英语缓冲语的语用发展

作者简介

《英语缓冲语的语用发展》以发展语用学（Developmental Pragmatics）为基本理论框架，对英语缓冲语（hedging）的语用发展做了较为全面细致的论述与研究。国际上，发展语用学的研究基本上都是以言语行为（speechacts）和语篇能力（discourseability）为研究对象，而本书则深入到缓冲语的语用能力（即对言语行为和语篇的修饰能力）发展研究，为发展语用学和语际语用学（Interlanguage Pragmatics）拓宽了研究领域。

书籍目录

ContentsAcknowledgements前言AbstractChapter 1 Introduction1.1 Interlanguage Pragmatic Development1.2 Hedging in ILP Development1.3 Plan of the BookChapter 2 Interlanguage Pragmatic Development:Review and Methodology2.1 Reviewing L2 Pragmatic Development2.1.1 Development of L2 Discourse Ability2.1.2 Development of L2 Speech-Act Ability2.2 Methodological Issues with ILP Developmental Studies2.2.1 Corpus Approach to ILP Development2.2.2 Emergence Pattern as Indicator of Development2.3 Chapter SummaryChapter 3 An Overview of Hedging Studies in the Literature3.1 Development of the Concept of Hedging3.2 Studies of Hedges in Academic Writing3.3 Studies of Hedges in Spoken Discourse3.4 Studies on Hedge Comprehension3.5 Studies on L2 Learners' Hedges3.6 Taxonomy of Hedges in the LiteratureChapter 4 Theoretical Framework for the Study4.1 Grammatical,Pragmatic and Semantic Properties of Hedges4.2 Establishing Hedging Categories for the Study4.2.1 Modal Hedges4.2.2 Mental Hedges and Performative Hedges4.2.3 Pragmatic-Marker Hedges4.2.4 Quantificational Hedges4.2.5 Section Summary4.3 Criteria and Guidelines for Hedge IdentificationChapter 5 Research Design and Data Collection5.1 Research Questions5.2 Participants in the Study5.3 Instruments for Data Collection5.3.1 Rationale for Instrument Making5.3.2 Instrument Design and Piloting5.4 Data CollectionChapter 6 Data Analyses6.1 Data Coding6.2 Hedge Categories Emerging from the Data6.3 Hedge Identification and Related Problems6.3.1 Analyzing Modal Shields6.3.2 Analyzing Quantificational Approximators and NI Approximators6.3.3 Analyzing Performative Shields6.3.4 Analyzing Pragmatic-Marker HedgesChapter 7 Results7.1 Development in Quantificational Approximators7.1.1 Quantificational Approximators at JH Level7.1.2 Quantificational Approximators at SH Level7.1.3 Quantificational Approximators at UN Level7.1.4 Comparing Quantificational Approximators across Three Levels7.2 Development in""Negation+Intensifier""Approximators7.2.1 NI Approximators at JH Level7.2.2 NI Approximators at SH Level7.2.3 NI Approximators at UN Level7.2.4 Comparing NI Approximators across Three Levels7.3 Development in Performative Shields7.3.1 Performative Shields at JH Level7.3.2 Performative Shields at SH Level7.3.3 Performative Shields at UN Level7.3.4 Comparing Performative Shields across Three Levels7.4 Development in Modal Shields7.4.1 Modal Shields at JH Level7.4.2 Modal Shields at SH Level7.4.3 Modal Shields at UN Level7.4.4 Comparing Modal Shields across Three Levels7.5 Development in Pragmatic-Marker Hedges7.5.1 PM Hedges at JH Level7.5.2 PM Hedges at SH Level7.5.3 PM Hedges at UN Level7.5.4 Comparing PM Hedges across Three Levels7.6 Summarizing Major Hedge Categories7.6.1 Summarizing Types,Tokens,and Rates7.6.2 Type-Token Ratios and Most Frequent Hedges7.6.3 Summarizing Differences between Data Genres7.7 Hedge Combinations and Hedging EffectChapter 8 Discussion8.1 Results of This Study Compared to Findings of Previous Studies8.2 Methodological Effects8.3 Limitations and Suggestions for Future StudiesChapter 9 ConclusionReferencesAppendix 1 Written QuestionnaireAppendix 2 Plan for Oral InterviewAppendix 3 Data Samples:Written DataAppendix 4 Data Samples:Interview DataAppendix 5 Data Samples:Debate DataList of Tables2-1 Proposed developmental sequence in alignment expressions for JEL learners2-2 Five stages of L2 request development3-1 Test results for the meaning of about and around3-2 Hedging functions and principal realization devices3-3 Ransom's option chart4-1 Grammatical categories of hedging4-2 Inventory of pragmatic markers received scholarly attention4-3 Comparing three hedging strategies5-1 Participants in the study5-2 Descriptive statistics for the""total score""of PETS test5-3 One-way ANOVA for the""total score""of PETS test5-4 The most frequently suggested controversial topics5-5 Data and hedge counts in the pilot studies5-6 Written data used for analysis5-7 Interview data5-8 Debate data5-9 Summary of three genres of data6-1 Categories and semantic components established for modal auxiliaries6-2 Relationship between modality and hedging7-1 Quantificational approximators by JH students7-2 Quantificational approximators by SH students7-3a Quantificational approximators by UN students:quantity7-3b Quantificational approximators by UN students:frequency7-3c Quantificational approximators by UN students:degree7-3d Quantificational approximators by UN students:summary7-4a Comparing quantificational approximators across three levels(a)7-4b Comparing quantificational approximators across three levels(b)7-5 NI approximators by JH students7-6 NI approximators by SH students7-7 NI approximators by UN students7-8 Comparing NI approximators across three proficiency levels7-9 Performative shields by JH students7-10 Performative shields by SH students7-11 Performative shields by UN students7-12 Comparing performative shields across the three levels7-13 Modal shields by JH students7-14 Modal shields by SH students7-15a Modal shields by UN students:modal auxiliaries7-15b Modal shields by UN students:modal adv.,adj.& n.7-15c Modal shields by UN students:summary7-16 Comparing modal shields across three proficiency levels7-17 PM hedges by JH students7-18 PM hedges by SH students7-19a PM hedges by UN students:interpersonal7-19b PM hedges by UN students:propositional7-19b PM hedges by UN students:propositional(continued)7-19b PM hedges by UN students:propositional(continued)7-19c PM hedges by UN students:summary7-20 Comparing PM hedges across three proficiency levels7-21 Summary of hedges in five major categories7-22 Summary of hedge types7-23 Summary of hedge tokens7-24 Type-Token ratios7-25 Most frequent hedges for the three levels7-26 Comparing written,interview and debate genres at JH level7-27 Comparing written,interview and debate genres at SH level7-28 Comparing written,interview and debate genres at UN levelList of Figures3-1 Categorization of scientific hedges7-1 Comparing""I think""and other performative shields across levels7-2 Comparing rates of performative shields across three levels7-3 Top five modal shields by JH students7-4 Top five modal shields by SH students7-5 Top five modal shields by UN students7-6 Comparing hedge types across three proficiency levels7-7 Comparing rates of hedge types across three proficiency levels7-8 Comparing hedge tokens across three proficiency levels7-9 Comparing rates of hedge tokens across three proficiency levels7-10 Comparing written,interview and debate geners at JH level7-11 Comparing written,interview and debate genres at SH level7-12 Comparing written,interview and debate genres at UN level

