464.
Huang, W.-X. (2000). A developmental study of children`s use of discourse marker ``hao``. (Unpublished master thesis). Fu Jen Catholic University, Taipei.
Jisa, H. (1984). French preschoolers’ use of et puis (‘and then’). First Language, 5, 169-184.
Jisa, H. (1987). Sentence connections in French children’s monologue performance. Journal of Pragmatics, 11, 607-621.
Kroon, C. H. M. (1998). A framework for the description of Latin discourse markers. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 205-223.
Kyratzis, A. (2005). “Because” as a marker of collaborative stance in preschool children’s peer interactions. In A. Tyler, M. Takada, Y. Kim, & D. Marinova (Eds.), Language in use: Cognitive and discourse perspectives on language and language learning (pp. 50-61). Georgetown University Press.
Kyratzis, A., & Ervin-Tripp, S. (1999). The development of discourse markers in peer interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 31(10), 1321-1338.
Kyratzis, A., Guo, Jiansheng, & Ervin-Tripp, S. (1990). Pragmatic conventions influencing children’s use of causal constructions in natural discourse. In The Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (pp. 205-215). Berkeley, CA: Berkley Linguistics Society.
Leech, G. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. London; New York: Longman.
Li, C. N., & Thompson, S. A. (1981). Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Liu, Y.-L. (2008). Pragmatic functions of tag question hao bu hao in Mandarin Chinese -- When not to respond verbally. Paper presented at the 2008 National Conference on Linguistics, 2-3rd May, National Chiayi University, Taiwan.
Lu, E. (2006). The semantic and pragmatic account of the Chinese word hao. Journal of Suihua University, 26(2), 140-143.
Lu, S. (1989/2004). Xidiandai Hanyu Babai Ci [800 Words in Modern Chinese]. Hong Kong: Commercial Press, Hong Kong Division.
MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES Project: Tools for Analyzing Talk (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, Self, and Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Miracle, W. C. (1989). Hao: A Chinese discourse marker. In M. Bradley et al. (Eds.), Papers from the 25th regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, Part 2: Parasession on language in context (pp. 213-227). Chicago: University of Chicago Linguistics Department.
Miracle, W. C. (1991). Discourse markers in Mandarin Chinese. Ph.D. dissertation, The Ohio State University.
Pearson, E. (1986). Agreement/disagreement: An example of results of discourse analysis applied to the oral English classroom. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 74, 47-61.
Piaget, J. (1932). The Moral Judgment of the Child. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.
Polanyi, L., & Scha, R. J. H. (1983). The syntax of discourse. Text, 3, 261-270.
Pomerantz, A. (1975). Second assessments: A study of some features of agreements/disagreements. PhD dissertation, University of California, Irvine.
Pomerantz, A. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In J. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of Social Action (pp. 57-101). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Redeker, G. (1990). Identical and pragmatic markers of discourse structure. Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 367-381.
Redeker, G. (1991). Lingustic markers of discourse structure. Linguistics, 29, 1139-1172.
Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: cognitive development in social context. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Rubin, K. H., Coplan, R. J., Nelson, L. J., & Lagace-Seguin, D. G. (1999). Peer Relationships in Childhood. In M. H. Bornstein & M. E. Lamb (Eds.), Developmental Psychology: An advanced textbook (pp. 451-501). Mahwah, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associate.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation. Language, 50(4), 696-735.
Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Searle, J. (1981). Expression and meaning: studies in the theory of speech act. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Selman, R. L., & Schultz, L. H. (1990). Making a friend in youth: Developmental theory and pair therapy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Shao, J. & Zhu, X. (2005). The discourse functions of hao and its evolution toward functional usage. Zhongguo Yuwen (Chinese Language), 5, 399-407.
Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. (1986/1995). Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.
Sprott, R. A. (1992). Children`s use of discourse markers in disputes. Discourse Processes, 15(4), 423-439.
Sullivan, H. S. (1953). The Interpersonal Theory of Psychiatry. New York: Norton.
Tsai, H.-C. (2001). The discourse function of the "dui" receipt in Mandarin Conversation. Unpublished MA thesis, National Taiwan Normal University.
Wang, H. L. (2005). The grammaticalization of “hao” in Mandarin Chinese. Unpublished MA thesis, Graduate Institute of Linguistics, National Tsing Hua University, Hsinchu.
Wang, L.Y. (2001). From predicate to discourse marker: The grammaticalization of “Hao” in Mandarin Chinese. In Proceedings of the 2001 National Conference on Linguistics (pp. 51-62). Hsinchu: Graduate Institute of Linguistics, National Tsing Hua University.
