第六章 結語與未來研究
6.2 未來研究之建議
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
117
空間反而較大。造成名詞與動詞的差異性是由於名詞具備完整的語碼系統反應溝通 動態值的高低，因此便不倚賴手勢特徵來反應溝通動態值；然而，動詞卻無完整的 語碼系統反應溝通動態值之高低，因此便依賴手勢特徵如動作執行的時間與執行用 手藉以反應溝通動態值之高低。
6.2 未來研究之建議
本研究在決定溝通動態值之標準時，僅初探資訊狀態之新資訊、舊資訊之兩端 點。在未來研究當中，相當建議可以使用 Prince （1981）對於資訊狀態之分類
（taxonomy），對於資訊狀態之溝通動態值進行更為細微的分類，或許對發現這樣 的標準之下對於溝通動態值與手勢之關係能有更進一步之認識。
另外，因為本研究擷取六筆來自不同說話者的口語語料，不同的說話者間可能 存有個別差異性，以致手勢的出現情況可能有落差。因此，未來的研究也可以在同 一筆語料中，增加檢視的錄影時間，比如從本研究的每段約二十分鐘的錄影時間增 加至一個小時來觀察手勢，或可能對本議題能有更豐富的觀察結果。
本議題亦可以社會語言學之角度切入，將語料中的談話者之間的關係列入考 量。說話者之間的關係緊密程度會影響互為主體性（intersubjectivity）之高低，進 而可能造成語言上之新舊訊息數量上之分配與在語言上之呈現。此角度亦值得進一 步細細探究。
另外，在口語語料的蒐集當中，倘若在性別、關係、語域之面向上，能盡量達
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
118
成均勻分配，或是操控其中欲探討之面向，亦可以將議題延伸之層面更為廣闊豐 富，更可確定在低溝通動態值與手勢相伴的配合上是否由社會因素所造成。
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
119
參考書目
中文書目
李曉婷（2008）。Firbas 的動態交際理論評述。語言學研究，6：33-39。
封宗信（2001）。Theories and Schools of Modern Linguistics。載於胡壯麟（主編），
語言學教程 （392—459 頁）。北京：北京大學出版社。
錢軍（1996）。布拉格學派近況與現狀。國外語言學，4：11-21。
錢軍（1995）。捷克語言學家 Jan Firbas。國外語言學，4：36-39。
胡壯麟（1991）。功能主義縱橫談。外國語，3：3-10。
英文書目
Chafe, W. L. (1994). Discourse, consciousness, and time: the flow and displacement
of conscious experience in speaking and writing. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Chafe, W. L. (1987). Cognitive constraints on information flow. In R.S. Tomlin (Ed.),
Coherence and Grounding in discourse, 21-52. Amsterdam: John Benjamins
Publishing Company.
Chafe, W.L. (1976). Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view. In Li, E. N. (Ed.), Subject and topic (pp.25-55). New York: Academic.
Chui, Kawai and Lai, Huei-ling. (2009). The NCCU Corpus of Spoken Chinese, Hakka,
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
120
and Southern Min. Taiwan Journal of Linguistics 6.2:119-144.
Chui, Kawai. (2003). Is the correlation between grounding and transitivity universal?
Studies in Language 27(2):221-244.
Chui, Kawai. (2002). Categorization of gestures in communication. In Lily I-wen Su, Chinfa Lien, and Kawai Chui (eds.), Form and function: Linguistic studies in
honor of Shuanfan Huang, 105-129. Taipei: Crane Publishing.
Chui, Kawai. (2001). Topic Chain and Grounding in Chinese Discourse. Taipei: Crane
Publishing.
anes , Frantis ek. (1974). Functional Sentence Perspective and the Organization of the
Text. In anes , F. (Ed.) Papers on Functional Sentence Perspective. Prague : Academia.
Firbas, Jan. ( 999). ommunicative ynamism. In Jef erschueren, Jan-Ola stman,
Jan Blommaert & Christ Bulcaen (eds.) Handbook of Pragmatics.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publ. Co.
Firbas, Jan. (1992). Functional Sentence Perspective in Written and Spoken
Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Firbas, Jan. (1987). On the delimitation of the theme in functional sentence perspective.
In Driven, Ren and Vilem Fried. (Eds.) Functionalism in Linguistics. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
121
Firbas, Jan. (1986). On the dynamics of written communication in the light of theory of functional sentence perspective. In Cooper, C. & Greenbaum (Eds.) Studying
writing: Linguistic approaches (1): 40-71. Brouly Hills: Sage Publications.
Firbas, Jan. ( 97 ). ome Aspects of the echoslovak Approach to Problems of Functional entence Perspective. In anes , F. (Ed.) Papers on Functional
Sentence Perspective. Prague : Academia.
Firbas, Jan (1959). Thoughts on the Communicative Function of the verb in English,
German and Czech. Brno Studies in English. 1: 39-65.
Firbas, Jan. (1961). On the Communicative Function of the Verb in English. Brno
Studies in English. 3: 79-102.
