作者：王丽
出版社：上海交通大学出版社
格式: AZW3, DOCX, EPUB, MOBI, PDF, TXT
基于语料库的中国学习者英语口语中语用标记语研究试读：
前言
过去二十年中，语用标记语（pragmatic markers）得到了广泛的关注和研究。语用标记语是语言中普遍存在的用来标记话语信息的词语或结构，它是语用能力的重要方面。Brinton（1996：3335）列出了语用标记语所具特征，其中之一是标记语没有或极少具有实质意义（propositional meaning）。严格意义上说，标记语对理解整个话语而言并非完全必要。从在话语中的位置来看，语用标记比较灵活，不依附于某一基本句法成分，从句法的角度看是可以取消的。但正如Schiffrin（1987：318）所言，标记语可以使两个毗邻话语单元之间的连接关系更加清晰和明朗。在本研究中，语用标记语的作用就是点明或突出同一语篇中两个话语单元之间的语义关系；这两个部分可以是毗邻的，也可以是分离的。语用标记语不能创造语义关系，因为没有语用标记语，这种语义关系其实也是存在的。所谓语用标记语，主要是指出现在言谈话语中，用以标记话语连贯、传递话语互动信息的语言手段。
Allwood（1996）对口语语料库的研究表明，语用标记语属高频用词，平均每1.5秒出现一次（Luke 1987）。也有学者尝试用不同的理论框架和视角来研究和解释语用标记语，其研究的出发点不同，理论依据各异。目前对语用标记语功能和意义的研究主要有两大倾向：一是在语篇连贯理论（Coherence-based Theory）框架下研究其表达的概念意义及其对加强话语连贯性的作用（Schiffrin 1987;Redeker 1990）;二是在关联理论（Relevance Theory）框架下研究其表达的程序意义及其在话语生成及话语理解过程中发挥的制约作用（Blakemore 2002）。对语用标记语使用与习得的研究基本分为三个方面：①本族语使用者对语用标记的使用与习得（Svartvik 1980;Ostman 1981;Schiffrin 1986;Watts 1989;Andersen 2000;Stenstrom 2002），包括对其影响因素的研究，如年龄（Erman 2001;Macaulay 2002;Tagliamonte 2005）、性别（Holmes 1990;Erman 1992）、社会阶层（Macaulay 2002）等因素；②二语习得者对语用标记语的使用与习得，主要研究与本族语使用者在语用标记语使用中的异同（Muller 2005）及其影响因素等；③不同语言的语用标记语之间的对比研究（Gonzalez 2004）及其对教学的启示。总之，大多数学者都承认语用标记语具有重要的交际功能，体现了说话者的语用能力。语用标记语用于表达说话者的交际意图，又被看作交际双方的互动信号和协调机制（Hasselgren 1998：155），其在口语交际中的重要性可见一斑。
在中国学生习得语用标记语方面，何安平和徐曼非（2003）对中国大学生英语口语中小品词（small words）进行了定量研究，比较了中国英语学习者中口语高分组与低分组小品词的使用频率和类型与其口语流利程度的相关性，认为这类小品词有助于提高学生英语口语的流利性，对改进英语教学和口试评估有启发意义。李巧兰（2004）比较了高级和中级英语学习者以及英语本族语者口语交际中的语用标记语使用情况，发现英语学习者在语用标记语的习得上无法达到英语本族语者的水平，存在语用石化现象。李民和陈新仁（2007）则探讨了中国学生习得well各种语用功能的情况，并与英语本族语者使用well的情况进行了对比。上述研究为我们弄清二语习得者在使用语用标记语时存在的问题做了有益的探索。但迄今为止，大规模探讨中国学生习得语用标记语总体情况的研究还很少，而研究二语习得者语用标记语的使用情况又有助于我们了解其使用及习得规律，以便有针对性地促进二语习得者的习得效率和提高二语习得者的语用能力。有鉴于此，本书尝试对比分析中国英语专业大学生英语口语语料库（SECCL）和英语本族语口语语料库（BNC），旨在解决以下问题：在言语交际中，中国英语学习者在使用语用标记语的总体功能范围和频率上与英语本族语者有何差异？他们使用语用标记语在三个语用结构层面上与英语本族语者有何差异？他们在使用各种语用功能频率与比率上与英语本族语者有何差异？
全书分9章，第1章介绍了本书研究的重要性及全文框架。