Wang, L.Y. (2004). The polysemy and grammaticalization of ‘hao’ in Mandarin Chinese. Unpublished MA thesis, National Taiwan Normal University.
Wang, Y.-F., & Tsai, P.-H. (2005). Hao in Spoken Chinese Discourse: Relevance and Coherence. Language Sciences, 27(2), 215-243.
Wang, Y.-F., Tsai, P.-H., & Lin, M.-Y. (2007). From informational to emotive use: meiyou (`no`) as a discourse marker in Taiwan Mandarin conversation. Discourse Studies, 9(5), 677-701.
Wang, Y.-F., Tsai, P.-H., Goodman, D., & Lin, M.-Y. (2010). Agreement, acknowledgment, and alignment: The discourse-pragmatic functions of hao and dui in Taiwan Mandarin conversation. Discourse Studies, 12(2), 241-267.
Watts, R. J. (1989). Taking the pitcher to the ‘well’: Native speakers` perception of their use of discourse markers in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 13(2), 203-237.
Xian, L.-X. (2007). A pragmatic analysis of the marker hao. Journal of Xichang College, 19(3), 1-5.
Xu, J. (2005). The use of discourse markers in spoken Chinese of urban teenagers. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Beijing Foreign Studies University.
Yu, K.-L. (2004). The functions and usage of dui in Mandarin spoken discourse. Unpublished MA Thesis, National Tsing Hua University.
Zhang, Y. (2006). On the subjective-quantity markers of mei, bu and hao. Zhongguo Yuwen (Chinese Language), 2, 127-134.
描述 碩士
國立政治大學
語言學研究所
98555005
101
資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0098555005
資料類型 thesis
dc.contributor.advisor 黃瓊之zh_TW
dc.contributor.advisor Huang, Chiung Chihen_US
dc.contributor.author (Authors) 葉侃彧zh_TW
dc.contributor.author (Authors) Yeh, Kanyuen_US
dc.creator (作者) 葉侃彧zh_TW
dc.creator (作者) Yeh, Kanyuen_US
dc.date (日期) 2012en_US
dc.date.accessioned 1-May-2013 11:46:49 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.available 1-May-2013 11:46:49 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 1-May-2013 11:46:49 (UTC+8)-
dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0098555005en_US
dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/57956-
dc.description (描述) 碩士zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 語言學研究所zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 98555005zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 101zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) 本研究使用Schiffrin (1987) 提出的言談結構（discourse structure）為分析架構，旨在觀察漢語兒童在同儕互動中使用口語中常出現的言談標記「好」和「對」的情形，藉以檢驗其如何反映漢語兒童的溝通技巧以及同儕互動的特性。研究語料來自六位五歲的漢語兒童兩兩之間互動的對話，共237分鐘。
研究發現五歲漢語兒童能掌握言談標記「好」和「對」在三個言談結構的功能，且他們使用此兩個言談標記的不同功能時有所異同。首先，「好」和「對」主要使用於交談順序結構（exchange structure）作為表同意的標記。雖然在成人對話中「好」和「對」皆可用於交談順序結構及語意結構（ideational structure），作為表知曉（acknowledgement）的反饋應答標記和話題轉換（topic transition）標記，但研究結果發現漢語兒童在交談順序結構中只使用「好」作為表知曉的反饋應答標記；在語意結構只用「對」作為話題轉換標記。研究結果顯示五歲漢語兒童在與同儕互動時，已能夠使用反饋標記「好」表現參與對方話題的意願，而他們不使用「對」則可能與「對」作為反饋應答標記時的用法和應答詞（backchannels）相似有關。根據先前研究指出應答詞屬於兒童較晚才習得的溝通技巧（Hess & Johnston, 1988）。此外，五歲漢語兒童亦展現出使用話題轉換標記「對」的能力，顯示他們已知道如何使用言談標記幫助建構言談連貫性（discourse coherence）；而他們選擇使用「對」而非「好」來轉換話題，則可能與「好」的此項功能所隱含的發話者權威性有關（Chen & Liu, 2009），若使用這類帶有發話者權威的言談標記，則可能損害其與同儕間的關係。本研究因而推論漢語兒童在同儕互動中言談標記「好」和「對」各種功能的使用，不僅僅顯示出他們的溝通技巧，同時也反映了同儕互動的特性。		zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) The thesis aims to investigate Mandarin-speaking children’s use of two frequently appearing discourse markers, hao ‘okay’ and dui ‘right’, when interacting with peers in order to examine how their use of these markers may reflect their communicative skills and the characteristics of peer relation. The data included 237 minutes of 5-year-old Mandarin children’s conversations with friends while playing. Schiffrin’s (1987) model of discourse structures, which includes the exchange structure, the action structure, the ideational structures, the participation frameworks, and the information state, was used for the analysis.
