政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/131446

政大典藏 > College of Foreign Languages and Literature > Graduate Institute of Linguistics > Theses > Item 140.119/131446

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/131446

Title:	正式言談中的規避語使用研究：以2019年臺灣總統選舉辯論會發言為語料 Hedging in Mandarin Formal Speech： Discourse Analysis of 2019 Taiwan Presidential Debate
Authors:	陳品均 Chen, Pin-Chun
Contributors:	曹逢甫張郇慧 Tsao, Feng-Fu Chang, Hsun-Huei 陳品均 Chen, Pin-Chun
Keywords:	規避語正式言談言談策略合作原則面子 Hedges Formal speech Conversation strategy The cooperation maxims Face
Date:	2020
Issue Date:	2020-09-02 11:35:25 (UTC+8)
Abstract:	George Lakoff(1972)提出語意中帶有模糊性的詞語稱作hedge規避語之後，衍生出許多相關研究，規避語看似違反在對話中相當重要的合作原則，但事實上卻有模糊或限縮語意邊界以符合準則，或是依循禮貌原則維護面子的作用。除了對話以外，Hyland(1996)、Varttala(2001)皆指出縱使在書寫上正式如科學論文中也有大量規避語的使用，其主要功能是用來增強句子說服性。在定義上，規避語的分類方式至今仍眾說紛紜，功能依不同層次可分為：語意功能、社交功能以及引導功能。陳依婷於2008年針對臺灣口語言談中規避語的使用進行研究，歸納出規避語的詞類以及非詞類的形式，但討論卻限於日常對話而對正式言談少有著墨。本研究採用2019臺灣總統選舉辯論會錄音為語料，藉由檢視演講、辯論、回答提問中的規避語數量及比例來討論臺灣正式言談中規避語的使用情形。本研究結果為正式言談中規避語的使用在說話者中具普遍性，表現形式上以模糊和精準語意為主，兼具論文書寫及日常口語的特色，包含說服及禮貌功能。影響規避語使用情形的因素非單一，年齡、經驗、在位與否、性別皆為可能原因，縱使基於以上理由造成各人使用有所差異，正式言談中的規避語仍具共同性，相較臨時性高的回答提問及辯論，可預先準備的演講中的規避語使用數量明顯較少，由於前者準備時間短，違反規則的風險高，因此更為依賴規避語的使用。 Since George Lakoff(1972) referred to the phrases and words with vagueness as hedges, multiple related studies had been proposed. Hedging in utterances seems to violate the cooperative maxims, but it is actually used to limit or loosen the boundary of meanings in order to follow the rules in conversation. Besides hedging in verbal conversation, Hyland (1996) and Varttala(2001) also found numerous hedges in formal writing such as academic studies. Although the categorization of hedges has been disputable, it is widely accepted that the functions of hedges are classified into social function, semantic function, and convincing function. Yi-Ting Chen (2008) generalized the lexical and non-lexical examples of hedges in Taiwan spoken discourse. Yet, her study seldom discussed hedging in formal speech. Therefore, this study uses the 2019 Taiwan Presidential Debate as the material for textual analysis, aiming to examine the hedges used in different forms of formal speech, including presenting policies, rebutting arguments, and answering questions. The result of this thesis is that hedging in formal speech is universal. The candidates applied similar percentages of hedges in their articulation. In addition, they tended to use more hedges in impromptu speaking than in prepared occasions. The main function of the hedges in formal speech is making the semantic boundary either vaguer or more precise. Hedging in formal speech also demonstrates the social and convincing functions while containing the features of both academic writing and daily conversation. As the result of the thesis suggests, although the usage of hedges differs from ages, genders, experiences, and political power, it still shares the commonality that speakers rely more on hedging in unscripted remarks to avoid risks.
Reference:	陳力綺（民96）。中文言談中的第一人稱代詞之使用（未出版之碩士論文）。清華大學，新竹市。陳依婷（民97）。中文口語言談中規避詞的使用（未出版之碩士論文）。臺灣大學，臺北市。陳淑欣（民89）。政治言談中的人稱代詞：1998年台北市長選舉辯論中之人稱代詞使用研究（未出版之碩士論文）。清華大學，新竹市。 Austin, J.L. (1962). How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Brown, P and S. Levinson. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in Language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Grice, H. P. (1961). The causal theory of perception. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society (Supplementary Volume), 35: 121-52. Grice, H. P. (1981). Presupposition and conversational implicature. In P. Cole (ed.), Radical Pragmatics (pp. 183-197). New York: Academic Press. Grice, H. P. (1991). Studies in the Way of Words. Harvard University Press. Holmes, J. (1982). Expressing doubt and certainly in English. RELC Journal 13, 9-28. Holmes, J. (1995). Women, Men and Politeness. London: Longman. Hübler, A. (1983). Understatements and Hedges in English. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. Hyland, K. (1996). Writing without conviction? Hedging in science research articles. Applied Linguistics 17, 433-454. Hyland, K. (1998). Hedging in Scientific Research Articles. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Hyland, K. (2005). Prudence, Precision, and Politeness: Hedges in Academic Writing. Quaderns de Filologia. Estudis Lingüístics 10, 99-112. Lakoff, G. (1972). Hedges: A Study In Meaning Criteria And The Logic Of Fuzzy Concepts. Chicago Linguistic Society Papers, 8:183-228. Lakoff, G. (1973). Hedges: A Study In Meaning Criteria And The Logic Of Fuzzy Concepts. Journal of Philosophical Logic.2(4):458-508. Lakoff, R. (1975). Language and Woman’s Place. New York: Harper Colophon Books. Leech, G. N. (1996). Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman. Prince, E.,J. Frader, and C. Bosk. (1982). On hedging in physician-physician discourse. in R. D. Pietro (ed). Linguistics and the Professions. 83-97. Hillsdale, NJ: Ablex. Varttala, T. A. (2001). Hedging in Scientifically Oriented Discourse: Exploring Variation According to Discipline and Intended Audience. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Tampere, Finland.
Description:	碩士國立政治大學語言學研究所 106555007
Source URI:	http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0106555007
Data Type:	thesis
DOI:	10.6814/NCCU202001240
Appears in Collections:	[Graduate Institute of Linguistics] Theses

Files in This Item:

File	Description	Size	Format
500701.pdf		3682Kb	Adobe PDF2	14	View/Open

社群 sharing

Loading...