话轮转换中的话语标记在中央九台《对话》栏目中的应用研究
|
摘要
人们需要了解当下发生的事件和所处的环境,甚至需要对将来的可能发生的情况做出预测。因此感知并获取最新信息已经成为人们生活中不可或缺的一部分。电视访谈类节目的出现彻底地解决了这一问题。由于这类节目及时地向大众传播了宝贵的信息,现已经成为人们获取最新资讯的越来越重要的媒介。与此同时,新闻访谈也已经成为包括语言学家及其他学者关注的焦点。国外学者对新闻访谈这一媒介已进行了全面而细致的研究。相比较而言,对于电视访谈类节目,中国仍处于逐步探索的起步阶段。可喜的是,现阶段国内不仅出现了以汉语作为交流语言的访谈节目,也有了以英语作为唯一交流语言的新闻访谈类节目。据不完全统计,国内现有上百种电视访谈类节目。然而,只有为数不多的电视访谈类节目拥有较高的水准。《对话》栏目作为一档由中央九台于1997年推出的英语电视访谈类节目,凭借着取材的广泛性,主持人的很高的英语水平和较广的知识面,以及两位主持人杨锐和田薇对来自社会各界的精英人士非常成功的采访,使它的收视率在整个中央台的节目中脱颖而出,受到了来自社会各界的广大观众的好评。
主持人和嘉宾之间的沟通技巧成为电视访谈节目成败的重要因素。因此对于访谈类节目中的交流方面的技巧研究是大有裨益的。话语标记作为言语交际中经常使用的成分,其恰当得体的使用可以有效提高言语交际的效率,并且对它们的准确理解和灵活运用将成为交际能力的重要指数。
本文以40篇来自于中央九台《对话》栏目的文本为研究对象。通过话语标记在对这样一档高质量的节目的研究,可以更好地诠释电视访谈节目中主持人与嘉宾之间的交流技能。本文研究的目的涵盖两个方面,首先,揭示了在沟通的技能中,话语标记所起到的作用和发挥的功效。其次,一方面,通过对话转转换中的话语标记在《对话》栏中目的研究,可以为今后同类节目树立一个榜样。同时为主持人能够成功组织访谈节目作以参考。另一方面,通过对话语标记的重要性的认识有助于增强人们的交际能力,从而对话语标记的进一步研究有所贡献。
本文共分为五章：
第一章为绪论。首先,对英文访谈类节目作以简要的概述。同时对于新闻访谈类节目在中国的发展情况及存在的问题进行了比较详尽的描述,中国现存电视访谈类节目存在着两个的问题：一个问题是,大多数的主持人在选题上及节目的控制上无法满足观众的口味和需求。另外一个问题在于大多数的节目不能够保持其原本的鲜活性。所以《对话》凭借其紧扣时事的话题和嘉宾的专业性突出重围。本章的第三部分就本文研究的重要性进行归纳：一方面,现阶段在国内还没有从话轮转换中的话语标记的角度来对以英语为第一语言的英文访谈类节目的研究。通过本文的研究,人们可以学到话语标记在话轮控制方面所起到的重要作用。同时,现阶段国内新闻访谈类节目质量的参差不齐也成为本文的写作动机。
第二章为本文的文献综述部分,主要介绍了本研究的理论框架。各家对于话语标记的定义说法不一。粗略地说,话语标记是指在口语中反复出现的修饰语,如as, oh, now, and, well, but, or, so, because, however, you know, I mean等。从语法角度来看,这些修饰语本身没有多少语义,与句子也无多大关联,但是它们能够起到引起注意,提起话题,发展话题,维持交谈等作用。针对话语标记方面的研究,美国著名的语言学家Schiffrin提出“局部连贯”的理论。而后的其他几位学者像Blakemole和Jueker也从关联理论的角度对话语标记做了详尽的说明。近些年,一些心理学家也开始了针对人们对话语标记的理解层面的关注。国内的学者也开始了对话语标记方面做了大量的探索研究。
话轮转换是会话分析的核心问题。根据Sacks, Schegloff和Jefferson (1974)通过对日常对话研究总结出来的话轮转换模型及电视访谈类节目本身的特点,讨论了话轮转换规则及主持人同嘉宾所应用的话轮控制技巧。以及与话轮转换相关的理论作了相应的叙述。话轮是日常会话中的基本结构。Levinson提出的毗邻双部结构指的是感谢与回应,要求与接受,以及一问一答等双部结构的语对。Sack, Schegloffm,和Jefferson认为话轮转换规则是掌管话轮转换的机制。同时话轮转换的全过程需要按照话轮转换规则来进行。
话轮转换过程包括三个方面,一是话轮放弃,二是话轮索取,三是话轮保持。就是说当不管是主持人还是嘉宾想要更好地完成彼此间的交流及按节目的预想进行的时候,他们都需要采取一定的策略来更好地完成话轮的放弃,索取和保持。由于话轮转换在会话中的研究不足,Sack, Schegloff,和Jefferson开启了对话轮转换在日常交际方面的全面研究,并总结出了14条话轮转换机制。
本章综述了前人时贤对电视访谈节目的研究。从电视访谈节目中的主持人与嘉宾之间的权力分配情况中发现主持人拥有对控制节目全过程的的主导权力。在语言学界,Harries (2003)总结出了关于电视访谈节目的4个特点：一个是会话参与者有时采用间接的交谈方式,使得传递出的信息晦涩难懂。二是电视访谈节目中存在一定程度的中立性。三是会话参与者朝既定目标组织语言。最后一点是成功的节目要求会话参与者具备较高的沟通能力并能准确的识别出话轮转换点。
第三章叙述了本文的写作目地。对于本文研究的语料及其搜集的过程做了简单的介绍。并且引出了本文研究的两个问题。第一个问题是在英文电视访谈中,话轮转换中的话语标记在话轮控制方面发挥怎样的作用?第二个问题是,话语标记在话轮转换过程中发挥怎样的功能?
