發(fā)布時間：2024-06-13 23:14

　　打斷作為一種語言現(xiàn)象及社會行為被語言學(xué)家,社會學(xué)家和人類學(xué)家廣泛研究。在機(jī)構(gòu)話語和非機(jī)構(gòu)話語中,打斷現(xiàn)象通常被認(rèn)作是一種不禮貌的社會行為,容易引起沖突,然而打斷有時會在會話中提供語言支持,并在會話中扮演重要角色.因此,誘發(fā)打斷產(chǎn)生的根本原因,執(zhí)行打斷的策略以及打斷的功能非常值得探討。本研究以60次法律咨詢現(xiàn)場直播節(jié)目中自然發(fā)生的對話錄音為語料,采用會話分析(CA)的研究方法,重點(diǎn)探究專業(yè)法律服務(wù)人員和咨詢者之間的互動,并對會話中打斷的原因,策略和功能進(jìn)行了深入探討。我們發(fā)現(xiàn),當(dāng)咨詢者的陳述有重復(fù)、混亂以及不相關(guān)等特征時,往往會出現(xiàn)打斷;當(dāng)不相關(guān)性陳述出現(xiàn)時,打斷出現(xiàn)的頻率較高。律師同咨詢者間知識域的不對稱性則導(dǎo)致了不同的打斷策略。在法律領(lǐng)域認(rèn)知立場較高的律師習(xí)慣使用直接否定的策略執(zhí)行打斷.本研究發(fā)現(xiàn),若打斷策略直接,則打斷的主要功能是獲取信息、引領(lǐng)會話及進(jìn)行調(diào)解;若打斷策略迂冋,則打斷主要服務(wù)于解釋會話及核實信息準(zhǔn)確性等目的。其中為獲取信息執(zhí)行打斷的做法在法律咨詢熱線中最為常見。此外,本研究對打斷之后被打斷人的冋應(yīng)做了詳細(xì)探討。研究發(fā)現(xiàn)以律師為代表的專業(yè)人士被打斷后會做出非合作性冋應(yīng),...

【文章頁數(shù)】：121 頁

【學(xué)位級別】：碩士

【文章目錄】：
Abstract
摘要
Chapter One Introduction
    1.1 Background of the Study
    1.2 Objectives of the Study
    1.3 Significance of the Study
    1.4 Organization of the Thesis
Chapter Two Literature Review
    2.1 Introduction
    2.2 Conversation Analysis
    2.3 Institutional Talk
    2.4 Previous Studies of Interruption in the Field of CA
        2.4.1 General Studies of Interruption in the Field of CA
        2.4.2 Interruptions in Ordinary Talks
        2.4.3 Interruption in Institutional Talks
    2.5 Previous Studies of Interruption in Helplines
    2.6 Research Gaps
    2.7 Summary
Chapter Three Theoretical Underpinnings
    3.1 Introduction
    3.2 The Interaction Order
    3.3 Epistemics
    3.4 Summary
Chapter Four Methodology
    4.1 Introduction
    4.2 Research Questions
    4.3 Research Method
    4.4 Data Source and Data Collection
    4.5 Summary
Chapter Five Initiation of Interruption in Law Consultation Helpline
    5.1 Introduction
    5.2 Initiators of Interruption in Law Consultation Helpline
        5.2.1 Repetition-initiated Interruption
        5.2.2 Illogical Formulation-initiated Interruption
        5.2.3 Disagreement-initiated Interruption
        5.2.4 Irrelevance-Initiated Interruption
    5.3 Distribution of the Initiators in Law Consultation Helpline
    5.4 Summary
Chapter Six The Strategies and Functions of Interruption in Law ConsultationHelpline
    6.1 Introduction
    6.2 The Strategies of Interruption in Law Consultation Helpline
        6.2.1 Three Interruption Strategies in Law Consultation Helpline
        6.2.2 The Distribution of Interruption Strategies in Law Consultation Helpline
    6.3 Interruption by Direct Negation
        6.3.1 Interruption for Information
        6.3.2 Interruption for Leading the Conversation
        6.3.3 Interruption for Mediation
    6.4 Interruption through Indirect Negation
        6.4.1 Interruption for Introducing a New Topic
        6.4.2 Interruption for Explanation
    6.5 Interruption by Partial Agreement
        6.5.1 Interruption for Confirmation
        6.5.2 Interruption for Clarification
    6.6 Summary
Chapter Seven Responses to Interruption in Law Consultation Helpline
    7.1 Introduction
    7.2 Cooperative Responses as Post-interruption
        7.2.1 Giving Direct Information after Being Interrupted
        7.2.2 Giving Agreement Tokens after Being Interrupted
        7.2.3 Continuer as a Response to Interruption
    7.3 Uncooperative Response after Interruption
        7.3.1 Constructing Authority after Being Interrupted
        7.3.2 Negation after Being Interrupted
    7.4 Summary
Chapter Eight An Epistemic Interpretation of Interruption in Law ConsultationHelpline
    8.1 Introduction
    8.2 Epistemic Access and Interruption
        8.2.1 Epistemic Status and Interruption
        8.2.2 Epistemic Stance and Interruption
    8.3 Epistemic Primacy and Interruption
    8.4 Episteemic Responsibility and Interruption
    8.5 Summary
Chapter Nine Conclusion
    9.1 Major Findings
    9.2 Implications
    9.3 Limitations and Suggestion for Future Research
References
Acknowledgments
Appendix Ⅰ The Transcription Symbols
Appendix Ⅱ Example Transcripts of Law-consultation Radio Live Program
學(xué)位論文評閱及答辯情況表



本文編號：3993794