Chapter OneIntroduction
1.1 Background of the Study
Pride and Prejudice has been studied from various perspectives since its publication byscholars at home and abroad (Zhao & Chen, 2011). However, most of these studies havefocused on the perspectives of translation or stylistic analysis. Looking back at the results ofliterature researches over the years, it can be found that previous studies are mainly fromperspectives of the social formation, the awakening of a certain consciousness, the writingstyle, the artistic technique and so on, whilst studies of literature from the perspective ofpragmatics are relatively less (Wang & Fan, 2018). Van Dijk (1976) points out that there is abroad space for cooperation between pragmatics and literature. Pratt (1977) fullydemonstrates that there is no distinction between literary and ordinary languages, and thetheory which is used to study ordinary language can certainly be applied on literary criticism.Studies from the perspective of pragmatics can provide a new perspective for analyzinglanguage features of literature works, and reflect the relationship between the language formand the language user more clearly, so that we can accurately understand the intention andbehavior of communicators and gain insights into the interpersonal relations between theparticipants in communication.
Discourse Markers (DMs) are common linguistic phenomena in everyday conversation(Ran, 2000). They have attracted increasing attentions of both Chinese and foreign linguists.And, like well, so, then, anyway, you know, you see, after all and other DMs, is a commonform of expression in English communication and one of the most frequently used words inEnglish. In previous studies, linguists at home and abroad have already explored DM and from a variety of perspectives, such as coherence-based perspective and relevance-cognitiveperspective. However, there are less studies on DM and from the perspective of interpersonalpragmatics.
.............................
1.2 Significance of the Study
It is acknowledged that DMs play a crucial role in people’s daily communication. Thisstudy focuses on one specific DM, the DM and, in the conversations of Pride and Prejudice.On the one hand, this study can broaden the research scope of RMT. RMT provides atheoretical foundation for this study and this study can enrich the research scope of RMT byconfirming the feasibility of the pragmatic study of DM and. On the other hand, this studyattempts to explain how communicators use DM and in specific contexts to manage rapportsby analyzing lots of examples within the conversations of Pride and Prejudice, and canprovide practice for language users to correctly understand and properly use DM and in theirdaily life.
As for research approachof this study, the first step is to figure out all the DM and in theconversations of Pride and Preudice. The author suggests that the DM and can be seen asrapport management strategies based on RMT. And the next step is to classify these studyobjectives based on a “bottom-up” approach according to the four domains (except non-verbaldomain) of RMT, that is, illocutionary domain, discourse domain, participation domain, andstylistic domain. Then, this study analyzes that how DM and helps interlocutors managerapports through the above rapport management strategies in specific contexts in Pride andPrejudice based on the three main components of RMT, which is face, social rights andobligations and interactional goals. The last step is to explore the factors that affect the use ofDM and in conversations of Pride and Prejudice based on the factors affecting the use ofrapport management strategies in RMT.
................................
Chapter TwoLiterature Review
2.1 Previous Coherence-based Studies on DMs
A point of view that runs through all of the debates about DMs is that it is the use oflanguage markers in the framework of discourse analysis that makes discourse or text morecoherent by showing the possible correlation of discourse units at each level and providingguidance for conversational understanding (Risselada & Sproon, 1998; Fraser, 1999; Redeker,1991). Case studies on DMs such as you know, well, oh, like, you see, I mean, etc have beenconducted in most early studies (Östman, 1981; Schourup, 1985). These previous studies havelaid a solid foundation for the later systematic and comprehensive studies on DMs. Schiffrin(1987: 31) defines DMs as “sequentially dependent elements which bracket units of talk” andhas conducted researches on DMs with a systematic method. She starts with some speciallanguage forms, takes a “bottom-up” approach to observe the distribution and usage of DMs,and then summarized and generalized their functions. She has conducted qualitative andquantitative researches on 11 DMs including and, oh, well, but, or, so, because, now, then,you know and I mean, and makes the point that DMs are the language markers chosen by thespeaker that guide the hearer to understand the whole utterance correctly, thus they play animportant role in discourse coherence. Redeker (1991) points out that the basic role of DMs isto make the listener notice some particular connection between the upcoming discourse andthe current context. Similarly, Lenk (1998) maintains that DM is a kind of coherence indicator,which plays a significant role in the overall coherence of discourse. The understanding of aparticular coherence usually does not (or at least does not entirely) depend on the linguistic features of the discourse, but largely depends on the listener’s understanding of the content ofthe discourse, context structure and condition, communicative situation and knowledge andother relevant factors (Risselada & Sproon, 1998). Fraser (1999) makes the point that DMscan be seen as “pragmatic class”, which mainly demonstrates some connections between thepresent discourse and the previous discourse, and divides DMs into contrastive markers,elaborative markers, inferential markers, and topic change markers based on their pragmaticfunctions. On the basis of Fraser’s (1999) pragmatic functional classification of DMs,Charolles (2020) takes the French adverbials d’ailleurs and par-ailleurs as topic changemarkers, and finds out that these two DMs are multifunctional, involving not only therhetorical relation associated with the previous discourse, but also the frame relation toestablish indexes for entering the discourse. Yet there are less studies on DMs from acoherence-based perspective at home (Li, 2003; Feng, 2009; Chen & Yao, 2012). Studies onDMs from a coherence-based perspective are mainly comparative studies. Corpus-basedmethod, adopted by most of the studies, is applied to investigate the features in the use ofDMs by Chinese English learners in writing and speaking and to compare and analyze thedifferences in the use of DMs between Chinese English learners and native English learners(Zhao, 2003; Xu, 2004; Wang & Zhu, 2005; Pan, 2011).
