UNIVERSITY of CALIFORNIA Los Angeles Prosody and Functions of Discourse Markers in Mandarin Chinese Conversation
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Los Angeles Prosody and Functions of Discourse Markers in Mandarin Chinese Conversation: The Cases of Ranhou, Wo Juede, and Meiyou A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in Asian Languages and Cultures by Wei Wang 2017 © Copyright by Wei Wang 2017 ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION Prosody and Functions of Discourse Markers in Mandarin Chinese Conversation: The Cases of Ranhou, Wo Juede, and Meiyou by Wei Wang Doctor of Philosophy in Asian Languages and Cultures University of California, Los Angeles, 2017 Professor Hongyin Tao, Chair This study investigates Mandarin discourse markers from both functional and prosodic perspectives. Discourse markers are defined as sequentially dependent elements which bracket units of talk (Schiffrin 1987). In this study, I focus on three discourse markers, ranhou ‘then’, wo juede ‘I think/feel’, and meiyou ‘no, not’. Using video-taped everyday conversation, I examine their functional categories and prosodic features, including duration, pitch range, and stress. My qualitative and quantitative analyses show that, first, the discourse functions of these markers are prosodically stronger than their lexical functions. Newly developed discourse functions, such as the topic-shifting function of ranhou and floor-claiming function of meiyou, take on a special prosodic design that distinguishes them from other functions. ii Second, different prosodic features can have distinct functional and interactional relevance and thus prosody should not be treated as a unitary dimension in conversation. Discourse markers can have incongruent prosodic features, with one prosodic dimension strong and other dimension(s) weak. The ostensible ‘inconsistency’ is in fact designed so as to fulfil particular interactional needs. Lastly, given the prosodic difference between lexical and discourse functions discussed, this study supports the view that the development of discourse markers should be considered an independent diachronic process, i.e. pragmaticalization, rather than a subtype of grammaticalization. Additionally, the present study has methodological contributions in that it has demonstrated the feasibility of integrating a quantitative approach and statistical tests into the study of discourse markers, which are traditionally studied qualitatively. As a complement to the qualitative approach, quantitative methods are able to provide a more objective angle to evaluate the relationships between prosody and function. iii The dissertation of Wei Wang is approved. Shoichi Iwasaki Sung-Ock Sohn Steve Clayman Hongyin Tao, Committee Chair University of California, Los Angeles 2017 iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Overview 1 1.2 Literature review 3 1.2.1 Previous studies on discourse markers 4 1.2.2 Previous studies on prosody in interaction 7 1.2.3 Interim summary 12 1.3 Theoretical orientation 13 1.4 Organization 16 Chapter 2 Data and Methodology 18 2.1 Data 18 2.2 Transcription conventions 20 2.3 Methodology 21 2.4 Definition of terminologies 24 2.4.1 Discourse marker 24 2.4.2 Utterance, clause, and intonation unit 25 2.4.3 Lexical function and discourse function 26 Chapter 3 The prosody and functions of ranhou 27 3.1 Introduction 27 3.2 Data and methods 31 3.3 Functional analysis on ranhou 32 3.3.1 Temporal function 33 3.3.2 Consequential function 36 3.3.3 Additive function 43 3.3.4 Topic-shifting function 48 3.3.5 Interim summary 56 3.4 Prosodic analysis 60 3.4.1 Duration 62 3.4.2 Pitch range 64 3.4.3 Stress 68 v 3.4.4 Prosodic phrasing 71 3.4.5 Interim summary 73 3.5 Discussion 74 3.5.1 Function and turn position 74 3.5.2 Ranhou and list construction 88 3.6 Conclusion 92 Chapter 4 The prosody and functions of wo juede 93 4.1 Introduction 94 4.2 Data 97 4.3 Functional analysis 99 4.3.1 Evaluation in the subjective domain 100 4.3.2 Evaluation in the objective domain 107 4.3.3 Evaluations with an intersubjective orientation 116 4.3.4 Story initiation 120 4.4 Prosodic analysis 138 4.4.1 Prosodic features 139 4.4.2 Congruent and incongruent prosodic features 147 