第2章回溯了语用标记语的以往研究以及本文所采用的理论框架，本文所用理论框架基于Gonzalez（2004）所提出的语篇连贯模式，并根据笔者所选取的语料库中实际出现的语用功能做出适当修改。Gonzalez（2004）认为，语篇连贯关系是由语义关系和语用关系来共同实现的。语义关系由概念结构（ideational structure）的标记语来实现，这些标记语主要是指逻辑连接词（logical connectors）。语用关系由修辞结构（rhetorical structure）、序列结构（sequential structure）和推理结构（inferential structure）三个层面的标记语功能来实现。修辞结构标记语指的是出现在话语中的一系列言后行为，包括说话人的态度、目的、看法和观点等；序列结构标记语则标志话语交谈者开始和结束话语，并标志着说话人即将引用他人之话；推论结构标记语反映了说话人遵守Grice合作原则而产生的交际行为，比如在有些情况下，标记语可用来缓解某些可能引起不快的话语行为，起缓和语气、显示礼貌和拉近与听话人距离的作用。当然，本研究的分类并非完善，实际上语用标记语的这三大结构的语用功能是密不可分的，很多标记语同时具备两种语用功能，只不过在具体交际语境中某一功能会暂时占据主导地位。所以，把一个标记语功能归类于序列结构，并非完全否定其修辞结构功能。在这种情况下，笔者通过上下文挑选出它的主要功能倾向性，进而决定其结构功能归属。笔者从语料库中共归纳出14种语用功能。
在本研究中，笔者归纳出9种修辞结构功能：阐述性标记语（clarifier）、强调标记语（emphasizer）、评价性标记语（evaluator）、换言之标记语（reformulator）、递进标记语（addition marker）、时间延缓标记语（delayer）、原因标记语（justifier）、话题转换标记语（topic shifter）和自我修正标记语（self-repair signal）。阐述性标记语是指说话人使用标记语进一步解释前文，通常举例证明前面观点；强调标记语是指说话人运用标记语来强调前文或后文；评价性标记语指说话人通过运用标记语来对前文发表自己的观点或表明态度；换言之标记语是指说话人运用语用标记语表明后文是对前文的重新表述，使听者更能明白其阐述的意思；递进标记语是指说话人想要进一步提供更详细的信息或更好的解释以利于听者理解其话语；时间拖延标记语是指说话人借助标记语来拖延赢得思考时间来表达自己观点；原因标记语是指说话人想通过提供原因试图解释前文的正确性；话题转换标记语是说话人借助标记语来进行话题转换；至于自我修正标记语，则是指说话人对其说话的口误或用词等错误进行自我修正。
序列结构中有3种语用功能，即话语开始标记语（opening marking device）、话语结束标记语（closing marking device）和直接引用标记语（direct speech initiator）。话语开始标记语是指说话人运用标记语开始话语，话语结束标记语则被说话人用来结束话语。直接引语标记语是指说话人用标记语表明下文出现的内容是直接引用他人或自己曾经说过之话。在推理结构中只有两种语用功能，即面子缓和威胁语（face-threat mitigator）和互动监控标记语（monitoring marker）。面子缓和威胁语是指在言语交际中说话人常常需要为维护话语顺利进行而努力缓和有可能威胁听者面子的言语行为，起调节人际关系的作用。互动监控标记语则指说话人可运用语用标记语作为明示手段，寻找与听话人的认知共性，用来拉近和听话人之间的距离，从而增强交际的有效性。
第3章重点介绍了本书研究方法。本研究采用语料库对比分析的方法，其中英语本族语口语语料库采用British National Corpus （BNC）中的电视访谈（television discussion）部分，主题涉及运动、政治、历史和医学等。为了便于研究，笔者用DETAGGER V2.4软件把BNC附码全部删除，然后再进行相关数据统计。所使用的中国学习者英语口语语料库为The Spoken English Corpus of Chinese Learners （SECCL），由南京大学外国语学院和外语教育与研究出版社共同建设。语料库容量为100万词次左右，主要的语料来源为我国大学英语专业学生参加专业四级口试的录音语料。该语料库包括3部分（故事复述、独白和对话），本研究仅研究言语交谈中语用标记语的使用，故只采用其中的第三部分，即对话部分。
第4章探讨了中国学习者使用well作为语用标记语的情况，并与本族语者进行比较。
第5章探讨了中国学习者使用I mean作为语用标记语的情况，并与本族语者进行比较。
第6章探讨了中国学习者使用you know作为语用标记语的情况，并与本族语者进行比较。
第7章探讨了中国学习者使用actually作为语用标记语的情况，并与本族语者进行比较。