The results showed that Mandarin-speaking children used hao in the information state, the exchange structure and the action structure while dui in the information state, the exchange structure and the ideational structure. The functions of hao and dui in the present data demonstrated several similarities and differences. Both markers were used by the children in the exchange structure to show the speaker’s agreement. However, only hao functioned as an acknowledgement marker to indicate the receipt of information in the exchange structure while only dui marking topic transitions in the ideational structure, even though both markers can serve these two functions in adult conversation. Mandarin-speaking children’s use of hao and dui to express agreements, which indicates their collaborative stances, may help them establish alliances with each other (Wang et al., 2010). Moreover, Mandarin-speaking children at age five demonstrated their ability to use hao as an acknowledgement marker to show their intention to participate in their peer’s current talk. In addition, that only hao but not dui served as an acknowledgement marker may result from the similarity between the acknowledging function of dui and that of backchannels, which has been considered among the last acquired communicative skills (Hess & Johnston, 1988). Furthermore, Mandarin 5-year-old children had the ability to use dui as a topic transition marker to establish discourse coherence. Meanwhile, that dui, instead of hao, was chosen by the children as a transition marker may reflect the relatively equal relations between peers, since hao is usually used by a speaker with higher status to control the topics in adult conversation (Chen & Liu, 2009). It is concluded that Mandarin children’s use of the two markers not only demonstrates their communicative skills but also reflects the particular nature of peer interaction.		en_US
dc.description.tableofcontents Acknowledgements iv
Table of Contents vi
List of Tables viii
Chinese Abstract ix
English Abstract x
Chapter 1 Introduction 1
1.1 Motivation 1
1.2 Organization of the thesis 3
Chapter 2 Literature review 5
2.1 Discourse markers 5
2.2 Discourse coherence 7
2.3 Discourse markers in Mandarin Chinese 13
2.4 Children’s acquisition of discourse markers 20
2.5 The role of peers in children’s development 26
Chapter 3 Methods 31
3.1 Participants and data 31
3.2 Analytical framework 32
3.2.1 The exchange structure 33
3.2.2 The action structure 34
3.2.3 The ideational structure 35
3.2.4 The information state 37
Chapter 4 Results 39
4.1 Hao and dui in different structures of discourse 39
4.2 Hao in different structures of discourse 41
4.2.1 Hao as a marker in the information state 41
4.2.2 Hao as a marker in the exchange structure 43
4.2.3 Hao as a marker in the action structure 51
4.2.4 Hao as a marker in both the exchange structure and the action structure 56
4.3 Dui in different structures of discourse 61
4.3.1 Dui as a marker in the information state 61
4.3.2 Dui as a marker in the exchange structure 63
4.3.3 Dui as a marker in the ideational structure 69
Chapter 5 Discussion 73
Chapter 6 Conclusion 81
6.1 Summary 81
6.2 Limitations and suggestions 83
Appendix A Transcription conventions and gloss abbreviations 85
Reference 86		zh_TW
dc.format.extent 1679346 bytes-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.language.iso en_US-
dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0098555005en_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 言談結構zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 同儕關係zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 溝通技巧zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 言談標記zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) discourse structureen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) peer relationen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) communicative skillen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) discourse markeren_US
dc.title (題名) 漢語兒童在同儕互動中言談標記「好」和「對」的使用zh_TW
dc.title (題名) Mandarin-speaking Children`s Use of Discourse Markers Hao `Okay` and Dui `Right` in Peer Interactionen_US
dc.type (資料類型) thesisen
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Andersen, E. (1990). Speaking with style: The sociolinguistic skills of children. London: Routledge.
Andersen, E. (1996). A cross-cultural study of children’s register knowledge. In D. Slobin, J. Gerhardt, A. Kyratzis, & J.-S. Guo. (Eds.), Social interaction, social context, and language: Essays in honor of Susan Ervin-Tripp (pp. 125-142). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Andersen, E. S., Brizuela, M., DuPuy, B., & Gonnerman, L. (1999). Cross-Linguistic Evidence for the Early Acquisition of Discourse Markers as Register Variables. Journal of Pragmatics: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Language Studies, 31(10), 1339-1351.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hill.
