Chapter 3 Methodology
3. Sentence patterns
3.3.2. Functional Criteria
3.3.2.3. Cooperative Principle
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
(36)
M: …22K..超爛
F: …(1.4)我想擤鼻涕耶 M: …(2.4)22Ksucks
F:..啊你剛剛搜尋的怎樣..還有看到嗎
In example (36), the speaker shifts from colloquial expression (such as “擤鼻涕”
and interjection “耶”) to high density word (such as “搜尋”) for frame which implies a directive force imposing her interlocutor to do the work of searching for the target information, and, thus, the existence of the frame is implied.
3. Expressives
Expressives are speech acts that express the speaker's attitudes and emotions.SVF which manifests the illocutionary force of expressives is presented in example (37).
(37)
…ei 可是我覺得…(0.8)那個末日…(0.3)就是那種..末世預言那種傳說..
就是很奇怪..他們…(0.5)這個像是這個是很有根據..可是他們那個只是像單 純預言就說是..是世界末日這樣子
In example (37), the speaker shifts to low density colloquial expression “覺得”
and “很奇怪,” expressing her personal attitude toward the event, which implies an expressive act.
3.3.2.3. Cooperative Principle
As mentioned above in the general statement of section 3.3.2, SV may be used to imply the concept of cooperation between interlocutors as a felicity condition for a successful communication. According to Grice (1975), Cooperative Principle, a systematic description of the content and the method of cooperation in communication, is composed of four major maxims, including maxims of quantity, quality, relevance, and manner. However, not all the submaxims of the four maxims
54
‧
are found in the data analyzed. Only those emerged are exemplified in below.
1. Maxim of Quantity
a. Make your contribution as informative as is required
SV which manifests the first submaxim of maxim of quantity of CP is presented in example (38).
(38)
ei 可是我覺得…(0.8)那個末日…(0.3)就是那種..末世預言那種傳說..就很
奇怪..他們…(0.5)這個像是這個是很有根據..可是他們那個只是好像單純 預言就說是..是世界末日這樣子
In example (38), the speaker shifts to high density and high formality word “單 純” for frame which manifest the maxim of quantity, giving further explanation for her subjective judgment.
b. Do not make your contribution more informative than is required
SV which manifests second submaxim of maxim of quantity of CP is presented in example (39). In example (39), speaker M2 gives too much unnecessary contribution so that he is reminded by the interlocutor M1 that what he says is not the main point. In this case, this submaxim of Quantity is violated. It is in the violation of this submaxim that manifests the existence of CP, which prescribes the concept of “cooperation” in verbal
55
‧
communication, which implies the existence of the frame of communication.
2. Maxim of Quality
SVF through manifestation of the maxim of quality is presented in example(40).
a. Do not say what you believe to be false
“正妹” and uses A-not-A question when he is teasing and joking, violating Maxim of Quality: Do not say what you believe to be false.
3. Maxim of Relevance
SVF which manifests the maxim of relevance of CP is presented in example (41).
(41)
In example (41), the main topic of which is global warming, when the speaker tries to shift back from the irrelevant topic “台大有個地質研究所教授叫陳文山..搞不好龍井茶認
56
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
識” to the main topic of global warming, she code-switches to high density and high formality words with jargons such as “研究報告” and “平均溫度,” she must have observed the concept of “staying in the line” to be relevant in information exchange. In here, the frame of cooperation is in evidence, which further implies the frame of communication.
4. Maxim of Manner
SVF which manifests the maxim of manner is presented in examples (42) to (44). The submaxim of Manner: Avoiding ambiguity is not found in the data.
a. Avoid obscurity of expression (42)
因為牠死掉了..然後..可是鯨魚是…(0.4)哺乳類..它裡面..裡面會..會幹嘛或
什麼東西..然後…(0.9)會一直..會分解..急速分解..你死掉之後他會在裡面..
