中英文对话中弱化标记语的对比
中文
对话语标记语的研究一直以其在句义和语义中的分析占主导，而话语标记语在文中所起到的语用调节和交际调节作用还需要进一步的重视和探讨。本研究试图从语用层面上讨论话语标记语在中英两种不同语言文本中的对话所能起到的弱化作用。Frar(1980)首先提出了弱化这一论题，并揭示了其与礼貌原则的密切关系。Caffi(1999)进一步指出弱化现象有助于缓解交际双方在交际过程中可能带有的各种面子威胁的言语行为，比如自相矛盾，拒绝，丢脸，意见冲突等。在这些情况下，交际双方通过使用带有弱化语力的话语标记语，即弱化标记语，就能很好的在会话交际过程中调节人际关系以及情感距离。
本文根据前人对话语标记语的语用分类所总结出的10类标记语以及Caffi对3种弱化机制的分析为基础，从«我爱我家»和«老友记»两部情景剧中分别选取了顺利英文40集作为对比分析语料。然后运用定性和定量的分析方法，首先通过分析中英文对话中带有自我面子或他人面子保全的言语行为，整理出其中起到弱化作用的标记语。然后根据其在10种语用标记语框架下的分类找出，验证并比较其在两种语言中使用的整体及局部频率和分布特点。最后通过检
测弱化标记语在Caffi三种弱化机制下表现出的功能特点，分析两种语言对弱化机制选择的偏向。
论文研究发现整体上的差异表现在中文对话语料中对弱化标记语的使用明显少于其在英语对话中的使用；英语和中文对话中均大量使用话语填充语进行弱化，但两者在对话中出现的位置具有显著性差异；具有显著差异的还有英文中对推理标记语的弱化使用以避免模糊表达，以及中文中通过对换言标记语的弱化使用来委婉的给予意见。从微观角度来看，中英文中出现频度最高的弱化标记语分别是同属于话语填充语的you know 和嘛；分布上的显著性差异表现在英文中出现频率最高的弱化标记语 you know, I mean, I think通常出现在话段起始位置，而中文中出现频率最高的嘛，啊，吧等弱化标记语均出现在语段末。根据Caffi提出的三种弱化机制来分析，中英文在弱化标记语的功能使用上表现为英语中更倾向选择‘bushes’(第一人称弱化标记语）和‘hedges’(采购部英文乡镇企业第二人称弱化标记语)，而中文中更倾向于选择‘shields腊山国家森林公园’(非人称类弱化标记语)进行弱化。
研究表明，对弱化标记语语用功能的掌握将有助于跨文化交际,特别是对英语中话语填充语的掌握。英语中对人称类弱化标记语的使用在交际过程中表现为，美国人通常明示自我和
他人来对话语进行弱化，而中国人对处于语段末的标记语的频繁使用表明其倾向选择隐身自我来对话语进行弱化。因此在外语教学中对与话语填充语和人称类弱化标记语的讲授将弥补英语学习者在这一方面的知识空白并提高英语学习者的口语水平，防止语用失误导致的交际失败职业的.
译文
Much of the rearch into discour markers (hereafter DMs) is syntactically and mantically oriented while the importance of the pragmatic appropriateness and interpersonal adaptation DMs attached to the discour are inadequately discusd. This paper attempts to examine, at the pragmatic level, the similar and different us of DMs with mitigating mitigators) in both Chine and English conversations. Frar(1980) initiates the topic of mitigation and reveals its intimacy with politeness. Caffi(1999) further points out that mitigation is functional to smooth the speech acts that may impo face threat on the interlocutors, for instance, risks of lf-contradiction, refusal, losing face, conflict and so forth. Under the circumstances, DMs with mitigating
force rve as good candidates in monitoring interpersonal relation, emotive distance between interlocutors.
On the basis of ten pragmatic categories of DMs summarized from the former rearchers’ classifications and Caffi’s three mitigation devices, 40 episodes are lected respectively from two TV sitcoms: I Love My Family(«我爱我家») and Friends as the comparative data. By means of qualitative and quantitative analys, this paper endeavors to， first sort out mitigators through analyzing the speech acts oriented either at lf- or other-protection in both Chine and English conversations, and then under the ten categories of DMs, the frequency and distribution of the mitigators are located, justified and compared from macro- and micro-view. Finally in line with Caffi’s three mitigation devices, this paper inspects into the functional features of mitigators and the preference on the choices of mitigation devices in two languages and arrives at comparative results.
The rearch finds out that, from a macro-view, there is an insufficient u of mitigators
in the Chine corpus in contrast with comparatively larger units of mitigators in the English corpus. And there is frequent u of utterance-fillers in both English and Chine conversations to achieve mitigation while they have marked positional differences. Other distinctive features include the more frequent u of referential markers in English to avoid vagueness and reformulation markers in Chine to give suggestions in a more euphemistic way. From micro-view, the most frequently ud mitigators are comparatively you know and嘛, both of which belong to the category of utterance-fillers. The significant distributional difference is that the most frequently ud mitigators in English you know, I mean, I think lie in the utterance-initial position while the mitigators in Chine嘛，啊，吧in the utterance-final position. While the author analyze the functional features of mitigators within Caffi草莓幼苗’s three mitigation devices, it is found out that, there is preference in the u of ‘bushes’(first-person mitigators) and ‘hedges’ (cond-person mitigators)to achieve mitigation in English corpus, and ‘shields’(impersonlized mitigators) in Chine corpus.
激励的诗句
The comparative study shows that the mastery of the pragmatic us of mitigators can fa
cilitate cross-cultural communication especially with the u of utterance-fillers in English. The prefrence of using mitigators in the form of first-person and cond-person in English reveals American people choo to express mitigation with explicitly prented lf or other image. Chine people, in contrast, tend to choo the mitigators in utterance-final positions with implicit images. Thus, the instructions of the markers in cond language learning shall fill up this gap so as to improve the English learners’ oral English and avoid communication failure.