Bandura, A., & Walters, R. H. (1963). Social Learning and Personality Development. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Biq, Y.-O. (1998). Overlap in Mandarin conversation. Proceedings of the Ninth North American Conference on Chinese Linguistics (NACCL 9), 2, 1-18.
Biq, Y.-O. (2004). From collocation to idiomatic expression: The grammaticalization of hao phrases/constructions in Mandarin Chinese. Journal of Chinese Language and Computing, 14(2), 73-95.
Brown, P., & Levison, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bybee, J. L. (1994). The grammaticalization of zero. In W. Pagliuca (Ed.), Perspectives on grammaticalization (pp. 236-254). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Chen, J.-G., & Liu, H.-Y. (2009). A multi-level analysis of “hao” in Chinese with pedagogical applications (漢語「好」的多視角分析與教學應用). Hua Yu Wen Jiao Xue Yan Jiu (華語文教學研究), 6(2), 45-98.
Choi, I. (2007). How and when do children acquire the use of discourse markers? CamLing, 2007, 40-47.
Chu, C. C. (1999). A Cognitive-Functional Grammar of Mandarin Chinese. Taipei: The Crane Publishing Co. Ltd.
Chui, K. (2002). Ritualization in evolving pragmatic functions: A case study of DUI. Language and Linguistics, 3(4), 645-663.
Dodge, K. A., & Feldman, E. (1990). Issues in social cognition and sociometric status. In S. R. Asher & J. D. Coie (Eds.), Peer rejection in childhood: Origins, consequences and intervention (pp. 119-155). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Doise, W., & Mugny, G. (1984). The social development of the intellect. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Feng, G. (2008). Pragmatic Markers in Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Language Studies, 40(10), 1687-1718.
Fraser, B. (1990). An approach to discourse markers. Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 383-395.
Goffman, E. (1981a). Replies and responses. In Forms of talk (pp. 5-77). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Goffman, E. (1981b). Footing. In Forms of talk (pp. 124-157). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Haiman, J. (1994). Ritualization and the development of language. In W. Pagliuca (Ed.), Perspectives on grammaticalization (pp. 3-28). Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to Functional Grammar. London:Edward Arnold.
Hess, L. J., & Johnston, J. R. (1988). Acquisition of Back Channel Listener Responses to Adequate Messages. Discourse Processes: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 11(3), 319-335.
Holmes, J. (1986). Functions of you know in women`s and men`s speech. Language in Society, 15, 1-22.
Holtgraves, T. (1997). YES, BUT… Positive politeness in conversation arguments. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 16(2), 222-239.
Hoyle, S. M. (1994). Children`s use of discourse markers in the creation of imaginary participation frameworks. Discourse Processes, 17(3), 447-464.
Huang, W.-X. (2000). A developmental study of children`s use of discourse marker ``hao``. (Unpublished master thesis). Fu Jen Catholic University, Taipei.
Jisa, H. (1984). French preschoolers’ use of et puis (‘and then’). First Language, 5, 169-184.
Jisa, H. (1987). Sentence connections in French children’s monologue performance. Journal of Pragmatics, 11, 607-621.
Kroon, C. H. M. (1998). A framework for the description of Latin discourse markers. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 205-223.
Kyratzis, A. (2005). “Because” as a marker of collaborative stance in preschool children’s peer interactions. In A. Tyler, M. Takada, Y. Kim, & D. Marinova (Eds.), Language in use: Cognitive and discourse perspectives on language and language learning (pp. 50-61). Georgetown University Press.
Kyratzis, A., & Ervin-Tripp, S. (1999). The development of discourse markers in peer interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 31(10), 1321-1338.
Kyratzis, A., Guo, Jiansheng, & Ervin-Tripp, S. (1990). Pragmatic conventions influencing children’s use of causal constructions in natural discourse. In The Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (pp. 205-215). Berkeley, CA: Berkley Linguistics Society.
Leech, G. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. London; New York: Longman.
Li, C. N., & Thompson, S. A. (1981). Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Liu, Y.-L. (2008). Pragmatic functions of tag question hao bu hao in Mandarin Chinese -- When not to respond verbally. Paper presented at the 2008 National Conference on Linguistics, 2-3rd May, National Chiayi University, Taiwan.
Lu, E. (2006). The semantic and pragmatic account of the Chinese word hao. Journal of Suihua University, 26(2), 140-143.
