中英政治演講之語步及互動標記對比分析

Abstract

本研究目的在於分析並比較中文與英文政治演講的語步結構（move structure）以及互動標記（interactional markers），試圖為中文為第二語言教學者和學習者擬訂一個正式中文演講的語步與互動標記模組，並與正式英文演講比較，探討兩種語言在使用正式口說語言時的幾種語用特徵以及相異之處。本研究的語料來自過去6年聯合國大會一般性辯論裡中國及美國代表所發表的演說，一共超過6個小時的演講內容。 在語步方面，筆者先將每篇演講分為5個語步（緒論、內文一、二、三、結論），接著分析每個語步下的各種策略，發現中英文演講中總使用17種不同策略，包括中文政治演講的4種必選策略以及另外9種可選策略，相對英文演講中的5種必選策略以及12種可選策略。英文演講中策略出現的數量比中文多，而中英文演講中使用最多不同策略的語步都是緒論及結論。 在互動標記方面，筆者分析演講中的5種互動式標記，包括「模糊標記」、「強調標記」、「示證標記」、「態度標記」與「參與標記」，發現中英文演講使用標記的方式也不同。英文演講中最常出現的標記為「評論標記」，而中文演講中最常出現的為「態度標記」。本文擬訂一份中英文標記用詞對照表，以呈現中英文之間對應的互動式標記。本文也將語步資料與互動標記資料結合進行交叉分析，分析中英文演講語料中6種常見的策略的互動標記分佈。這6種策略包含「呼籲行動」、「國際議題闡述」、「強調國家的貢獻」、「呼籲普世價值觀」、「一般性問題談論」以及「問候」 。於「呼籲行動」、「國際議題闡述」、「呼籲普世價值觀」及「一般性問題談論」策略中，中文演講最常使用的標記為「態度標記」。反而在「問候」策略中，中文演講最常使用的標記為「參與標記」；於「強調國家的貢獻」策略中，「強調標記」、「態度標記」與「參與標記」都用的相對均衡。相對的，英文無論哪種策略，語料中最常使用的標記為「參與標記」。接著，中文演講大部分策略中的「強調標記」用得比「模糊標記」多；英文大部分策略反而用得相對均衡。只有「呼籲行動」為例外－不管中文或英文，「模糊標記」都用得比「強調標記」多兩倍。 本文的研究結果在某些方面與過去文獻的研究結果大約相同，例如演講內容分段為5個語步，以及互動式標記一般在中英文演講中的分布。另外方面，本文提供的研究結果也包含幾個相對獨特的貢獻，尤其其歸納的17種不同政治演講策略，以及每種互動式標記於這些策略中的分布。 最後，筆者將上述的研究結果運用來做成一份教學範例，並提出教學重點以及教學流程建議。筆者希望本論文能對日後的語用學研究有所幫助，也希望在教學方面能夠幫助教學者和學習者瞭解中文與英文演講的重要語用差別。This thesis analyzes move structure and utilization of interactional markers in Chinese and English-language political speech, with the goal of providing a comparative Chinese-English move and interactional strategy models for use by Chinese as a Second Language learners and educators. The study uses a series of speeches given by Chinese and American representatives at the United Nations General Assembly General Debate between 2012 and 2017 as its target of analysis, which the author uses to discuss similarities and differences in formal spoken language conventions for the two languages. In the move analysis section, the author first separates each speech into 5 moves, including the introduction, body 1, 2, 3, and conclusion, further breaking each move down into different strategies. By this method, the author deduces 17 different strategies, including 4 required and 9 optional strategies in the Chinese speeches, and 5 required and 12 optional strategies in the English speeches. Strategy variety occurs at a higher rate in the English speeches, with the majority of unique strategies appearing in the introduction and conclusion moves of speeches in both languages. In the interactional markers section, the author is concerned with 5 interactive metadiscourse markers, including hedges, boosters, attributors, attitude markers, and commentary markers. In English speeches, the most commonly used marker is the commentary markers, while in Chinese it is the attitude marker. The author includes also in this section a vocabulary chart presenting common interactive markers for Chinese and English. Finally, the author conducts a cross-analysis using data from the move and interactional strategies sections, looking at interactive marker distribution in 6 strategies commonly appearing across the Chinese and English speeches, including Call to Arms, Emphasizing Nation’s Contributions, Discussion of General Issues, Exposition on International Issues, and Revisiting of a Historical Event, and Greeting. In general, the most common markers in Chinese speech regardless of strategy are Attitudinal markers, while in English it is Commentary markers, with the exception of the Greeting strategy, for which Chinese also uses Commentary markers at the greatest rate, and Emphasis on Nation’s Contributions, in which Chinese speeches use Boosters, Attitudinal markers, and Commentary markers at approximately the same rate. Furthermore, strategies in Chinese speeches tend to employ significantly more boosters than hedges, while English speeches lean towards a balance of the two, with the exception of the Call to Arms strategy, in which both Chinese and English speeches employ hedges at at least double the number of boosters. The results of this research are similar in certain ways to previous research, for example in the separation of speeches into 5 moves and in the general distribution of interactional markers in Chinese and English speeches. However, the results also include several unique points, notably the identification of strategies in political speech, as well as the distribution of interactional markers within these strategies. The thesis finishes with a pedagogical application of the research results, including an example lesson plan with explanation of important points and suggested teaching order. The author hopes that this thesis may be of assistance to later research on Chinese and English pragmatics, as well as provide for a better understanding of the differences between Chinese and English political speech for students and teachers of the two languages.