第8章全面比较了中国学生与英语本族语者对四个语用标记语的总体语用功能的使用情况。
第9章对全文做了总结，说明中国大学生与英语本族语使用者在使用语用标记语方面存在很大差异。整体看来，中国大学生在会话交流中在语用标记语的使用上与英语本族语者相比，有很大的差距——主要表现在使用频率低和功能变化少，且对大多数语用标记语使用范围和功能了解和掌握得都很不够，在三个语用结构层面的语用功能使用上亦呈现出显著差异。分析结果说明，中国学生在语用标记语的习得上远远没有达到本族语者的水平。尽管语用标记语对话题的命题内容没有起决定性作用，但它们却反映了交际主体在交际过程中的认知能动性，体现了说话人在做出语用选择时所给予的暗示和调控，是交际主体元语用意识的一种外化，因此习得标记语是向流利使用英语迈进的关键一步。
基于以上结果，本研究建议应在英语课堂中采用显性的教学，让中国英语学习者意识到语用标记语并且多接触其用法。此外，本文还提出IIII（解释—交互—归纳—内在化）的教学方法来教授中国学习者语用标记语的用法，尤其是中国学习者过少使用的修辞结构和序列结构的语用功能。作者希望本文的研究发现能使语用标记语的讲解和演练成为中国英语课堂教学的不可缺少的一部分。
此研究的结果对中介语语用学理论及外语教学实践都有一定的启示作用。中国英语学习者在语用标记语的习得上存在很大问题，从而使我们认识到，对语用标记语的讲解和演练应该成为口语教学中不可或缺的一环，教师应尽力消除学生习得语用标记语过程中出现的石化现象，使学生的中介语逐步向目标语靠拢。因此，我们需要在英语课堂中加强语用标记语的教学，使学生能像本族语者那样更流利、更顺畅地表达自己的思想。
当然，由于时间精力有限，本研究从两个语料库中仅分别提取大约10万字数的语料，这种对比分析的语料显然规模偏小，故研究结果只在一定程度上反映了中国大学生与英语本族语者使用语用标记语的差异情况，还有待研究人员使用更加合适、更大规模的语料做进一步研究和探讨。
本书是教育部基金项目“不同母语外国学习者汉语书面语语篇结构标记对比研究”（13YJC740096）的子课题成果。著者CHAPTER 1INTRODUCTION1.1Research background
In the past two decades,an extensive body of pragmatic and linguistic research has been devoted to a functionally related group of expressions referred to as pragmatic markers. Pragmatic markers are pervasive in daily communication and are an important feature of both formal and informal native speaker language. The skilful use of pragmatic markers often indicates a higher level of fluency and an ability to produce and understand authentic language. Recent analyses of spoken corpora show that they are represented among the top ten frequent word forms （Allwood,1996） and are found in continuous talk on average every 1.5 seconds （Luke,1987）.
The general research on the functions and meanings of pragmatic markers has taken two approaches：the coherence-based approach holding that pragmatic markers express conceptual meaning and help enhance discourse coherence （Schiffrin,1987；Redeker,1991）;and the relevance-theoretic approach holding that pragmatic markers express procedural meaning and play an important role in utterance generation and interpretation （Blakemore,2002）.