急速分解..然後又起化學變化就一直膨脹
In example (42), at the beginning, the speaker gives vague contribution such as
“幹嘛” and “什麼東西,” and then when he tries to repair his verbal contribution, he code-switches to high density words and technical terms such as “急速,” “分解,” “膨 脹,” and “化學變化.” In doing so, a device used to avoid obscurity, which implies the
concept of cooperation, which is also a critical element of the concept of communication on meta-thinking level.
b. Avoid ambiguity (43)
M: ..我怎麼知道是誰挑你 F: ..eh
M: 喔
F: ..也就只有一個人挑 M: 我認識的
F: ..對啊..也就..也就只有這麼一個人挑剔我
57
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
In example (43), the female speaker shifts from ellipsis “挑” to a full form “挑 剔” in order to avoid ambiguity (“挑選” and “挑剔”). In doing so, the submaxim implies the concept of cooperation, and, further, implies the existence of frame.
c. Be brief (avoid unnecessary prolixity) (44)
M: (0)你不知道他的人生規劃 F: (0)我不知道啊
M: (0)那或許也是你的人生規劃
F: ..不是我的人生規劃啊
In example (44), the female speaker shifts to a high density word “人生規劃,”
which she omits it in the previous turn, violating the maxim but using for emphasis.
Lying behind such intention is the concept of frame.
58
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Chapter 4
Data Analysis and Discussions
This chapter presents the data analysis and discussions, which include distributions of linguistic strategies and features for stylistic variation for frame (SVF, hereafter in this chapter) by discourse structure, illocutionary acts, and Cooperative Principles. Also, manifestation of the structure of frame through stylistic variation is discussed at the end of this chapter.
4.1. SVF by Linguistic Strategies in General
In this study, seven conversations are analyzed which include 2978 turns.
Linguistic strategies for SVF are divided into two types: lexical and syntactic. Results of data analysis for SVF are displayed in Table 1.
Table 1. SVF by linguistic strategies
Linguistic strategies Total
Lexical devices 76.0%(923)
Syntactic devices 24.0%(292)
Total 100%(1215)
According to Table 1, SVF relies far more heavily on lexical devices (76.0%) than on syntactic devices (24.0%). It seems like lexical devices are more frequently adopted than syntactic devices for manifestation of frame through stylistic variation.
After all, lexical devices are more efficient than syntactic devices in linguistic processing, both in perception and in production.
59
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
4.1.1. SVF by Lexical Devices
It is found that lexical devices that can be used to manifest the existence of frame include semantic density, word formality, and word frequency. The results of data analysis are presented in Table 2.
Table 2. SVF by lexical devices
Shifting of lexical devices Total Total
Semantic density Low density 44.2%(174) 42.7%(394) High density 55.8%(220)
Total 100%(394)
Word formality Low formality 55.7%(166) 32.3%(298) High formality 44.3%(132)
Total 100%(298)
Word frequency Low frequency 46.3%(107) 25.0%(231) Mid frequency 30.7%(71)
High frequency 23.0%(53)
Total 100%(231)
Total 100%(923)
According to Table 2, it is found that semantic density of lexical items (up to 42.7%) is the most prominent lexical device for SVF, followed by word formality (32.3%), and with word frequency (25.0%) being the lexical device least frequently used. It seems that manipulating semantic density of words is more effective for SVF owing to shifting of semantic density is much easier for linguistic processing, both perception and production.
In addition to the general pattern found in the competition of the three types of lexical devices for SVF, there are also patterns located in the distributions of the subtypes of each major type of lexical devices for SVF. First, about SVF through
60
‧
shifting of semantic density, it is found more frequently adopted in shifting from low density words to high density words (55.8%) than from high to low (44.2%). However, SVF through variation of word formality is more often used in shifting from high formality words to low formality words (55.7%) than from low to high (44.3%).
In addition, it is found that SVF by shifting word frequency is more of the direction shifting from words of high/mid frequency to low frequency words than the other way around.
4.1.1.1. SVF by Shifting Semantic Density of Words
In this study, it is found that SVF depend on shifting the semantic density of lexical items. Table 3 is illustrated below.