..............................
2.2 Previous Relevance-cognitive Studies on DMs
From existing studies on DMs, most of them are discussed from the perspective ofRelevance Theory (Sperber & Wilson, 1986/1995). Based on Relevance Theory, the use ofDMs is to ensure that the listener can correctly understand the discourse and make as littleeffort as possible, which points out the rationale for the existence of language mechanismssuch as DMs from a cognitive perspective (Ran, 2000). Blakemore (1987,1992, 2002) hasstudied functions of DMs from the perspective of cognitive pragmatics with RelevanceTheory as the theoretical foundation from an early time. As Blakemore (2002) explains, DMsdirect the listener to the context and contextual effect expected by the speaker, and hencerestrict the listener’s discourse comprehension process. Rouchota (1996) has further studiedDMs with the help of the theoretical framework of Relevance Theory. He points out thatbesides connecting adjacency pairs, DM and can also directly connect discourse with context,which has a restrictive effect on the inferring process of the listener. The cognitive effects ofjuxtaposition sentences which connected by and are derived from the two clauses ascontextual premises (Blakemore & Carston, 2005). Based on Relevance Theory, Chinesescholars (He & Ran, 1999; Wang, 2006; Yuan & Feng, 2012; Zhang, 2015) have explored thepragmatic constraints, subjectivity and intersubjectivity of DMs. Li (2006) has examined thepragmatic function and cognitive motivation of and from the perspective of Relevance Theory,and has claimed that and has an influence on discourse comprehension in two aspects: (1) Itdirectly restricts the semantic information represented by the inferential discourse; (2) Itrestricts the context expected for discourse comprehension.
1.1 Background of the Study
Pride and Prejudice has been studied from various perspectives since its publication byscholars at home and abroad (Zhao & Chen, 2011). However, most of these studies havefocused on the perspectives of translation or stylistic analysis. Looking back at the results ofliterature researches over the years, it can be found that previous studies are mainly fromperspectives of the social formation, the awakening of a certain consciousness, the writingstyle, the artistic technique and so on, whilst studies of literature from the perspective ofpragmatics are relatively less (Wang & Fan, 2018). Van Dijk (1976) points out that there is abroad space for cooperation between pragmatics and literature. Pratt (1977) fullydemonstrates that there is no distinction between literary and ordinary languages, and thetheory which is used to study ordinary language can certainly be applied on literary criticism.Studies from the perspective of pragmatics can provide a new perspective for analyzinglanguage features of literature works, and reflect the relationship between the language formand the language user more clearly, so that we can accurately understand the intention andbehavior of communicators and gain insights into the interpersonal relations between theparticipants in communication.
Discourse Markers (DMs) are common linguistic phenomena in everyday conversation(Ran, 2000). They have attracted increasing attentions of both Chinese and foreign linguists.And, like well, so, then, anyway, you know, you see, after all and other DMs, is a commonform of expression in English communication and one of the most frequently used words inEnglish. In previous studies, linguists at home and abroad have already explored DM and from a variety of perspectives, such as coherence-based perspective and relevance-cognitiveperspective. However, there are less studies on DM and from the perspective of interpersonalpragmatics.