第四章系统研究了话语标记在中央九台《对话》栏目中的应用问题。为了使本研究更加清晰明了,对于话语标记及本文所涉及到的话语标记研究的范畴作以界定。作为本文的中心章节,本章将把话语标记的研究重点放在三个方面,分别从话轮放弃,话轮索取和话轮保持入手。目的在于系统分析话轮转换的全过程并对第三章中的第一个问题作出回答。话轮转换须要遵循一定的话轮转换规则,同时在话轮转换中灵活应用话轮控制策略。对于第三章中的第二个问题,在本章的末尾小节中做了详尽的阐述,并根据话语标记在话轮中的位置,归纳了话语标记在英文访谈类节目中的8个主要的功能。当话语标记处于话轮前端时,话语标记可以起到完善话轮信息的功能,可以表示对前话轮的否定看法,也可引出新话轮。当话语标记位于话轮的中间位置时,可以起到对前话轮内容解释和补充的功能,可以起到呼应作用与接下来所要探讨的问题,还可以揭示发话者的心理次序。当话语标记置于话轮末端时,话语标记可以帮助发话者结束话轮,另外还可以达到双方认同的效果。
第五章总结了本文的主要发现。研究结果表明新闻访谈中的话轮转换确立了访问者与受访者一问一答的会话模式。在这种模式下,他们之间遵守了话轮转换的一系列规则。在这些规则当中,又蕴含了访者与被访者所应用的话轮控制技巧。本文从话语标记角度出发,分析主持人与嘉宾之间如何通过话语标记的有效使用来加强言语交际能力的。由于客观上的原因,所有的数据均是人工完成的。所以,它不可避免的存在着误差和错误。本文所选取的40篇语料相对来说较少。因此,有些话语标记从数据结果中观察不到。正如本文最后小节所提出的,本文仍有很多问题没有涉及到,比如对于会话参与者分属不同国籍,在使用话语标记时受到自身母语的影响的问题有待将来的研究。
Being informed is considered to be the most important thing in these days. Everybody wants to know everything about current events and their circumstances, future situations. The occurrence of TV interviews solves these issues and meets the people's needs. The program of TV interviews has become more and more important as it conveys important issues to the public. Meanwhile, TV interviews have been the focus of attention of both linguistics and non-linguistics. Linguists abroad have implemented comparatively comprehensive and in-depth research on this communicational media. Comparative speaking, TV interview has a short history in China. Recently a series of TV interview programs appear in the screen, not only in Chinese but in English. According to incompletely statistics, there are hundreds of TV interview programs, however only a few of them has a higher quality. The program Dialogue as the authoritative English TV interview program is produced by CCTV channel 9 in 1997. This program contains a wide range of topics and two excellent anchors, and has been inviting lots of highlights form all walks of life. Meanwhile, the audience rating of this program can be considered among the best.
The program of TV interview is full of communication skills between host and guests. The research on the techniques in communication is necessary. Discourse markers as the widely used methods in communication play an important role in utterance production and utterance interpretation. The proper use and interpretation of them consist of a considerable part of pragmatic or communicative competence.
In this thesis, Dialogue is as the research object. The data studied consist of 40 transcripts from the program of Dialogue in CCTV channel 9. The investigation of discourse markers on this high quality program could make a better explanation of the techniques in communication. The purpose of this thesis lies in two aspects. Firstly, reveal the functions and effects of discourse markers which played in communication skills. Secondly, on one hand, the investigation of discourse markers in turn-taking process in Dialogue of CCTV channel 9 may benefit hosts and guests in achieving success in other TV interview programs, and even giving the widely English learners a better understanding of TV interview; on the other hand, the awareness of importance of discourse markers could facilitate peoples' communicational competence.
The present thesis consists of 5 chapters:
Chapter one is the preface. To begin with, a brief introduction to English TV interviews is proposed. Secondly, the development situation of TV interviews in China is reviewed in detail. The problems of TV interviews in China are pointed out: on one hand, most of hosts do not seek for what audiences want; on the other hand, most of the programs can not keep the program alive and fresh. So Dialogue can excel in these TV interviews with the timely topic and highlights invited. Thirdly, the significance of this thesis is described. There is not a research which examines the TV interview program from the perspective of discourse markers in turn-taking process. Through the investigation of this thesis, the usefulness of discourse markers in turn-control strategies can be learned by people. Meanwhile, the level and quality of current TV interviews are quite different is also becoming the writing motivations of this thesis.
