研究成果報告(精簡版)計 畫 類 別 ： 個別型 計 畫 編 號 ： NSC 97-2410-H-004-115- 執 行 期 間 ： 97 年 08 月 01 日至 98 年 07 月 31 日 執 行 單 位 ： 國立政治大學語言學研究所 計 畫 主 持 人 ： 黃瓊之 報 告 附 件 ： 出席國際會議研究心得報告及發表論文 處 理 方 式 ： 本計畫可公開查詢
中 華 民 國 98 年 11 月 08 日
It is well-known that Mandarin permits omitted arguments. In Mandarin, overt reference forms can be omitted provided that the referent can be understood from the context (Huang, 1994, 2000; Li & Thompson, 1981, Wang et al., 1992). In other words, Mandarin speakers’ referential choices may be discourse-motivated. Previous studies have indicated that adult speakers show sensitivity to discourse-pragmatic factors presumed to underlie the differential use of referring expressions in discourse (Chafe, 1994; Du Bois, 1985, 1987; Givon, 1983; Gundel, Hedberg & Zacharski, 1993; Kumpf, 1992).
In language acquisition research, grammar and discourse are frequently treated as separate domains that do not interact in any significant way. Given the success of the discourse-pragmatic approach in explaining the distribution of referring
expressions in adult language, recently a few studies have investigated the child’s referential choice from this use-oriented perspective. It has been reported that the child’s referential choice can also be explained by pragmatic principles (Allen, 2000; Clancy, 1993; 1997; Guerriero, Oshima-Takane & Kuriyama, 2006; Narasimhan, Budwig & Murty, 2005; Serratrice, 2005).
If Mandarin permits omitted reference forms, an interesting question would be why Mandarin-speaking children sometimes do supply overt reference when the referent is understood. It is commonly argued that reference forms for referring to the speaker are most readily omitted because they are easily retrievable from the physical interactional context (Oh, 2007). Given the availability of discourse context to
disambiguate implicit self-reference, the purpose of this study is to investigate what might provide the impetus for Mandarin-speaking children to attempt overt reference to self.
2.1. Participants and Data
The participants of this study were two Mandarin-speaking two-year-old girls and their mothers, who lived in the northern part of Taiwan. One of the children had a younger sister and the other was the only child. Both children’s parents had received post-graduate education. The data used in this study consisted of eight hours of natural mother-child conversation video-taped at the children’s homes, with four hours of data with each child.
2.2. Coding Scheme
Every child utterance with self-reference was identified for analysis. All self-reference forms were coded for the referential forms and the pragmatic functions: 1. Referential forms
The various forms used by the children for self-reference were identified and coded.
(1) Null form
(2) Pronominal form: e.g., wo ‘I’
(3) Nominal form: e.g., proper names and kinship terms 2. Pragmatic functions
Following Imbens-Baily and Pan (1998), the classification of pragmatic functions was based on the Inventory of Communicative Acts—Abridged (INCA-A) (Ninio, et al., 1994).
(1) Directives and responses: e.g., request/propose/suggest action for hearer, or for hearer and speaker; agree/refuse to carry out act requested or proposed by other
(2) Speech elicitations and responses: e.g., elicit imitation of word or sentence by modeling or by explicit command; repeat/imitate other’s utterance
(4) Declarations and responses: e.g., create a new state of affairs by declaration; agree to/disagree with a declaration
(5) Markings and responses: e.g., mark occurrence of event (i.e, thank, greet, apologize, congratulate, mark ending of an action, etc.); express positive emotion
(6) Statements and responses: e.g., state or make a declarative statement; agree with proposition expressed by previous speaker
(7) Questions and responses: e.g., ask a wh-question; answer a wh-question by a statement
(8) Performances: e.g., perform verbal move in game; read or recite written text aloud
(9) Evaluations: e.g., praise for nonverbal behavior; express enthusiasm for hearer’s performance; criticize or point out error in nonverbal act (10) Demands for clarification: e.g., request to repeat utterance
(11) Text editing: e.g., correct, provide correct verbal form in place of erroneous one
(12) Vocalizations: e.g., unintelligible vocalizations
3. Results and Discussion
The analysis showed that when the children referred to themselves in the subject position, they used mainly the wo form and the null form, other self-reference forms were rarely used. In contrast, when they referred to themselves in the object position, both children employed wo predominantly, and they used very few null and other forms. In other words, reference form omissions were observed mainly in the subject position. While Chang (1997) pointed out the significance of children’s using their
own names for self-reference, the children in this study used their names for self-reference only occasionally.