The range of languages that has been examined is typologically diverse,including Chinese,Danish,French,Hebrew,Indonesian,Latin,and Mayan,etc. （Schiffrin,2005）. Given so wide a range of theoretical and analytical diversity,perhaps it should not be surprising that there has not yet emerged a consensus in some basic tenets of pragmatic marker theory. The research on pragmatic markers generally falls into three directions：firstly,the pragmatic use and acquisition by native speakers （Svartvik,1980;stman,1981;Schiffrin,1987;Watts,1989;Stenstrom,1995;Andersen,1998）,centering on factors such as individual differences in age （Tagliamonte,2005;Erman,2001;Macaulay,2002）,gender （Erman,1992;Holmes,1990）,social class （Macaulay,2005）,and speech context （Fuller,2003）;secondly,the pragmatic use and acquisition by L2 learners,mostly focusing on the differences and similarities as compared to native speakers and their contributing factors （Muller,2005;He,2003）;thirdly,the pragmatic marker use and acquisition across different languages,focalizing on the differences and similarities of the languages researched （,2004）. Although pragmatic markers have been investigated from a variety of perspectives,it is generally acknowledged that pragmatic markers contribute to the pragmatic meaning of utterances,thus playing an important role in the pragmatic competence of the speaker and fulfiling important communicative functions.
According to Trillo （2002）,the use of pragmatic markers is a formidable task for L2 learners to master if there is no teachers’ intentional attempt to teach the differences between the pragmatic marker use in different cultures. Trillo argues that to research and teach these pragmatic markers purposefully is essential because non-native learners do not develop their pragmatic competence the way they develop their grammatical competence. For learners,the subtle pragmatic differences in different cultural contexts can even be difficult for learners who have high grammatical ability. In addition,Trillo maintains that these pragmatic markers are often neglected by teachers and textbooks alike. In his study,the results indicate that non-native learners do have pragmatic fossilizations on these pragmatic markers such as you know and well when they are not adequately taught.
Similarly,in the EFL （English as a foreign language） contexts in China,students have also long neglected the importance of pragmatic competence,let alone pragmatic markers. Grammatical ability,the core in China’s college instruction is not conductive to one’s pragmatic competence;and the lack of authentic materials in China further prevents Chinese students from acquiring the functions of pragmatic markers correctly. Although Chinese EFL learners in this study have been learning English for at least eight years,we may assume that their style of speaking differs from that of native speakers. Learners may display an overuse or underuse of certain pragmatic functions in comparison with native speakers and therefore sound non-nativelike. In this case,without probing into how native and non-native speakers use these pragmatic markers and applying the differences to our instruction,EFL learners are not able to overcome this pragmatic learning obstacle.
In the literature there is little large-scale study on the acquisition of pragmatic markers by Chinese EFL learners,and specifically,on the realization of the functions that these markers perform in spoken interaction. The comparative use of pragmatic markers between native English speakers and Chinese EFL learners and the pedagogical significance they have in an EFL classroom has been studied even less. Since pragmatic competence is recognized as being essential for successful communication （Kasper &Blum-Kulka,1993）,the knowledge of their appropriate use is also essential for the pragmatic competence of EFL learners. The present study is just generated with such a background.1.2Research objectives
The present study intends to investigate the use of the pragmatic markers by Chinese EFL Learners in their spoken English. The research reported here attempts to make a comparative use of pragmatic markers between Chinese EFL Learners and native English speakers by classifying pragmatic markers according to a tentative specific categorical framework and by undertaking a corpus-based analysis of the Chinese learner corpus and native English corpus. Our research is currently focused on four major objectives. The first objective is to examine the range of the pragmatic functions and the frequency of the pragmatic markers used by Chinese EFL learners. The second objective is to investigate the patterns of individual pragmatic function identified in Chinese EFL learners’ spoken English. The third objective is to explore the distribution of each pragmatic structure in Chinese EFL Learners’ spoken English. The fourth objective is to investigate the syntax positions where pragmatic markers occur in Chinese EFL Learners’ spoken English.