章节摘录

　　However， according to Nuyts， the situation is different with modal adjectives： they do systematically involve an additional evidential meaning. Nuyts （2001， p. 66） observes that "This evidential meaning is probably not due to the adjective as such， but rather to the syntax which it brings along." The standard syntactic form of modal adjectives is the "it is probable that" type， and its evidentiality "is obviously due to the impersonal nature of this construchon， as well as to the suggestion inherent in the use of the copula that the modal qualification is a property of the stage of affairs proper" （p. 66）. But Nuyts also warns （2001， p. 68） that expressions with modal adjectives do not always indicate evidenhality， particularly when they are in different variations of the standard syntactic pattem. Nuyts compares the double-negation construction like "It is not improbable that they have run out of fuel" with its counterpart without negation "It is probable that they have run out of fuel"， and concludes that the former clearly suggests a higher degree of subjechvity than the latter， hence more epistemic than evidential.　　In general， then， the majority of modals do not inherently express evidentiality as an additional qualificational category. The occasional evidentiality of modal verbs and adverbs are contextualized， and such contexts are most Likely to be found in saentific writing. Similarly， the evidenhality of modal adjectives is conditioned by their impersonal syrntactic structure. It is in these speaally conditioned occasions that evidential modals can acquire a hedging flavor. Otherwise， there is a tendency that the more evidential a modal expression is the less it is possible to be invoked as a hedge. Therefore， the modals' ability to hedge is mostly due to their epistemic reading， and sometimes due to their deontic and dynamic reading， but rarely due to their evidential reading.　　……

图书封面

---

 英语缓冲语的语用发展下载

---