Chapter two presents a literature review. First of all, the definition of discourse markers, which are linguistic elements that signal relations between units of talk, relation at the exchange, action, ideational, and participation framework level of the oral discourse, such as, oh, now, and, well, but, or, so, because, however, you know, I mean etc. From the grammar perspective, discourse markers do not own much semantic, however, they do arouse the listeners'attention, develop the turn, maintain the turn, and etc. Overall, the past research on discourse marker has mainly focused on English. The representative Schiffrin (1974) put forward the so-called "local coherence". The other representatives like Blakemole and Jueker (1987) made deep analysis on relevance theory. In recent years, some psychologists like Clark and Fox Tree (2002) paid more attention to people understanding of discourse markers. Some domestic scholars have raised a study upsurge of English discourse markers in China. The most representatives are He Ziran and his disciples. The theories which they used basically are relevance theory and adaptation theory.
Turn-taking is generally acknowledged as the core of the theory of conversation analysis. According to the previous research by Sacks, Schegloff, and Jefferson (1974) through the analysis of daily conversation, and taking the nature and characteristics of talk show into full account, this chapter has explored the turn-taking rules and turn-control strategies in TV interviews. And the relevant theories like turn, adjacency pairs and the turn-taking rules are also introduced. Turn is the basic structural unit of daily conversation. The most widely used adjacency pairs proposed by Levinson (1983), which refer to the thanking-response, request-acceptance, apology-minimization, and question-answer sequences etc. Sack, Schegloff, and Jefferson argued that turn-taking rules are as the mechanism governs turn-taking. At the same time, the turn-taking process should abide by the turn-taking rules.
There are three parts in turn-taking process, which include turn-yielding, turn-claiming and turn-holding. When hosts and guests get turns to speak, they will certainly adopt some strategies to yield, claim and hold turns. Owing to the limited previous studies on turn-taking in conversation, Sack, Schegloff, and Jefferson (1974) conducted a more thorough study on turn-taking in daily conversation, and outlined the fourteen turn-taking mechanisms.
The previous researches on TV interviews are reviewed. And power distribution in TV interview is examined by many linguists. In the task-oriented TV interview program, hosts possess more institutional power to control over the program. In the Linguistic field, Harries (1992) found four characters of TV interview:first of all, participants sometimes use a high degree of indirectness and elaboration, which makes their response elusive. Secondly, neutrality is another character of TV interview. Thirdly, participants have interacted final goals. Fourthly, a fluent dialogue requires that speakers can effectively negotiate and signal turn-taking.
The third chapter explains the purpose of the present study, introduces the source and collection procedures of data of this thesis, and initiates two research questions of the study:a. How does each discourse marker as one of the effective turn-control strategies works in turn-taking process in English TV interview? b. What roles of functions do discourse markers play in turn-taking process.
The fourth chapter describes the application of discourse markers in the process of turn-taking in Dialogue of CCTV channel 9. In order to make the study clearly, the definition of discourse markers is restated and the scope of discourse markers analyzed in this thesis is listed. As the central parts of this thesis, this thesis places the emphasis on the distribution of discourse markers as one of the turn-control strategies in turn yielding, turn claiming, and turn holding respectively, then come answers to the question one in chapter three. Turns transfer should accord with the turn-taking rules. In answer to the question two in chapter three, the functions of discourse markers are figured out at the end of this chapter, the author summarizes eight major functions of discourse markers according to the position they located in turns, and there are three functions in the initial position:firstly, continue turn with insufficiency. Secondly, do not agree to the prior turn. Thirdly, initiate a new turn. There are also three functions in the middle turn:firstly, explain and complete to the prior statement. Secondly, make contrast with the following argumentation. Thirdly, expose psychological subjective order. At the end of the turn, there are two functions, one is the turn ending, and the other is mutually agreed by the two parts. Chapter five is the concluding remarks, which presents the major findings of this thesis. The research shows that the turn-taking in the news interview has founded the question-answer format between hosts and guests. And under this format, hosts and guests obey the turn-taking rules. Discourse markers as one of the turn-control strategies help hosts and guests accomplish turns transfer successfully. However, this study is far from satisfactory due to some practical limitations, since all the data collected were categorized and analyzed artificially and by no means of using in computer or other automatic method. As a result errors are inevitable and the preciseness of findings can not reach exactly. The materials including 40 transcripts of Dialogue are relatively insufficient. Therefore, some specific discourse markers can not obviously be seen from the result. Some suggestions for the future study are proposed at the end of this chapter. As is pointed out at the end of the thesis, there are much more work remains to be done about turn-taking in English TV interviews because the present study only makes a macro study on the application of discourse markers in the process of turn-taking in English TV interviews. Future work might be done on the interlocutors'nationality due to their different native languages.