.............................
1.2 Significance of the Study
It is acknowledged that DMs play a crucial role in people’s daily communication. Thisstudy focuses on one specific DM, the DM and, in the conversations of Pride and Prejudice.On the one hand, this study can broaden the research scope of RMT. RMT provides atheoretical foundation for this study and this study can enrich the research scope of RMT byconfirming the feasibility of the pragmatic study of DM and. On the other hand, this studyattempts to explain how communicators use DM and in specific contexts to manage rapportsby analyzing lots of examples within the conversations of Pride and Prejudice, and canprovide practice for language users to correctly understand and properly use DM and in theirdaily life.
As for research approachof this study, the first step is to figure out all the DM and in theconversations of Pride and Preudice. The author suggests that the DM and can be seen asrapport management strategies based on RMT. And the next step is to classify these studyobjectives based on a “bottom-up” approach according to the four domains (except non-verbaldomain) of RMT, that is, illocutionary domain, discourse domain, participation domain, andstylistic domain. Then, this study analyzes that how DM and helps interlocutors managerapports through the above rapport management strategies in specific contexts in Pride andPrejudice based on the three main components of RMT, which is face, social rights andobligations and interactional goals. The last step is to explore the factors that affect the use ofDM and in conversations of Pride and Prejudice based on the factors affecting the use ofrapport management strategies in RMT.
................................
Chapter TwoLiterature Review
2.1 Previous Coherence-based Studies on DMs
A point of view that runs through all of the debates about DMs is that it is the use oflanguage markers in the framework of discourse analysis that makes discourse or text morecoherent by showing the possible correlation of discourse units at each level and providingguidance for conversational understanding (Risselada & Sproon, 1998; Fraser, 1999; Redeker,1991). Case studies on DMs such as you know, well, oh, like, you see, I mean, etc have beenconducted in most early studies (Östman, 1981; Schourup, 1985). These previous studies havelaid a solid foundation for the later systematic and comprehensive studies on DMs. Schiffrin(1987: 31) defines DMs as “sequentially dependent elements which bracket units of talk” andhas conducted researches on DMs with a systematic method. She starts with some speciallanguage forms, takes a “bottom-up” approach to observe the distribution and usage of DMs,and then summarized and generalized their functions. She has conducted qualitative andquantitative researches on 11 DMs including and, oh, well, but, or, so, because, now, then,you know and I mean, and makes the point that DMs are the language markers chosen by thespeaker that guide the hearer to understand the whole utterance correctly, thus they play animportant role in discourse coherence. Redeker (1991) points out that the basic role of DMs isto make the listener notice some particular connection between the upcoming discourse andthe current context. Similarly, Lenk (1998) maintains that DM is a kind of coherence indicator,which plays a significant role in the overall coherence of discourse. The understanding of aparticular coherence usually does not (or at least does not entirely) depend on the linguistic features of the discourse, but largely depends on the listener’s understanding of the content ofthe discourse, context structure and condition, communicative situation and knowledge andother relevant factors (Risselada & Sproon, 1998). Fraser (1999) makes the point that DMscan be seen as “pragmatic class”, which mainly demonstrates some connections between thepresent discourse and the previous discourse, and divides DMs into contrastive markers,elaborative markers, inferential markers, and topic change markers based on their pragmaticfunctions. On the basis of Fraser’s (1999) pragmatic functional classification of DMs,Charolles (2020) takes the French adverbials d’ailleurs and par-ailleurs as topic changemarkers, and finds out that these two DMs are multifunctional, involving not only therhetorical relation associated with the previous discourse, but also the frame relation toestablish indexes for entering the discourse. Yet there are less studies on DMs from acoherence-based perspective at home (Li, 2003; Feng, 2009; Chen & Yao, 2012). Studies onDMs from a coherence-based perspective are mainly comparative studies. Corpus-basedmethod, adopted by most of the studies, is applied to investigate the features in the use ofDMs by Chinese English learners in writing and speaking and to compare and analyze thedifferences in the use of DMs between Chinese English learners and native English learners(Zhao, 2003; Xu, 2004; Wang & Zhu, 2005; Pan, 2011).
..............................
