東華大學圖書館 |

漢日特指反問句對比研究 = = A Contrastive Study of Rhetorical WH Questions in Chinese and Japanese.

Record Type:	Electronic resources : Monograph/item
Title/Author:	漢日特指反問句對比研究 =/
Reminder of title:	A Contrastive Study of Rhetorical WH Questions in Chinese and Japanese.
Author:	Wan, Wu.
Published:	Ann Arbor : ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, : 2022,
Description:	230 p.
Notes:	Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 84-12, Section: A.
Contained By:	Dissertations Abstracts International84-12A.
Subject:	Linguistics. -
Online resource:	http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=30529958
ISBN:	9798379732677

漢日特指反問句對比研究 = = A Contrastive Study of Rhetorical WH Questions in Chinese and Japanese.
Wan, Wu.

漢日特指反問句對比研究 =A Contrastive Study of Rhetorical WH Questions in Chinese and Japanese. - Ann Arbor : ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, 2022 - 230 p.

Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 84-12, Section: A.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Macau, 2022.

本論文以"語法-語用-認知"三個層面為經度、以"行域（content domain）"、"知域（epistemic domain）"和"言域（speech-act domain）"三域為緯度，對漢日特指反問句（Rhetorical WH Questions）進行了多維立體的分析。反問句是交際當中的高頻表達形式，是交際情緒的重要體現方式。然從對譯語料庫可以看出，反問句在不同語言當中的使用情況並非完全一致，具有極高對比研究價值。本論文選取最具有形式辨識度的特指反問句為研究對象，在考察漢語特指反問句的基礎上，與日語特指反問句進行了共時的平行對比研究。根據認知語言學，"事實、認知、語言"三個層面囊括了人類認知的所有對象。我們以此為依據，從三個層面對應的"行、知、言"三域視角對特指反問句做出了清晰且行之有效的分類，實現對該範疇的覆蓋性考察。語法方面，我們通過大量的語料收集，按疑問詞的不同分別將漢日特指反問句進行歸納，確定各自的規約形式，並結合三域理論，總結出行域、知域和言域各自的常用結構，為下文在語用認知層面上的考察打下基礎。此考察中發現，漢日特指反問句存在因疑問詞的虛化程度（grammaticalization）不同，語義蘊含差異而呈現出結構差異及使用範圍的不同。語用方面，我們認為反問的發生必須具備反問環境，包括主觀層面的"固有認知"、"認知與現實產生不一致"及"說話人由此產生否定意圖"，客觀層面的"場合制約因素"，在此基礎上通過間接語用策略實現反問。漢日特指反問句的差異主要體現在場合制約因素及語用功能層面。在場合制約因素方面，漢語受到的限制沒有日語那麼嚴格，除了行域反問不適用於職場上的下對上之外，基本可用於多種關係的交際者之間。而日語基本上在平等關係的交際者之間使用。S>H交際者之間，除了行域反問適用之外，知域反問及言域反問均比較少見。S<H交際者之間則除了個別言域反問之外，未見其他兩類反問。功能方面，漢日行域反問皆可用於責怪、勸阻、埋怨、催促、嘲諷等場合；知域反問皆可用於反駁、責怪和辯解，但漢語還可用於引起話題、自謙和附和等場合；言域反問都常用於反駁和責怪，漢語同時可用於自我辯解，多數用於上對下（S>H）及下對上（S局部->目標域"為主，"局部->目標域"及"（整體）->局部->目標域"為輔，日語則以"局部->目標域為"主，"局部->局部->目標域"為輔，"（整體）->局部->目標域"的現象只占極少數；知域方面，漢語的認知路徑為："局部->目標域"為主，"整體->局部->目標域"為輔，日語則前者略多於後者；言域方面，漢語的識解路徑為："局部->目標域"為主，"整體->局部->目標域"為輔，日語則前者略多於後者。本論文首次對特指反問句的範疇內分類做出了清晰的界定，使特指反問句的範疇化變得明朗可及，進一步對特指反問句做出了全面覆蓋性的考察，對漢日特指反問句的異同做出了充分的解釋，體現了認知模型理論、參照點理論在動態語言分析中的強大解釋力。.

ISBN: 9798379732677Subjects--Topical Terms:

524476
Linguistics.
Subjects--Index Terms:

Communicate emotions

漢日特指反問句對比研究 = = A Contrastive Study of Rhetorical WH Questions in Chinese and Japanese.
LDR:07202nmm a2200385 4500 001 2365930
005 20240918072807.5
006 m o d
007 cr#unu||||||||
008 241017s2022 ||||||||||||||||| ||eng d
020 $a 9798379732677
035 $a (MiAaPQ)AAI30529958
035 $a AAI30529958
040 $a MiAaPQ $c MiAaPQ
100 1 $a Wan, Wu. $3 3707208
245 1 0 $a 漢日特指反問句對比研究 = $b A Contrastive Study of Rhetorical WH Questions in Chinese and Japanese.
260 1 $a Ann Arbor : $b ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, $c 2022
300 $a 230 p.
500 $a Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 84-12, Section: A.
500 $a Advisor: Fangze, Chen.
502 $a Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Macau, 2022.
520 $a 本論文以"語法-語用-認知"三個層面為經度、以"行域（content domain）"、"知域（epistemic domain）"和"言域（speech-act domain）"三域為緯度，對漢日特指反問句（Rhetorical WH Questions）進行了多維立體的分析。反問句是交際當中的高頻表達形式，是交際情緒的重要體現方式。然從對譯語料庫可以看出，反問句在不同語言當中的使用情況並非完全一致，具有極高對比研究價值。本論文選取最具有形式辨識度的特指反問句為研究對象，在考察漢語特指反問句的基礎上，與日語特指反問句進行了共時的平行對比研究。根據認知語言學，"事實、認知、語言"三個層面囊括了人類認知的所有對象。我們以此為依據，從三個層面對應的"行、知、言"三域視角對特指反問句做出了清晰且行之有效的分類，實現對該範疇的覆蓋性考察。語法方面，我們通過大量的語料收集，按疑問詞的不同分別將漢日特指反問句進行歸納，確定各自的規約形式，並結合三域理論，總結出行域、知域和言域各自的常用結構，為下文在語用認知層面上的考察打下基礎。此考察中發現，漢日特指反問句存在因疑問詞的虛化程度（grammaticalization）不同，語義蘊含差異而呈現出結構差異及使用範圍的不同。語用方面，我們認為反問的發生必須具備反問環境，包括主觀層面的"固有認知"、"認知與現實產生不一致"及"說話人由此產生否定意圖"，客觀層面的"場合制約因素"，在此基礎上通過間接語用策略實現反問。漢日特指反問句的差異主要體現在場合制約因素及語用功能層面。在場合制約因素方面，漢語受到的限制沒有日語那麼嚴格，除了行域反問不適用於職場上的下對上之外，基本可用於多種關係的交際者之間。而日語基本上在平等關係的交際者之間使用。S>H交際者之間，除了行域反問適用之外，知域反問及言域反問均比較少見。S<H交際者之間則除了個別言域反問之外，未見其他兩類反問。功能方面，漢日行域反問皆可用於責怪、勸阻、埋怨、催促、嘲諷等場合；知域反問皆可用於反駁、責怪和辯解，但漢語還可用於引起話題、自謙和附和等場合；言域反問都常用於反駁和責怪，漢語同時可用於自我辯解，多數用於上對下（S>H）及下對上（S局部->目標域"為主，"局部->目標域"及"（整體）->局部->目標域"為輔，日語則以"局部->目標域為"主，"局部->局部->目標域"為輔，"（整體）->局部->目標域"的現象只占極少數；知域方面，漢語的認知路徑為："局部->目標域"為主，"整體->局部->目標域"為輔，日語則前者略多於後者；言域方面，漢語的識解路徑為："局部->目標域"為主，"整體->局部->目標域"為輔，日語則前者略多於後者。本論文首次對特指反問句的範疇內分類做出了清晰的界定，使特指反問句的範疇化變得明朗可及，進一步對特指反問句做出了全面覆蓋性的考察，對漢日特指反問句的異同做出了充分的解釋，體現了認知模型理論、參照點理論在動態語言分析中的強大解釋力。.
520 $a This paper has conducted a comparison of rhetorical WH questions between Chinese and Japanese. For a comprehensive analysis, we focused on three domains, content, epistemic, and speech-act, from three aspects, grammar, pragmatics, and cognition, and found that there are significant differences. Rhetorical WH questions is a form of frequently used expression in communication and an important way to communicate emotions. However, the usage of rhetorical WH question varies significantly across languages and is particularly worth investigation. Motivated by that, this paper makes a synchronic parallel comparison of the usage of rhetorical WH questions between Chinese and Japanese.According to cognitive linguistics, the three levels of objective fact, cognition and language cover all the objects of human cognition. Based on that, we classified rhetorical WH questions from the three domains, content, epistemic, and speech-act. On grammar, we classified rhetorical WH questions into different categories and identified the typical forms in both Chinese and Japanese based on a large set of corpora we collected, and then we compared the differences. It is found that the two languages differ in the degree of grammaticalization and semantic implication, which thus resulted in differences in the structure and application context of rhetorical WH questions.On pragmatics, we believe that the occurrence of rhetorical WH questions requires an application context and certain pragmatic strategies to achieve the rhetorical questioning purpose. In general, the former requires three indispensable elements, inherent cognition, inconsistency between cognition and reality, and negation intention. These elements, together with the restriction of situational factors, result in indirect strategies to make rhetorical WH questions. In this process, the two languages exhibit significant differences in situational constraints and pragmatic functions of rhetorical WH questions.On cognition, we focused on the process of the listeners' interpretation. We applied cognitive model theory, reference point theory and relevance theory and found that the main difference lies in the mental path.This research, for the first time, provided a clear classification of rhetorical WH questioning and conducted a comprehensive comparison between Chinese and Chinese. This research suggests that the content-epistemic-speech-act domain perspective is an effective way to investigate and explain differences in language usage. Our research also shows that cognitive model theory and reference point theory can provide powerful explanations in language analysis.
590 $a School code: 1382.
650 4 $a Linguistics. $3 524476
650 4 $a Rhetoric. $3 516647
653 $a Communicate emotions
653 $a Semantic implication
653 $a Pragmatic functions
653 $a Grammaticalization
653 $a Mental path
690 $a 0290
690 $a 0681
710 2 $a University of Macau. $b Chinese Language and Literature. $3 3543670
773 0 $t Dissertations Abstracts International $g 84-12A.
790 $a 1382
791 $a Ph.D.
792 $a 2022
793 $a Chinese
856 4 0 $u http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=30529958