Specifically,this research aims to address the following four questions：（1）What similarities and differences can be detected in the range of pragmatic functions and the frequency of pragmatic markers between Chinese EFL learners and native English speakers?（2）What similarities and differences can be detected in the use of each individual function between Chinese EFL learners and native English speakers?（3）What similarities and differences can be detected in the distribution of each pragmatic structure between BNC and SECCL?（4）What similarities and differences can be detected in the distribution of syntax positions where each pragmatic marker occurs between Chinese EFL learners and native English speakers?1.3The organization of this book
In response to the research objectives,the present dissertation develops in nine chapters. Chapter 1 serves as a brief introduction to the research background,research objectives,and research questions.
Chapter 2 tackles the theoretical and empirical issues concerning pragmatic markers and provides the theoretical framework for the present study. First,it sets forth the working definition of both discourse markers and pragmatic markers. Then,it reviews the various approaches towards the study of pragmatic markers and weighs up their strengths and weaknesses. Finally,it attempts to establish a tentative framework of the pragmatic markers in spoken discourse. Based on the previous research efforts,an integration of the pragmatic functions in three distinct pragmatic structures （the rhetorical structure,the sequential structure,and the inferential structure） is specifically proposed to provide a sound basis for the investigation of the use of pragmatic markers by Chinese EFL learners.
Chapter 3 deals with the methodology of the study,providing information on the learner corpora used,the selection method of the pragmatic markers,and data treatment in this study.
Chapters 4,5,6 and 7 are devoted to the description of the similarities and differences of the selected four pragmatic markers used by Chinese EFL learners and native English speakers. Each chapter addresses one pragmatic marker：well,I mean,you know,and actually respectively. Chapter 8 presents the overall comparison of the use of the four pragmatic markers between Chinese EFL learners and native English speakers. Chapter 9 concludes the dissertation by summarizing the major findings. The pedagogical implications,the limitations of the present research as well as suggestions for further research are also discussed in this chapter.CHAPTER 2LITERATURE REVIEWThis chapter begins with the definition and characteristics of discourse markers and pragmatic markers. Next,formal and functional perspectives on discourse phenomena will also be considered. Then,some SLA theories related to the teaching of pragmatic markers are reviewed. After that,different strands of approaches to pragmatic markers are brought together to display a comprehensive picture of the existing research on pragmatic markers. Finally,the theoretical framework is proposed for the present study,which will provide the theoretical foundation for the general discussion in the following chapters.2.1Defining discourse marker and pragmatic marker
Although numerous studies have been done to specify the meanings,functions or classifications of this group of linguistic items,no universal agreement has been reached on several issues concerning discourse markers. Agreement has never been reached as to how they should be labeled. A wide variety of other terms （but not limited to these） are：cue phrases （Knott &Dale,1994）,discourse connectives （Blakemore,2002;Rouchota,1996）,discourse operators （Redeker,1990,1991），discourse particles （Schourup,1985）,pragmatic connectives （Van Dijk,1979;Stubbs,1983）,pragmatic formatives （Fraser,1987）,discourse markers （Fraser,1988,1990）,pragmatic markers （,2004）,and pragmatic operators （Ariel,1994）,etc. Each term only partially overlaps with the others. Even when the same term “pragmatic marker” is used in two studies,items included in one may be excluded in another,for they may emphasize different characteristics of pragmatic markers. For example,Schiffrin （1987） refers to well and oh as discourse markers,while Fraser （1999） excludes them by labeling them as pause markers. Apart from that,there has been no consistent definition of pragmatic markers so far. Most definitions focus on connectivity and non-truth-conditionality,but no definition is likely to win universal acceptance. This is due to the fact that these definitions are based on different theories and varying background assumptions （Schourup,1999）. Neither is any universal agreement reached as to how discourse markers function in discourse. The Coherence Theory claims that discourse markers are used to connect units of discourse and make the implicit coherence relations explicit. In contrast,in the relevance-theoretic framework,discourse markers guide the hearer in utterance interpretation. By using discourse markers,the speaker clearly indicates the correct way of interpreting his or her utterance so as to save the hearer’s processing efforts. As some scholars （Blakemore,2002;Rouchota,1996;Sperber &Wilson,1995） suggest,discourse markers encode procedural information,rather than conceptual. They contribute nothing to the content of the proposition expressed by the utterance.