主持人和嘉宾之间的沟通技巧成为电视访谈节目成败的重要因素。因此对于访谈类节目中的交流方面的技巧研究是大有裨益的。话语标记作为言语交际中经常使用的成分,其恰当得体的使用可以有效提高言语交际的效率,并且对它们的准确理解和灵活运用将成为交际能力的重要指数。
本文以40篇来自于中央九台《对话》栏目的文本为研究对象。通过话语标记在对这样一档高质量的节目的研究,可以更好地诠释电视访谈节目中主持人与嘉宾之间的交流技能。本文研究的目的涵盖两个方面,首先,揭示了在沟通的技能中,话语标记所起到的作用和发挥的功效。其次,一方面,通过对话转转换中的话语标记在《对话》栏中目的研究,可以为今后同类节目树立一个榜样。同时为主持人能够成功组织访谈节目作以参考。另一方面,通过对话语标记的重要性的认识有助于增强人们的交际能力,从而对话语标记的进一步研究有所贡献。
本文共分为五章：
第一章为绪论。首先,对英文访谈类节目作以简要的概述。同时对于新闻访谈类节目在中国的发展情况及存在的问题进行了比较详尽的描述,中国现存电视访谈类节目存在着两个的问题：一个问题是,大多数的主持人在选题上及节目的控制上无法满足观众的口味和需求。另外一个问题在于大多数的节目不能够保持其原本的鲜活性。所以《对话》凭借其紧扣时事的话题和嘉宾的专业性突出重围。本章的第三部分就本文研究的重要性进行归纳：一方面,现阶段在国内还没有从话轮转换中的话语标记的角度来对以英语为第一语言的英文访谈类节目的研究。通过本文的研究,人们可以学到话语标记在话轮控制方面所起到的重要作用。同时,现阶段国内新闻访谈类节目质量的参差不齐也成为本文的写作动机。
第二章为本文的文献综述部分,主要介绍了本研究的理论框架。各家对于话语标记的定义说法不一。粗略地说,话语标记是指在口语中反复出现的修饰语,如as, oh, now, and, well, but, or, so, because, however, you know, I mean等。从语法角度来看,这些修饰语本身没有多少语义,与句子也无多大关联,但是它们能够起到引起注意,提起话题,发展话题,维持交谈等作用。针对话语标记方面的研究,美国著名的语言学家Schiffrin提出“局部连贯”的理论。而后的其他几位学者像Blakemole和Jueker也从关联理论的角度对话语标记做了详尽的说明。近些年,一些心理学家也开始了针对人们对话语标记的理解层面的关注。国内的学者也开始了对话语标记方面做了大量的探索研究。
话轮转换是会话分析的核心问题。根据Sacks, Schegloff和Jefferson (1974)通过对日常对话研究总结出来的话轮转换模型及电视访谈类节目本身的特点,讨论了话轮转换规则及主持人同嘉宾所应用的话轮控制技巧。以及与话轮转换相关的理论作了相应的叙述。话轮是日常会话中的基本结构。Levinson提出的毗邻双部结构指的是感谢与回应,要求与接受,以及一问一答等双部结构的语对。Sack, Schegloffm,和Jefferson认为话轮转换规则是掌管话轮转换的机制。同时话轮转换的全过程需要按照话轮转换规则来进行。
话轮转换过程包括三个方面,一是话轮放弃,二是话轮索取,三是话轮保持。就是说当不管是主持人还是嘉宾想要更好地完成彼此间的交流及按节目的预想进行的时候,他们都需要采取一定的策略来更好地完成话轮的放弃,索取和保持。由于话轮转换在会话中的研究不足,Sack, Schegloff,和Jefferson开启了对话轮转换在日常交际方面的全面研究,并总结出了14条话轮转换机制。
本章综述了前人时贤对电视访谈节目的研究。从电视访谈节目中的主持人与嘉宾之间的权力分配情况中发现主持人拥有对控制节目全过程的的主导权力。在语言学界,Harries (2003)总结出了关于电视访谈节目的4个特点：一个是会话参与者有时采用间接的交谈方式,使得传递出的信息晦涩难懂。二是电视访谈节目中存在一定程度的中立性。三是会话参与者朝既定目标组织语言。最后一点是成功的节目要求会话参与者具备较高的沟通能力并能准确的识别出话轮转换点。
第三章叙述了本文的写作目地。对于本文研究的语料及其搜集的过程做了简单的介绍。并且引出了本文研究的两个问题。第一个问题是在英文电视访谈中,话轮转换中的话语标记在话轮控制方面发挥怎样的作用?第二个问题是,话语标记在话轮转换过程中发挥怎样的功能?
