一個說話者在交談中做修護，不僅僅只是為了改變語句的句法結構，他會做修護是因為他所說出的語句，與他原本意欲表達的內容比較之下，出現了語意模糊、指涉太廣、或意有不足的地方。雖然修護可依照不同的詞彙與句法的改變來加以分類，但修護類別的產生也應把被修護語(Reparandum)與修護語(Reparan)之間的語意關係列入考量。此外，若修護的出現有一語用的目的，以語意的角度來區別各種不同的修護形式，有助於解釋修護類別與其語用功能之間的互動關係。
本研究之資料係由觀察實際日常交談中的修護而得（包含同性與異性間的對話），基於這些收集到的語料，本研究仔細檢視被修護者與修護者之間的語意關係如何決定一個語用功能的產生，以及此語用功能如何影響修護類別的選取。
研究結果顯示，針對本研究所欲探討的三個語用功能中，每一個語用功能都會有一個修護類別的使用頻率會高於其它的修護類別，而這種優先選取的情形取決於達到語意清晰的效能原則(Effectiveness Principle)與／或效率原則(Economy Principle)。統計數據也證實：(1)要執行釐清(Clarification)的語用功能，較有效率的修護類別實詞化(Substantialization)比意譯(Paraphrase)和添加(Addition)較常為說話者所用；(2)要執行指明(Specification)的語用功能，一樣也是較有效率的闡釋(Elaboration)的使用頻率遠比添加(Addition)來得高；反之，(3)要執行確認(Confirmation)的語用功能，較省時省力的重覆(Repetition)要比實詞化和意譯更常被使用。以上的修護類別的使用順序指出，修穫類別使用頻率高低，不僅取決於其是否耗時費力，而且更重要的是，說話老如何能以最有效率的方式將自己的意思清楚地表達，以確保原語意的清晰。
最後，統計檢定的結果證實，性別對修護類別的選取沒有顯著的不同。 / A speaker does not repair just for a change of the syntactic structure of his current utterance. A speaker repairs because he finds something uttered may be vague, ambiguous, too general, or insufficient in the meaning of the message he intends to express. Although repairs can be classified according to various kinds of lexical or syntactic modification, categorization of repairs should take into consideration different semantic relationships between the reparandum and the reparan. Considering that each occurrence of repair must have a pragmatic function to serve, a semantic approach on the classification of conversational repair would be more helpful than a syntactic one in explaining the interaction between the repair strategies and their potential pragmatic functions. And the methodology for this study is to collect the instances of repair from nine conversations, including same-gender and cross-gender ones. Based on these repairs, it is closely examined how the semantic relationship between the reparandum and the reparan determines a pragmatic function and how that pragmatic function influences the choice of the available repair strategies.
"The test results indicate that for each of the three pragmatic functions examined in this study, there is a repair strategy that shows a more significant priority over the other available one(s), and this priority is determined either by the principle of the economy and/or the principle of clarity. The statistic results present evidences that (1) to serve the pragmatic function of Clarification, the more effective repair strategy Substantialization is more favored than Paraphrase and Addition; (2) to serve the function of Specificalion, also lhe more effective Elaboration predominates over Addition; however, (3) to serve the function of Confirmation, the more economic Repetition is used significantly more often than Substantialization and Paraphrase. The above preference orders show that the adoption of the most favored repair strategy depends not only on the effort or time a repair takes, but, more importantly, on how the speaker can most effectively make himself clear to the hearer, securing the clarity of the intended meaning.
Results of statistic tests do not verify the hypothesis that male and female speakers would display significantly different patterns in their choices among the five repair strategies.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:CHENGCHI/B2002002194 |
| Creators | 張國斌, Chang, Kuo-Pin |
| Publisher | 國立政治大學 |
| Source Sets | National Chengchi University Libraries |
| Language | 英文 |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | text |
| Rights | Copyright © nccu library on behalf of the copyright holders |
Page generated in 0.0021 seconds