Ekman, P. & Friensen, W. (1969). The Repertoire of Nonverbal Behavior: Categories,
Origins, Usage and Coding. Semiotica, 1(1):49-98.
Giv n, T. (1990). Syntax: a functional-typological introduction. Vol. II. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
Giv n, T. (1985). Iconicity, isomorphism and non-arbitrary coding in syntax. In Haiman,
J. (Ed.), Iconicity in Syntax. 187-219. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Giv n, T. (ed.) 1983. Topic Continuity in Discourse: A Quantitative Cross-Language
Study, vol.3 of Typological Studies in Language. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John
Benjamins.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
122
Giv n, T. (1979). On Understanding Grammar. New York: Academic Press.
Giv n, T. (1976). Topic, pronoun and grammatical agreement. In Li (Ed.) Subject and
topic. New York: Academic Press.
Halliday, M.A.K. (1985). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
Kendon, Adam. (2004). Gesture: Visible Action as Utterance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kendon, A. (1988). Sign Languages of Aboriginal Australia: Cultural, Semiotic and
Communicative Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Krauss, R.M. (1998). Why do we gesture when we speak? Current Directions in
Psychological Science 7 (2): 55-60.
Lan, Li-mei. (2008). Thematic Progression and Cohesive Devices: An Approach to English Reading. Unpublished master‟s thesis, National hengchi University,
Taipei, Taiwan.
LaPolla, R. J. (1995). Pragmatic relations in word order in Chinese. In Dowing P. &
Noonan M. (Eds.), Word Order in Discourse, 297-329. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
LaPolla, R. J. ( 993). Arguments against „ ubject‟ and „ irect Object‟ as iable
Concepts in Chinese. Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philosophy, 63:
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
123
759-813.
Levinson, S. C. (2006). Cognition at the heart of human interaction. Discourse Studies, 8(1), 85-93. doi:10.1177/1461445606059557.
Levy, E.T. & McNeill, D. (1992). Speech, Gesture, and Discourse. Discourse Processes, 15: 277-301.
Mathesius, V. (1939). O tak zvanem aktualnim cleneni vetnem. [On the so-called functional sentence perspective]. Slovo a Slovestnost, 5: 234-242.
McNeill, D. (2005). Gesture and Thought. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
McNeill, D; Levy, E.T. & Pedelty, L.L. (1998) Gestures and speech. In Hammond, G.R.,
Advances in psychology: Cerebral control of speech and limb movements,
203-256. Amsterdam: Elsevier/ North Holland Publishers.
McNeill, D. (1992). Hand and Mind: What Gestures Reveal about Thought. Chicago:
the University of Chicago Press.
Prince, E.F. (1992). Subjects, definiteness, and information-status. In Mann, W.C. &
Thompson, S.A., (Eds), Discourse description: diverse linguistic analyses of a
fund-raising text, 295-326. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Prince, E.F. (1986). On the syntactic marking of presupposed open propositions. In A.
Farley et al., (Eds), Papers from the parasession on pragmatics and grammatical theory at the 22nd regional meeting. CLS, 208-222.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
124
Prince, E. F. (1981). Toward a taxonomy of given-new information. In Cole, P. (eds),
Radical pragmatics, 223-255. New York: Academic Press.
gall, Petr. ( 99 ). Functional entence Perspective. In Jef erschueren, Jan-Ola stman & Jan Blommaert(eds.)
Handbook of Pragmatics.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publ. Co.
Sloetjes, H., & Wittenburg, P. (2008). Annotation by category - ELAN and ISO DCR.
In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2008).
Stephens, D. (1983). Hemispheric language dominance and gesture hand preference.
Ph.D. dissertation., Department of Behavioral Sciences, University of Chicago.
voboda, Ales . ( 97 ). On wo ommunicative ynamisms. In anes , F. (Ed.) Papers
on Functional Sentence Perspective. Prague : Academia.
Taylor, A. and S. Pintzuk. (to appear). The Effect of Information Structure on Object Position in the History of English, to appear in Los, B., Lopez-Couso, M.J. and Meurman-Solin, A. (eds.), Information Structure and Syntactic Change in the
History of English , (Oxford Studies in the History of English, Vol.1). Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Thompson, S. A. & Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2005). The clause as a locus of grammar and
interaction. Discourse Studies. 7 (4-5): 481-505.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
125
Tsao, Feng-Fu. (1979). A functional study of topic in Chinese: the first step toward
discourse analysis. Taipei: Student Book Company.
Van Valin Jr, R.D. and LaPolla R.J. (1997). Syntax. Structure, Meaning and Function.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
126
附錄 1: 手勢譯寫符號
本研究依據 Kendon (2004)手勢譯寫系統符號，符號與意義如下表所示：
符號 對應意義
| 手勢階段起點
（gesture phase boundaries ）
~ ~ ~ 動作的準備階段（preparation phase）
~ ~ ~ 動作執行階段前停留階段（pre-stroke hold）
**** 動作執行階段（stroke phase）
**** 動作執行階段後停留階段
（post-stroke hold ）
-.-.- 動作收回的階段（recovery phase）
/ 手勢階段終點（gesture phase boundaries）