第四章系统研究了话语标记在中央九台《对话》栏目中的应用问题。为了使本研究更加清晰明了,对于话语标记及本文所涉及到的话语标记研究的范畴作以界定。作为本文的中心章节,本章将把话语标记的研究重点放在三个方面,分别从话轮放弃,话轮索取和话轮保持入手。目的在于系统分析话轮转换的全过程并对第三章中的第一个问题作出回答。话轮转换须要遵循一定的话轮转换规则,同时在话轮转换中灵活应用话轮控制策略。对于第三章中的第二个问题,在本章的末尾小节中做了详尽的阐述,并根据话语标记在话轮中的位置,归纳了话语标记在英文访谈类节目中的8个主要的功能。当话语标记处于话轮前端时,话语标记可以起到完善话轮信息的功能,可以表示对前话轮的否定看法,也可引出新话轮。当话语标记位于话轮的中间位置时,可以起到对前话轮内容解释和补充的功能,可以起到呼应作用与接下来所要探讨的问题,还可以揭示发话者的心理次序。当话语标记置于话轮末端时,话语标记可以帮助发话者结束话轮,另外还可以达到双方认同的效果。
第五章总结了本文的主要发现。研究结果表明新闻访谈中的话轮转换确立了访问者与受访者一问一答的会话模式。在这种模式下,他们之间遵守了话轮转换的一系列规则。在这些规则当中,又蕴含了访者与被访者所应用的话轮控制技巧。本文从话语标记角度出发,分析主持人与嘉宾之间如何通过话语标记的有效使用来加强言语交际能力的。由于客观上的原因,所有的数据均是人工完成的。所以,它不可避免的存在着误差和错误。本文所选取的40篇语料相对来说较少。因此,有些话语标记从数据结果中观察不到。正如本文最后小节所提出的,本文仍有很多问题没有涉及到,比如对于会话参与者分属不同国籍,在使用话语标记时受到自身母语的影响的问题有待将来的研究。
Being informed is considered to be the most important thing in these days. Everybody wants to know everything about current events and their circumstances, future situations. The occurrence of TV interviews solves these issues and meets the people's needs. The program of TV interviews has become more and more important as it conveys important issues to the public. Meanwhile, TV interviews have been the focus of attention of both linguistics and non-linguistics. Linguists abroad have implemented comparatively comprehensive and in-depth research on this communicational media. Comparative speaking, TV interview has a short history in China. Recently a series of TV interview programs appear in the screen, not only in Chinese but in English. According to incompletely statistics, there are hundreds of TV interview programs, however only a few of them has a higher quality. The program Dialogue as the authoritative English TV interview program is produced by CCTV channel 9 in 1997. This program contains a wide range of topics and two excellent anchors, and has been inviting lots of highlights form all walks of life. Meanwhile, the audience rating of this program can be considered among the best.
The program of TV interview is full of communication skills between host and guests. The research on the techniques in communication is necessary. Discourse markers as the widely used methods in communication play an important role in utterance production and utterance interpretation. The proper use and interpretation of them consist of a considerable part of pragmatic or communicative competence.
In this thesis, Dialogue is as the research object. The data studied consist of 40 transcripts from the program of Dialogue in CCTV channel 9. The investigation of discourse markers on this high quality program could make a better explanation of the techniques in communication. The purpose of this thesis lies in two aspects. Firstly, reveal the functions and effects of discourse markers which played in communication skills. Secondly, on one hand, the investigation of discourse markers in turn-taking process in Dialogue of CCTV channel 9 may benefit hosts and guests in achieving success in other TV interview programs, and even giving the widely English learners a better understanding of TV interview; on the other hand, the awareness of importance of discourse markers could facilitate peoples' communicational competence.
The present thesis consists of 5 chapters:
Chapter one is the preface. To begin with, a brief introduction to English TV interviews is proposed. Secondly, the development situation of TV interviews in China is reviewed in detail. The problems of TV interviews in China are pointed out: on one hand, most of hosts do not seek for what audiences want; on the other hand, most of the programs can not keep the program alive and fresh. So Dialogue can excel in these TV interviews with the timely topic and highlights invited. Thirdly, the significance of this thesis is described. There is not a research which examines the TV interview program from the perspective of discourse markers in turn-taking process. Through the investigation of this thesis, the usefulness of discourse markers in turn-control strategies can be learned by people. Meanwhile, the level and quality of current TV interviews are quite different is also becoming the writing motivations of this thesis.
Chapter two presents a literature review. First of all, the definition of discourse markers, which are linguistic elements that signal relations between units of talk, relation at the exchange, action, ideational, and participation framework level of the oral discourse, such as, oh, now, and, well, but, or, so, because, however, you know, I mean etc. From the grammar perspective, discourse markers do not own much semantic, however, they do arouse the listeners'attention, develop the turn, maintain the turn, and etc. Overall, the past research on discourse marker has mainly focused on English. The representative Schiffrin (1974) put forward the so-called "local coherence". The other representatives like Blakemole and Jueker (1987) made deep analysis on relevance theory. In recent years, some psychologists like Clark and Fox Tree (2002) paid more attention to people understanding of discourse markers. Some domestic scholars have raised a study upsurge of English discourse markers in China. The most representatives are He Ziran and his disciples. The theories which they used basically are relevance theory and adaptation theory.
Turn-taking is generally acknowledged as the core of the theory of conversation analysis. According to the previous research by Sacks, Schegloff, and Jefferson (1974) through the analysis of daily conversation, and taking the nature and characteristics of talk show into full account, this chapter has explored the turn-taking rules and turn-control strategies in TV interviews. And the relevant theories like turn, adjacency pairs and the turn-taking rules are also introduced. Turn is the basic structural unit of daily conversation. The most widely used adjacency pairs proposed by Levinson (1983), which refer to the thanking-response, request-acceptance, apology-minimization, and question-answer sequences etc. Sack, Schegloff, and Jefferson argued that turn-taking rules are as the mechanism governs turn-taking. At the same time, the turn-taking process should abide by the turn-taking rules.