Since wo and null were the two major self-reference forms used by the children
in the subject position, further analysis was conducted to examine whether the occurrences of wo and null were related to particular communicative intents. That is, we attempted to investigate whether the expression of particular communicative intents elicited the use of wo or null in the children’s speech. The analysis revealed that both children used wo primary in the context of commitments: they tended to use
wo to state their intended actions or to ask for permission to carry out actions. Thus,
the communicative intent of commitments appeared to be a particularly fertile context for the children’s explicit representation of self. In addition to commitments, the children may also use wo in other contexts such as statements, responses to directives and responses to questions.
As for null, it was found that null occurred mostly in the context of responses to
questions. In other words, when answering the mothers’ questions, the children tended to use null for self-reference. A few instances of null were observed in other contexts, including the contexts of statements, commitments, and responses to directives.
It is evident from the results that the occurrences of wo and null in the children’s speech were related to particular communicative intents. Further analysis was
conducted to examine what might provide the impetus for the children to attempt overt reference to self in certain contexts. The analysis revealed that by using the explicit wo, the children can accomplish some interactional functions. It appeared that
wo was used in particular when the children wanted to show contrasts, such as the
contrast between the child and other potential person referents or the contrast between the child’s intention and the mother’s expectation. The results suggest that the
self-reference is thus a means by which the children can accomplish more than simple reference.
Allen, S. (2000). A discourse-pragmatic explanation for argument representation in child Inuktitut. Linguistics, 38, 483-521.
Chafe, W. (1994). Discourse, consciousness, and time: The flow and displacement of
conscious experience in speaking and writing. Chicago: University of Chicago
Chang, H.-C. (1997). The acquisition of Chinese first person reference. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Boston University.
Clancy, P. (1993). Preferred argument structure in Korean acquisition. In E. Clark (ed.), The proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth Child Language Research Forum (pp. 307-314). Stanford, CA: CSLI.
Clancy, P. (1997). Discourse motivations for referential choice in Korean acquisition. In H. Sohn & J. Haig (eds). Japanese/Korean Linguistics, Vol 6 (pp. 639-657). Stanford, CA: CSLI.
Du Bois, J. W. (1985). Competing motivations. In J. Haiman (ed.), Iconicity in syntax (pp. 343-365). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Du Bois, J. W. (1987). The discourse basis of ergativity. Language, 63, 805-855. Givon, T. (1983). Topic continuity in discourse: an introduction. In J. H. Greenberg &
T. Givon (series eds) & T. Givon (vol. ed.), Typological studies in language: Vol.
3. Topic continuity in discourse: a quantitative cross-language study.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Guerriero, A. M. S., Oshima-Takane, Y., Kuriyama, Y. (2006). The development of referential choice in English and Japanese: a discourse-pragmatic perspective.
Journal of child language, 33, 823-857.
Gundel, J., Hedberg, N. & Zacharski, R. (1993).Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language, 69, 274-307.
Huang, Y. (1994). The syntax and pragmatics of anaphora: A study with special
reference to Chinese. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Huang, Y. (2000). Anaphora; A crosslinguistic study. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Imbens-Bailey, A. & Pan, A. (1998). The pragmatics of self- and other-reference in young children. Social Development, 7(2), 219-233.
Kumpf, L. E. (1992). Preferred argument structure in second language discourse: A preliminary study. Studies in Language, 16, 369-403.
Li, C. N. & Thompson, S. A. (1981). Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Narasimhan, B., Budwig, N. & Murty, L. (2005). Argument realization in Hindi caregiver-child discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 37, 461-495.
Ninio, A., Snow, C. E., Pan, B. A., & Rollin, P. R. (1994). Classifying communicative acts in children’s interactions. Journal of Communications Disorders, 27, 157-188.
Oh, S.-Y. (2007). Overt reference to speaker and recipient in Korean. Discourse studies, 9(4), 462-492.
Serratrice, L. (2005). The role of discourse pragmatics in the acquisition of subjects in Italian. Applied Psycholinguistics, 26, 437-462.