In Schiffrin’s （1987） monograph,she defines discourse markers as “sequentially dependent elements which bracket units of talk” （p.31）. In her view,discourse markers perform an integrative function,contributing to discourse coherence. She analyzes in detail eleven lexical items and,because,but,I mean,now,oh,or,so,then,well,and you know in unstructured interview conversations. She further suggests that discourse markers do not easily fit into a linguistic class. In fact,she goes so far as to suggest that paralinguistic features and non-verbal gestures are also possible discourse markers. She points out that we should try to find common characteristics of these items which are used as discourse markers. But such an approach would require not only the discovery of the shared characteristics of an extremely diversified set of expressions,in English,but also the analysis of a wide body of typologically diverse languages to discover what other linguistic resources are drawn upon for use as markers （p.328）.
The term “pragmatic marker”,suggested by Andersen （2001）,describes a class of short linguistic elements that usually do not have much lexical meaning but serve significant pragmatic functions in conversation. Andersen believes that the term “pragmatic” denotes the quality of “low degree of lexical specificity” and a “high degree of context-sensitivity” （p.40）. He proposes that pragmatic markers help readers/hearers “see” the communicative aspects that go beyond the propositional meaning of an utterance. They are called pragmatic because they add an inferential trace to the proposition itself,making the interpretation of the discourse easier and narrowing the contextual background.
Aijmer （2002） refers to this category of linguistic elements as “discourse particles”,and defines them as “dispensable elements functioning as signposts in the communication facilitating the hearer’s interpretation of the utterance on the basis of various contextual clues” （p.2）.
Fraser （1999,2005） proposes that discourse markers are a subcategory of pragmatic markers. He claims that the term “pragmatic” better describes the whole range of functions of these items. His definition of discourse marker is somewhat narrower than the one given by Schiffrin （1987）. Fraser （1999） assumes that discourse markers signal four types of relationships. Whether or not there are other semantic relationships that hold between discourse segments remains to be seen,but these four are intended to be exhaustive. Of course,as we will see below,within each of the four major relationships discourse markers signal,there are relatively more restrictive markers,for example,but vs. however/nevertheless/in contrast. Relationships that discourse markers signal include the speaker’s intention to change the topic,an expression of dispreferred response （well）,a repair of the phrase or clarification of the meaning （I mean）,etc.
Redeker （1991） argues that pragmatic markers are a subcategory of discourse markers. She puts forward the notion of core meaning for discourse markers and points out that the core meaning should specify the speaker’s intrinsic contribution to the semantic representation that will constrain the contextual interpretation of the utterance. She notes that the definition of discourse markers has not been adequately addressed and suggests,“what is needed is a clear definition of the structure of discourse coherence and a broader framework that embraces all connective expressions and is not restricted to an arbitrary selected subset” （p.1167）. She defines a discourse marker as follows：
[L]inguistic expressions used to signal the relation of an utterance to its immediate context,with the primary function of bringing to the hearer’s attention a particular kind of linkage of the upcoming utterance with the immediate discourse context. （p.1168）Redeker （1991） classifies discourse markers into two categories：markers of ideational structure （i.e. ideational markers） and markers of pragmatic structure （i.e. pragmatic markers）.（1）Ideational markers,which include three categories：
i） Simple connectives. They include subordinators （with sentential complements） and the relative pronouns that,who and which,with their variants. And and or are excluded.
ii） Semantic rich connectives. They include conjunctions and adverbial connectives that signal a semantic relation. Examples of these are the adversative but,question words introducing embedded
试读结束[说明：试读内容隐藏了图片]