There are three parts in turn-taking process, which include turn-yielding, turn-claiming and turn-holding. When hosts and guests get turns to speak, they will certainly adopt some strategies to yield, claim and hold turns. Owing to the limited previous studies on turn-taking in conversation, Sack, Schegloff, and Jefferson (1974) conducted a more thorough study on turn-taking in daily conversation, and outlined the fourteen turn-taking mechanisms.
The previous researches on TV interviews are reviewed. And power distribution in TV interview is examined by many linguists. In the task-oriented TV interview program, hosts possess more institutional power to control over the program. In the Linguistic field, Harries (1992) found four characters of TV interview:first of all, participants sometimes use a high degree of indirectness and elaboration, which makes their response elusive. Secondly, neutrality is another character of TV interview. Thirdly, participants have interacted final goals. Fourthly, a fluent dialogue requires that speakers can effectively negotiate and signal turn-taking.
The third chapter explains the purpose of the present study, introduces the source and collection procedures of data of this thesis, and initiates two research questions of the study:a. How does each discourse marker as one of the effective turn-control strategies works in turn-taking process in English TV interview? b. What roles of functions do discourse markers play in turn-taking process.
The fourth chapter describes the application of discourse markers in the process of turn-taking in Dialogue of CCTV channel 9. In order to make the study clearly, the definition of discourse markers is restated and the scope of discourse markers analyzed in this thesis is listed. As the central parts of this thesis, this thesis places the emphasis on the distribution of discourse markers as one of the turn-control strategies in turn yielding, turn claiming, and turn holding respectively, then come answers to the question one in chapter three. Turns transfer should accord with the turn-taking rules. In answer to the question two in chapter three, the functions of discourse markers are figured out at the end of this chapter, the author summarizes eight major functions of discourse markers according to the position they located in turns, and there are three functions in the initial position:firstly, continue turn with insufficiency. Secondly, do not agree to the prior turn. Thirdly, initiate a new turn. There are also three functions in the middle turn:firstly, explain and complete to the prior statement. Secondly, make contrast with the following argumentation. Thirdly, expose psychological subjective order. At the end of the turn, there are two functions, one is the turn ending, and the other is mutually agreed by the two parts. Chapter five is the concluding remarks, which presents the major findings of this thesis. The research shows that the turn-taking in the news interview has founded the question-answer format between hosts and guests. And under this format, hosts and guests obey the turn-taking rules. Discourse markers as one of the turn-control strategies help hosts and guests accomplish turns transfer successfully. However, this study is far from satisfactory due to some practical limitations, since all the data collected were categorized and analyzed artificially and by no means of using in computer or other automatic method. As a result errors are inevitable and the preciseness of findings can not reach exactly. The materials including 40 transcripts of Dialogue are relatively insufficient. Therefore, some specific discourse markers can not obviously be seen from the result. Some suggestions for the future study are proposed at the end of this chapter. As is pointed out at the end of the thesis, there are much more work remains to be done about turn-taking in English TV interviews because the present study only makes a macro study on the application of discourse markers in the process of turn-taking in English TV interviews. Future work might be done on the interlocutors'nationality due to their different native languages.
引文
Adam Jaworski and Nikolas Coupland. (2001). The Discourse Reader. London: Routledge.
Atkinson, J. Maxwell, and Paul Drew. (1979). Order in the court:The organization of verbal interaction in judicial settings. London:Macmillan.
Blakemore, D. (1987). Semantic constraints on relevance. Oxford:Blackwell.
Blakemore, D. (1992). Understanding utterance. Oxford:Blackwell.
Brown, G.& G. Yule. (1983). Discourse Analysis. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Clark, H.& J. Fox Tree, (2002). Using uh and um in spontaneous speech. Cognition, 84,73-111.
Clayman, S.E. (2003). Disagreements and third parties:Dilemmas of neutralism in panel news interviews. Journal of Pragmatics,34(22),1385-1401.
Clayman, S., Heritage, J. The News Interview. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2002.
Cornelia Ilie, edd. (2001). Language and ideology. Volume 2:Descriptive cognitive approaches, Amsterdam:John Benjamins,
Crookes, G. (1990). The utterance and other basic units for second language discourse analysis. Applied Linguistics,Ⅱ(2),183-99.
Cynthia, B.R. (2000). Turn-taking as a Discourse Process Interpreting as a Discourse process,83-107.
Ducan, S.1974. "On the Structure of Speaker-audio Interaction During Speaking Turns", Language in Society,2.
Edelsky (1981) Who's got the floor? Language in Society 10:383-421.
Erman, Brit. (1986). Some pragmatic expressions in English conversation. In G. Tottie & I. Backlund (eds.), English in Speech and Writing:A Symposium. Stockholm:Almquist and Wiksell.131-147.
Ferguson, N. (1977). "Simultaneous speech, intemrptions and dominance". British Journal of n Social and Clinical psychology,16:296-251.
Foucault, M. (1978). Power/knowledge:Selected interviews and other writings, 1972-1977. In:C. Gordon, et al. (Eds.), New York:Pantheon.