Table 3. SVF by shifting semantic density of words
Shifting of lexical density Semantic features Total Total Shifting to low semantic
density
Pragmatic particle 46.5%(81) 44.2%
(174)
Pro-form 25.3%(44)
Discourse marker 23.6%(41)
Ellipsis 4.6%(8)
Shifting to high semantic density
Technical term & jargon 92.3%(203) 55.8%
(220) Syntactic particle 7.7%(17)
Total 100%
(220)
According to Table 3, for SVF by shifting semantic density of words, it is found that shifting from low density to high density is adopted more frequently than shifting of the opposite direction (55.8% vs. 44.2%).
As Table 3 indicates, shifting from high to low semantic density, pragmatic particle is used most frequently (46.5%), being followed by pro-form (25.3%) and
61
‧
discourse marker (23.6%), with ellipsis being used the least (4.6%). As for the shifting of the opposite direction (i.e. from low to high semantic density), the use of technical term
& jargon dramatically suppresses the use of syntactic particle (92.3% vs. 7.7%).
4.1.1.2. SVF by Shifting Word Formality
In this study, it is also found that SVF depend on shifting the formality of lexical items. Table 4 is illustrated below.
Table 4. SVF by shifting formality of words
Shifting of lexical formality Formality features Total Total Shifting to low lexical
formality
Vernacular 53.0%(88) 55.7%
(166) Pragmatic particle 19.3%(32)
Pro-form 13.3%(22)
Discourse marker 12.0%(20)
Ellipsis 2.4%(4)
Shifting to high lexical formality
Archaic form 61.4%(81) 44.3%
(132) Technical term & jargon 34.1%(45)
Syntactic particle 4.5%(6)
Total 100%
(132)
According to Table 4, for SVF by shifting formality of words, it is found that shifting from high formality to low formality is adopted more frequently than shifting of the opposite direction (55.7% vs. 44.3%).
As Table 4 indicates, shifting from high to low formality, vernacular is used most frequently (53.0%), being followed by pragmatic particle (19.3%), pro-form (13.3%) and discourse marker (12.0%), with ellipsis being used the least (2.4%). As for the shifting of the opposite direction (i.e. from low to high formality), the use of
62
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
archaic form is dramatically suppressed the use of technical term & jargon and syntactic particle (61.4% vs. 34.1%, 4.5%).
4.1.1.3. SVF by Shifting Word Frequency
According to Table 2, it is found that SVF by shifting word frequency is more of the direction shifting from words of high/mid frequency to low frequency words than the other way around, particularly technical term & jargon (such as “冰層,” “海 平面,” and “辯論”) and archaic form (such as “捍衛” and “小題大作”).
4.1.2. SVF by Syntactic Devices
In this study, it is found that SV through syntactic devices based on sentence complexity, sentence completeness, and sentence patterns can help to identify the existence of frame. Results of data analysis are displayed in Table 5.
Table 5. SVF by syntactic devices
Shifting of syntactic devices Total
Sentence complexity 77.7%(227)
Sentence completeness 15.4%(45)
Sentence patterns 6.9%(20)
Total 100%(292)
According to Table 5, it is found that sentence complexity (up to 77.7%) is the most prominent syntactic device for SVF, followed by sentence completeness (15.4%), and with sentence patterns (6.9%) being the syntactic device least frequently used. It seems that manipulating sentence complexity is more effective for SVF.
63
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
4.1.2.1. SVF by Shifting Sentence Complexity
In this study, it is found that SVF depend on shifting of sentence complexity.
Table 6 is illustrated below.
Table 6. SVF by shifting sentence complexity
Shifting of sentence complexity Total
Shifting to simple sentence 38.3%(87)
Shifting to complex sentence
Embedding sentence (61) 61.7%(140) Coordinate sentence (39)
Subordinate sentence (40)
Total 100%(227)
According to Table 6, for SVF by shifting sentence complexity, it is found that shifting from simple sentences to complex sentences is adopted more frequently than shifting of the opposite direction (61.7% vs. 38.3%).