Wang, Q., Lillo-Martin, D., Best, C. T., Levitt, A. (1992). Null subject versus null object: Some evidence from the acquisition of Chinese and English. Language
本人於 98 年 7 月 14 日至 18 日參加由北京清華大學及香港城市大學所主辦 的國際研討會 The 36th International Systemic Functional Congress。此研討會集合 了來自世界各地研究功能語言學的重要學者，從功能語言學的各個面向，作研究 的分享與交流。五天的研討會，讓參與研討會的成員享受了一次豐富的學術饗宴。
本次會議的主題為”Challenges to Systemic Functional Linguistics: Theory and Practice”。會議除了 papers 和 colloquiums 之外，還包括了 9 場 plenary talks，邀 請在此領域中 9 位重量級的學者演講，精彩的內容讓與會者收穫豐富。
Systemic Functional Linguistics 是由語言學大師 Michael Halliday 所發展出來 的重要語言學理論，而本會議的首場 plenary talk 就是由 Michael Halliday 主講， 講題為”Some Thoughts on Choice”。演講中提到所有的人類的活動都是根據選 擇，意義的選擇是人類生活重要的部分，而語意的選擇是語言學理論需要去呈現
（2）在選擇了其中一個選項，而非其他選項時，隱含了什麼意義？而對 Systemic Functional Linguistics 來說，有兩項挑戰：嚴謹看待系統網絡，將其作為代表選 擇的利器。同時使系統網絡更加精緻，並加強其理論的基礎。
另一位重要學者 Christian M.I.M. Matthiesssen 教授的 plenary talk 講題 為”ADA – Appliable Discourse Analysis: The Systemic Functional Potential for Discourse Analysis”。呼應 Michael Halliday 教授的看法，Matthiesssen 教授認為 Systemic Functional Linguistics 是一種適用語言學 (applicable linguistics)。也就是 能被應用的語言學(potential to be applied)。而在此演講中，特別把重點放在適用 言談分析(appliable discourse analysis)，也就是能在其他研究領域中被加以應用的 言談分析。演講中討論了 ADA 的特質、其可應用性、及增加其應用性所面對的 挑戰。此演講提出了重要的觀點也點出了待解決的問題。
廣州中山大學黃國文(Guowen Huang)教授為著名的系統功能語法學家，其所 主講的 plenary talk 講題為”Different Ways of Meaning and Different Ways of Translating”。在演講中，黃教授從系統功能語言學 grammatical metaphor 的觀點 探討某一意義之不同翻譯方式，並說明 grammatical metaphor 可以在中英翻譯中 獲得充分的印證。系統功能語言學為一種適用語言學理論，除了其他領域之外， 在翻譯研究領域應充分加以運用。
Linguistics in the Round: Imaging FL Education for a Global World”、Shisheng Liu 教授的 “Systemic Functional Stylistics: Past, Present and the Future”、James Martin 教授的 “Realization, Instantiation and Individuation: Some Thoughts on Identity in Youth Justice Conferencing”、Clare Painter 教授的”Children’s Picture Books: Modeling Affordances and Instantiating meaning Across Verbiage And Image”、 Jiaxuan Shen 教授的 “‘Virus’ and ‘Noun’—On Nouns and Verbs in Chinese and English”及 Eija Ventola 教授的”Systemic Functional Linguistics and Cyberspace”。
本人的論文題目是「Referential Choice in Mandarin Child Language: A
Discourse-Pragmatic Perspective」。本研究的目的是從言談語用的觀點探討說漢語 的幼童在自然對話中的指涉詞選擇。語料為以漢語為母語的兩歲幼童與母親的自 然對話，語料中的主詞論元及受詞論元依其指涉詞形式及語用特徵作質性與量性 的分析分析。研究結果顯示，幼童指涉詞形式的選擇受到言談語用因素的影響， 特別是訊息因素扮演了重要的角色。本人的論文獲得了不少與會學者正面的回 應，同時一些意見及問題也對我繼續發展本篇論文有很大的幫助。
此次參加 The 36th International Systemic Functional Congress 不僅有機會發表 本人的研究成果之外，也有機會與不同領域、不同國家的學者做學術討論與交 流，是次很有意義、豐富的學術經驗。