Lu, S. (1989/2004). Xidiandai Hanyu Babai Ci [800 Words in Modern Chinese]. Hong Kong: Commercial Press, Hong Kong Division.
MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES Project: Tools for Analyzing Talk (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, Self, and Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Miracle, W. C. (1989). Hao: A Chinese discourse marker. In M. Bradley et al. (Eds.), Papers from the 25th regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, Part 2: Parasession on language in context (pp. 213-227). Chicago: University of Chicago Linguistics Department.
Miracle, W. C. (1991). Discourse markers in Mandarin Chinese. Ph.D. dissertation, The Ohio State University.
Pearson, E. (1986). Agreement/disagreement: An example of results of discourse analysis applied to the oral English classroom. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 74, 47-61.
Piaget, J. (1932). The Moral Judgment of the Child. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.
Polanyi, L., & Scha, R. J. H. (1983). The syntax of discourse. Text, 3, 261-270.
Pomerantz, A. (1975). Second assessments: A study of some features of agreements/disagreements. PhD dissertation, University of California, Irvine.
Pomerantz, A. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In J. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of Social Action (pp. 57-101). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Redeker, G. (1990). Identical and pragmatic markers of discourse structure. Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 367-381.
Redeker, G. (1991). Lingustic markers of discourse structure. Linguistics, 29, 1139-1172.
Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: cognitive development in social context. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Rubin, K. H., Coplan, R. J., Nelson, L. J., & Lagace-Seguin, D. G. (1999). Peer Relationships in Childhood. In M. H. Bornstein & M. E. Lamb (Eds.), Developmental Psychology: An advanced textbook (pp. 451-501). Mahwah, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associate.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation. Language, 50(4), 696-735.
Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Searle, J. (1981). Expression and meaning: studies in the theory of speech act. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Selman, R. L., & Schultz, L. H. (1990). Making a friend in youth: Developmental theory and pair therapy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Shao, J. & Zhu, X. (2005). The discourse functions of hao and its evolution toward functional usage. Zhongguo Yuwen (Chinese Language), 5, 399-407.
Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. (1986/1995). Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.
Sprott, R. A. (1992). Children`s use of discourse markers in disputes. Discourse Processes, 15(4), 423-439.
Sullivan, H. S. (1953). The Interpersonal Theory of Psychiatry. New York: Norton.
Tsai, H.-C. (2001). The discourse function of the "dui" receipt in Mandarin Conversation. Unpublished MA thesis, National Taiwan Normal University.
Wang, H. L. (2005). The grammaticalization of “hao” in Mandarin Chinese. Unpublished MA thesis, Graduate Institute of Linguistics, National Tsing Hua University, Hsinchu.
Wang, L.Y. (2001). From predicate to discourse marker: The grammaticalization of “Hao” in Mandarin Chinese. In Proceedings of the 2001 National Conference on Linguistics (pp. 51-62). Hsinchu: Graduate Institute of Linguistics, National Tsing Hua University.
Wang, L.Y. (2004). The polysemy and grammaticalization of ‘hao’ in Mandarin Chinese. Unpublished MA thesis, National Taiwan Normal University.
Wang, Y.-F., & Tsai, P.-H. (2005). Hao in Spoken Chinese Discourse: Relevance and Coherence. Language Sciences, 27(2), 215-243.
Wang, Y.-F., Tsai, P.-H., & Lin, M.-Y. (2007). From informational to emotive use: meiyou (`no`) as a discourse marker in Taiwan Mandarin conversation. Discourse Studies, 9(5), 677-701.
Wang, Y.-F., Tsai, P.-H., Goodman, D., & Lin, M.-Y. (2010). Agreement, acknowledgment, and alignment: The discourse-pragmatic functions of hao and dui in Taiwan Mandarin conversation. Discourse Studies, 12(2), 241-267.
Watts, R. J. (1989). Taking the pitcher to the ‘well’: Native speakers` perception of their use of discourse markers in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 13(2), 203-237.
Xian, L.-X. (2007). A pragmatic analysis of the marker hao. Journal of Xichang College, 19(3), 1-5.
Xu, J. (2005). The use of discourse markers in spoken Chinese of urban teenagers. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Beijing Foreign Studies University.
Yu, K.-L. (2004). The functions and usage of dui in Mandarin spoken discourse. Unpublished MA Thesis, National Tsing Hua University.
Zhang, Y. (2006). On the subjective-quantity markers of mei, bu and hao. Zhongguo Yuwen (Chinese Language), 2, 127-134.		zh_TW