As Table 6 indicates, shifting from simple sentences to complex sentences, embedding sentence is used most frequently, being followed by coordinate sentence and subordinate sentence.
4.1.2.2. SVF by Shifting Sentence Completeness
In this study, it is found that SVF depend on shifting of sentence completeness.
The results of data analysis are presented in Table 7
Table 7. SVF by shifting sentence completeness
Shifting of sentence completeness Total
Shifting to fragment 35.6%(16)
Shifting to complete sentence 64.4%(29)
Total 100%(45)
64
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
According to Table 7, for SVF by shifting sentence completeness, it is found that shifting from fragments to complete sentences is adopted more frequently than shifting of the opposite direction (65.4% vs. 35.6%).
4.1.2.3. SVF by Shifting Sentence Patterns
In this study, it is also found that SVF depend on shifting sentence patterns. The results of data analysis are presented in Table 8
Table 8. SVF by shifting sentence patterns
Shifting of sentence patterns Total
Voice Active (0)
25.0%(5)
Passive (5)
Question Form Question with question marker (14)
75.0%(15)
A-not-A question (1)
Total 100%(20)
According to Table 8, owing to the data of shifting sentence patterns are insufficient, it is weak to draw conclusion. However, it is found that shifting of question form is adopted more frequently than shifting of syntactic voice (75.0% vs. 25.0%).
4.2. SVF for Discourse Structure
In this study, it is found that SV are activated in order to mark the discourse structure. In this section, the ways of SV to imply the concept of discourse structure, both narrative structure and conversational structure, are analyzed.
4.2.1. SVF for Narrative Structure
In this study, it is found that SV can be used to identify the shifting from one part of a narrative structure to another, and it is in such shifting that the concept of
65
‧
discourse structure, and thus the frame of discourse, is located.
4.2.1.1. SVF for Narrative Structure by Lexical Devices
It is found that lexical devices that can be used to identify narrative structure include semantic density, word formality, and word frequency. The results of data analysis are presented in Table 9.
Table 9. SVF for narrative structure by lexical devices Shifting of lexical devices
Narrative structure
According to Table 9, it is found that narrative structure by lexical devices of SVF, SV is most frequently applied by semantic density of word (42.7%), less by word formality (32.3%), and even less by word frequency (25.0%). In other words, semantic density of word is the most prominent lexical device for narrative structure.
Among the three lexical devices for narrative structure, it is found that SV is largely used to signal elaboration (75.4%), and far less for evaluation (17.0%).
66
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
4.2.1.1.1. SVF for Narrative Structure by Shifting Semantic Density of Words The results of narrative structure by shifting semantic density of lexical items are presented in Table 10.
67
‧
Table 10. SVF for narrative structure by shifting semantic density of words Shifting of lexical density
Narrative structure
Shifting to low semantic density Shifting to high semantic density Ellipsis Pro-form Pragmatic
particle
Discourse marker
total Technical term
& jargon
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
According to Table 10, it is found that SVF for narrative structure by shifting semantic density of words is more of the direction shifting from low density words to high density words.
Furthermore, it is found that among features of low semantic density words for narrative structure, SV is most frequently applied for elaboration (65.5%), and far less for evaluation (32.8%). Pragmatic particle (46.5%) is the most prominent feature among low semantic density words, less are pro-form (25.3%) and discourse marker (23.6%), and far less is ellipsis (4.6%).
In addition, it is found that among features of high semantic density words for narrative structure, SV is most frequently applied for elaboration (87.3%), and far less for abstract (5.5%) and orientation (5.5%). Technical term & jargon is the most prominent feature among high semantic density words, which is up to 92.3%.
4.2.1.1.2. SVF for Narrative Structure by Shifting Word Formality
The results of narrative structure by shifting formality of lexical items are presented in Table 11.