Fraser. (1998). Contrastive Discourse Markers in English. In A. H. Jucker and Y. Ziv, editors, Discourse Markers:Descriptions and Theory,301-326. John Benjamins, Amsterdam.
Fraser, Bruce, (1990). An approach to discourse markers. Journal of Pragmatics 14 (3),383-398.
Fraser, Bruce, (1999). What are discourse markers? Journal of Pragmatics 31, 931-952.
French, J.,& Raven, B. H. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in social power 150-167. Ann Arbor, MI:Institute for Social Research.
Greatbatch, D. (1985). A turn-taking system for British news interviews. Lang. Soc., 17,401-430.
Grice, H. Paul. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Peter Cole and Jerry L. Morgan, eds., Speech Acts (Syntax and Semantics, Vol.3),41-58. New York:Academic Press.
Goodwin, Charles. (1977). Conversational Organization:Interaction Between Speakers and Hearers. New York:Academic Press.
Harris, S. (2003). Politeness and power:Making and responding to request in institutional settings. Text,23(1),27-52.
Jefferson, Gail. (1978):Sequential Aspects of Storytelling in Conversation. In: Schenkein, Jim (ed.):Studies in the organization of conversational interaction. New York:Academic Press,219-248.
Keller, E. (1979).'Gambits:conversational strategy signals'. Journal of Pragmatics, 3:219-238.
Levinson, S.C. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. London:Longman.
Levinson, S.C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Margaret Wetherell, Stephanie Taylor and Simeon J Yates. (2001). Discourse Theory and Practice. London:Sage Publication.
Maschler, Y. (1998). Metalanguaging and discourse markers in bilingual conversation. Language in Society.23:325-366.
Mishler, Elliot G.1975. "Studies in Dialogue and Discourse:Ⅱ. Types of Discourse Initiated by and Sustained Through Questioning." Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 4 (2):99-121
Michael Stubbs. (1998). Discourse Analysis. Oxford:Plackwell Publishers Ltd.
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G, and Svartvik, J. (1985). A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. Longman.
Redeker, G. (1991). Review article:Linguistic markers of discourse structure. Linguistics 29/6:1139-1172.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A.& Jefferson, G. (1974)'A Simplest Systematics for the Organisation of Turn-Taking for Conversation' in Language,50:696-735.
Schegloff, E. A.& Harvey Sacks. (1973). "Opening up closings." Semiotica 7: 289-327. Turn-taking for conversation. New York:464.
Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse Markers. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Schourup, Lawrence. (1999). Discourse Markers. Journal of Lingua,107:227-265.
Schourup, Lawrence. (2001). Rethinking Well. Journal of Pragmatics,33: 1025-1060.
Sperber, D.& D. Wilson. (1986). Relevance:communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.
Timberg, Bernard. (1994). "The Unspoken Rules of Talk Television." In Newcomb, Horace, editor. Television:The Critical View. New York:Oxford University Press,
Vande Kopple, W. (1985). Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication, (36),82-93.
Van Dijk, Teun A., (1979). Pragmatic connectives. Journal of Pragmatics 3, 447-456.
Virpi, Ylanne, Mcewen. (1999). Young at Heart:Discourse of Age Identity in Travel Agency Interaction. Ageing and Society.
Wartenburg, T. (1990). The forms of power. From domination to transformation. Philadephia:Temple University Press.
Werth. (1981). Conversation and Discourse. London:Croom Helm.
West, C. (1979). "Against our will:male interruptions of females in cross-sex conversations". M. K. Slater & L. L. Adler (eds.) Language. Sex and Gender. New York:Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.81-97.
Zimmerman, Don, and Candance West. (1975). Sex roles, interruptions and silences in conversation. In Barry Thorne and Nancy Henley (eds.), Language and sex: Difference and dominance. Rowley, Mass, Newbury House,105-29.
刘虹.会话结构分析[M],北京：北京大学出版社,2004.
李悦蛾,范宏雅.话语分析[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社,2002.
林伟,杨玉晨.英语语篇分析[M].上海：复旦大学出版社,2007.
姚争.电视谈话：现代媒介向传统媒介的一次回归[J].现代传播-北京广播学院学报,2000.(6).
应天常.节目主持语用学[M].北京：北京广播学院出版社,2001.
Atkinson, J. Maxwell, and Paul Drew. (1979). Order in the court:The organization of verbal interaction in judicial settings. London:Macmillan.
Blakemore, D. (1987). Semantic constraints on relevance. Oxford:Blackwell.
Blakemore, D. (1992). Understanding utterance. Oxford:Blackwell.
Brown, G.& G. Yule. (1983). Discourse Analysis. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Clark, H.& J. Fox Tree, (2002). Using uh and um in spontaneous speech. Cognition, 84,73-111.
Clayman, S.E. (2003). Disagreements and third parties:Dilemmas of neutralism in panel news interviews. Journal of Pragmatics,34(22),1385-1401.
Clayman, S., Heritage, J. The News Interview. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2002.
Cornelia Ilie, edd. (2001). Language and ideology. Volume 2:Descriptive cognitive approaches, Amsterdam:John Benjamins,
Crookes, G. (1990). The utterance and other basic units for second language discourse analysis. Applied Linguistics,Ⅱ(2),183-99.