2.2 Previous Relevance-cognitive Studies on DMs
From existing studies on DMs, most of them are discussed from the perspective ofRelevance Theory (Sperber & Wilson, 1986/1995). Based on Relevance Theory, the use ofDMs is to ensure that the listener can correctly understand the discourse and make as littleeffort as possible, which points out the rationale for the existence of language mechanismssuch as DMs from a cognitive perspective (Ran, 2000). Blakemore (1987,1992, 2002) hasstudied functions of DMs from the perspective of cognitive pragmatics with RelevanceTheory as the theoretical foundation from an early time. As Blakemore (2002) explains, DMsdirect the listener to the context and contextual effect expected by the speaker, and hencerestrict the listener’s discourse comprehension process. Rouchota (1996) has further studiedDMs with the help of the theoretical framework of Relevance Theory. He points out thatbesides connecting adjacency pairs, DM and can also directly connect discourse with context,which has a restrictive effect on the inferring process of the listener. The cognitive effects ofjuxtaposition sentences which connected by and are derived from the two clauses ascontextual premises (Blakemore & Carston, 2005). Based on Relevance Theory, Chinesescholars (He & Ran, 1999; Wang, 2006; Yuan & Feng, 2012; Zhang, 2015) have explored thepragmatic constraints, subjectivity and intersubjectivity of DMs. Li (2006) has examined thepragmatic function and cognitive motivation of and from the perspective of Relevance Theory,and has claimed that and has an influence on discourse comprehension in two aspects: (1) Itdirectly restricts the semantic information represented by the inferential discourse; (2) Itrestricts the context expected for discourse comprehension.
语言学论文怎么写
..........................
Chapter Three Theoretical Foundation...................... 103.1 Core Concepts of RMT...............................................10
3.2 Rapport Management Domains.................................12
Chapter Four Analyses of DM And in Pride and Prejudice Based on RMT .................... 17
4.1 DM And as Rapport Management Strategies in Pride and Prejudice..........................18
4.1.1 Speech Act Sequencing Marker.................................. 18
4.1.2 Information Sequencing Marker.............................. 20
Chapter Five Conclusion..............................40
5.1 Major Findings..................................40
5.2 Limitations................................... 41
Chapter FourAnalyses of DM And in Pride and Prejudice Based on RMT
4.1 DM And as Rapport Management Strategies in Pride and Prejudice
4.1.1 Speech Act Sequencing Marker
In this chapter, there are analyses of what kinds of rapport management strategies we cansee from the use of the DM and in Pride and Prejudice, how communicators manage rapportsthrough the above rapport management strategies, and factors that affect the use of DM and inPride and Prejudice based on RMT.
As for the research approach, the first step is data collection. All of the DM and inconversations of Pride and Prejudice need to be figured out. The following table is thefrequency of and with different locations in Pride and Prejudice (See Table 4.1).
语言学论文参考
.............................
Chapter FiveConclusion
5.1 Major Findings
This study takes an attempt to explore the rapport management strategies that the DM andreflect in conversations of Pride and Prejudice, how interlocutors manage rapports throughthese rapport management strategies, and the factors that affect the use of DM and as rapportmanagement strategies in conversations of Pride and Prejudice. The major findings arepresented as follows in line with the three research questions.
As the author suggests, the use of the DM and in conversations of Pride and Prejudicecan be taken as rapport management strategies based on RMT. By taking a “bottom-up”approach, all of the DM and in conversations of Pride and Prejudice can be classified intofour categories, that is, speech act sequencing marker, information sequencing marker,turn-taking marker and tone mitigating marker. And these four kinds of rapport managementstrategies are in line with illocutionary domain, discourse domain, participation domain, andstylistic domain respectively. The DM and as a speech act sequencing marker connects centralspeech act and auxiliary speech act of a speech act set in an utterance. The DM and as aninformation sequencing marker can indicate the organization and sequencing of informationof an utterance. The DM and as a turn taking marker can help the speaker get or maintain hisor her turn to start or continue a conversation. The DM and as a tone mitigating marker canindicate the mitigation of tone of an interchange. According to the statistics, among the wholefrequency of DM and in conversations of Pride and Prejudice, the frequency of turn-takingmarker and takes up the largest proportion, accounting for 64.1%. The frequency of speechact sequencing marker and accounts for 16.4%, the frequency of information sequencingmarker and accounts for 12.4%, and the frequency of tone mitigating marker and takes up thesmallest proportion, which accounts for 7.1%. All of these rapport management strategies indifferent domains play a crucial role in managing rapports for interlocutors.
reference(omitted)