69
‧
Table 11. SVF for narrative structure by shifting formality of words Shifting of word
formality Narrative
structure
Shifting to low formality Shifting to high formality
Ellipsis Pro-form Pragmatic particle
Discourse marker
Vernacular total Technical term
& jargon
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
According to Table 11, it is found that SVF for narrative structure by shifting formality of words is more of the direction shifting from high formality words to low formality words.
Furthermore, it is found that among features of low formality words for narrative structure, SV is most frequently applied for elaboration (58.4%), and less for evaluation (39.8%). Vernacular (53.0%) is the most prominent feature among low formality words, less is pragmatic particle (19.3%), even less are pro-form (13.3%) and discourse marker (12.0%), and far less is ellipsis (2.4%).
In addition, it is found that among features of high formality words for narrative structure, SV is most frequently applied for elaboration (82.6%), and far less for orientation (9.1%) and abstract (5.3%). Archaic form (61.4%) is the most prominent feature among high formality words, less is technical term & jargon (34.1%), and far less is syntactic particle (4.5%).
4.2.1.1.3. SVF for Narrative Structure by Shifting Word Frequency
The results of narrative structure by shifting word frequency are presented in Table 12.
Table 12. SVF for narrative structure by shifting word frequency Shifting of word
frequency Narrative structure
Low Mid High Total
Abstract (5) (1) (1) 3.0%(7)
Orientation (5) (1) (1) 3.0%(7)
Elaboration (88) (54) (42) 79.7%(184)
Evaluation (7) (15) (8) 13.0%(30)
Solution/Resolution (1) (0) (0) 0.4%(1)
Coda (1) (0) (1) 0.9%(2)
Total 46.3%(107) 30.7%(71) 23.0%(53) 100%(231)
71
‧
According to Table 12, it is found that among word frequency for narrative structure, SV is most frequently applied for elaboration (79.7%), and less for evaluation (13.0%), even less for abstract (3.0%) and orientation (3.0%), and seldom for solution/resolution (0.4%) and coda (0.9%). Among elaboration, it is found that SVF by shifting word frequency is more of the direction shifting from high/mid frequency words to low frequency words.
4.2.1.2. SVF for Narrative Structure by Syntactic Devices
It is found that syntactic devices can be used to identify narrative structure include sentence complexity, sentence completeness, and sentence patterns. The results of data analysis are presented in Table 13.
Table 13. SVF for narrative structure by syntactic devices Shifting of syntactic devices
Narrative structure
‧
According to Table 13, it is found that among syntactic devices, SV is most frequently applied for elaboration (78.4%), and far less for evaluation (11.6%). Sentence complexity (77.7%) is the most prominent device, less is sentence completeness (15.4%), and far less is sentence patterns (6.9%).
4.2.1.2.1. SVF for Narrative Structure by Shifting Sentence Complexity
The results of narrative structure by shifting sentence complexity are presented in Table 14.
Table 14. SVF for narrative structure by shifting sentence complexity Shifting of sentence
complexity Narrative structure
Shifting to simple sentence
Shifting to complex sentence Total embedding coordinate subordinate
Abstract (4) (3) (1) (2) 4.4%
According to Table 14, it is found that among sentence complexity for narrative structure, SV is most frequently applied for elaboration (75.8%), and less for evaluation (13.7%). Furthermore, it is found that SVF by shifting sentence complexity
73
‧
is more of the direction shifting from simple sentences (38.3%) to complex sentences (61.7%), especially shifting to embedding sentences.
4.2.1.2.2. SVF for Narrative Structure by Shifting Sentence Completeness
The results of narrative structure by shifting sentence completeness are presented in Table 15.
Table 15. SVF for narrative structure by shifting sentence completeness Shifting of sentence completeness
Narrative structure
According to Table 15, it is found that among sentence completeness for narrative structure, SV is most frequently applied for elaboration (88.9%), and far less for evaluation
According to Table 15, it is found that among sentence completeness for narrative structure, SV is most frequently applied for elaboration (88.9%), and far less for evaluation