Cynthia, B.R. (2000). Turn-taking as a Discourse Process Interpreting as a Discourse process,83-107.
Ducan, S.1974. "On the Structure of Speaker-audio Interaction During Speaking Turns", Language in Society,2.
Edelsky (1981) Who's got the floor? Language in Society 10:383-421.
Erman, Brit. (1986). Some pragmatic expressions in English conversation. In G. Tottie & I. Backlund (eds.), English in Speech and Writing:A Symposium. Stockholm:Almquist and Wiksell.131-147.
Ferguson, N. (1977). "Simultaneous speech, intemrptions and dominance". British Journal of n Social and Clinical psychology,16:296-251.
Foucault, M. (1978). Power/knowledge:Selected interviews and other writings, 1972-1977. In:C. Gordon, et al. (Eds.), New York:Pantheon.
Fraser. (1998). Contrastive Discourse Markers in English. In A. H. Jucker and Y. Ziv, editors, Discourse Markers:Descriptions and Theory,301-326. John Benjamins, Amsterdam.
Fraser, Bruce, (1990). An approach to discourse markers. Journal of Pragmatics 14 (3),383-398.
Fraser, Bruce, (1999). What are discourse markers? Journal of Pragmatics 31, 931-952.
French, J.,& Raven, B. H. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in social power 150-167. Ann Arbor, MI:Institute for Social Research.
Greatbatch, D. (1985). A turn-taking system for British news interviews. Lang. Soc., 17,401-430.
Grice, H. Paul. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Peter Cole and Jerry L. Morgan, eds., Speech Acts (Syntax and Semantics, Vol.3),41-58. New York:Academic Press.
Goodwin, Charles. (1977). Conversational Organization:Interaction Between Speakers and Hearers. New York:Academic Press.
Harris, S. (2003). Politeness and power:Making and responding to request in institutional settings. Text,23(1),27-52.
Jefferson, Gail. (1978):Sequential Aspects of Storytelling in Conversation. In: Schenkein, Jim (ed.):Studies in the organization of conversational interaction. New York:Academic Press,219-248.
Keller, E. (1979).'Gambits:conversational strategy signals'. Journal of Pragmatics, 3:219-238.
Levinson, S.C. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. London:Longman.
Levinson, S.C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Margaret Wetherell, Stephanie Taylor and Simeon J Yates. (2001). Discourse Theory and Practice. London:Sage Publication.
Maschler, Y. (1998). Metalanguaging and discourse markers in bilingual conversation. Language in Society.23:325-366.
Mishler, Elliot G.1975. "Studies in Dialogue and Discourse:Ⅱ. Types of Discourse Initiated by and Sustained Through Questioning." Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 4 (2):99-121
Michael Stubbs. (1998). Discourse Analysis. Oxford:Plackwell Publishers Ltd.
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G, and Svartvik, J. (1985). A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. Longman.
Redeker, G. (1991). Review article:Linguistic markers of discourse structure. Linguistics 29/6:1139-1172.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A.& Jefferson, G. (1974)'A Simplest Systematics for the Organisation of Turn-Taking for Conversation' in Language,50:696-735.
Schegloff, E. A.& Harvey Sacks. (1973). "Opening up closings." Semiotica 7: 289-327. Turn-taking for conversation. New York:464.
Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse Markers. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Schourup, Lawrence. (1999). Discourse Markers. Journal of Lingua,107:227-265.
Schourup, Lawrence. (2001). Rethinking Well. Journal of Pragmatics,33: 1025-1060.
Sperber, D.& D. Wilson. (1986). Relevance:communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.
Timberg, Bernard. (1994). "The Unspoken Rules of Talk Television." In Newcomb, Horace, editor. Television:The Critical View. New York:Oxford University Press,
Vande Kopple, W. (1985). Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication, (36),82-93.
Van Dijk, Teun A., (1979). Pragmatic connectives. Journal of Pragmatics 3, 447-456.
Virpi, Ylanne, Mcewen. (1999). Young at Heart:Discourse of Age Identity in Travel Agency Interaction. Ageing and Society.
Wartenburg, T. (1990). The forms of power. From domination to transformation. Philadephia:Temple University Press.
Werth. (1981). Conversation and Discourse. London:Croom Helm.
West, C. (1979). "Against our will:male interruptions of females in cross-sex conversations". M. K. Slater & L. L. Adler (eds.) Language. Sex and Gender. New York:Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.81-97.
Zimmerman, Don, and Candance West. (1975). Sex roles, interruptions and silences in conversation. In Barry Thorne and Nancy Henley (eds.), Language and sex: Difference and dominance. Rowley, Mass, Newbury House,105-29.
刘虹.会话结构分析[M],北京：北京大学出版社,2004.
李悦蛾,范宏雅.话语分析[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社,2002.
林伟,杨玉晨.英语语篇分析[M].上海：复旦大学出版社,2007.
姚争.电视谈话：现代媒介向传统媒介的一次回归[J].现代传播-北京广播学院学报,2000.(6).
应天常.节目主持语用学[M].北京：北京广播学院出版社,2001.