4.5 Discussion 157 4.5.1 Prosody and syntactic forms 157 4.5.2 Prosody and epistemic stance 158 4.5.3 Prosody and the newly emerging discourse function 163 4.5.4 The emerging function of Story initiation 165 4.6 Conclusion 184 Chapter 5 The prosody and functions of meiyou 186 5.1 Introduction 186 5.2 Data 191 5.3 Functional analysis 193 5.3.1 Lexical function 194 5.3.2 Discourse functions 197 5.3.3 Interim summary 220 5.4 Prosodic analysis 223 vi 5.4.1 Duration 224 5.4.2 Pitch range 226 5.4.3 Stress 227 5.4.4 Interim summary 230 5.5 Discussion 232 5.5.1 Prosody and preference structure 232 5.5.2 Prosody and floor entry 240 5.6 Conclusion 249 Chapter 6 Concluding remarks 253 6.1 Extended scope of discourse markers 254 6.2 Individual dimensions of prosody 255 6.3 Prosodic difference in lexical and discourse functions 259 6.4 Prosody in language change 261 References 267 vii LIST OF TABLES Table 2. 1 Summary of data 19 Table 2. 2 Stress levels in Pan-Mandarin ToBI 23 Table 3. 1 Distribution of the four functions of ranhou 58 Table 3. 2 Mean duration and standard deviation of ranhou 63 Table 3. 3 T-tests on the correlation between function and duration 63 Table 3. 4 One-way ANOVA test between turn position and duration 64 Table 3. 5 Mean duration and standard deviation of ranhou 65 Table 3. 6 T-tests on the correlation between function and pitch range 66 Table 3. 7 One-way ANOVA test between turn position and pitch range 66 Table 3. 8 Mean duration and standard deviation of turn-internal ranhou 67 Table 3. 9 Correlation between function and pitch range in turn-internal position 68 Table 3. 10 Stress levels in Pan-Mandarin ToBI 69 Table 3. 11 Word stress categories of ranhou based on syllable stress 70 Table 3. 12 Frequency and percentage of each stress type across four functions 71 Table 3. 13 Stress in relation to turn position 71 Table 3. 14 Distribution of prosodic phrasing types of ranhou 72 Table 3. 15 Prosodic phrasing in relation to turn position 73 Table 3. 16 Distribution of ranhou in turn initial, internal and final position 75 Table 4. 1 Information about data sources used in Chapter 4 97 Table 4. 2 Distribution of juede across subject types 98 Table 4. 3 Frequency and distribution of the five functions of wo juede 128 Table 4. 4 Functions of wo juede along the continuum of epistemic authority 131 Table 4. 5 Mean duration and standard deviation of wo juede across five functions 140 Table 4. 6 Mean duration and standard deviation of wo juede across three categories 141 Table 4. 7 Mean pitch range and standard deviation of wo juede across five functions 141 Table 4. 8 Mean pitch range and standard deviation of wo juede across three categories 142 Table 4. 9 Stress levels in Pan-Mandarin ToBI 143 Table 4. 10 Word stress categories of juede based on syllable stress 144 Table 4. 11 Frequency and percentage of each stress type across five functions 145 Table 4. 12 Frequency and percentage of stress types across three categories 145 Table 4. 13 Prosodic features of short forms and long forms of wo juede 158 Table 4. 14 Summary of prosodic features across five functions of wo juede 164 Table 4. 15 Location distribution of evaluations indexed by wo juede 166 Table 5. 1 Information on data sources used in Chapter 5 192 Table 5. 2 Negated constituent types: their frequency and percentage of the lexical meiyou 195 Table 5. 3 Subtypes of information-providing function 199 viii Table 5. 4 Tokens of clarification across adjacency pair types 206 Table 5. 5 Functional types of meiyou and their frequency and percentage 221 Table 5. 6 Functional types along the scale of negation 223 Table 5. 7 Mean duration of meiyou across lexical and discourse functions 224 Table 5. 8 Mean duration of meiyou across discourse functions 225 Table 5. 9 Mean duration of meiyou in subtypes of info-providing function 225 Table 5. 10 Pitch range of lexical function and discourse function 226 Table 5. 11 Pitch range of all discourse functions 227 Table 5. 12 Pitch range of subtypes of info-providing function 227 Table 5. 13 Stress labeling criteria based on Pan-Mandarin ToBI 228 Table 5. 14 Conversion from syllable stress to word stress 229 Table 5. 15 Frequency and percentage of three stress levels across functional types 230 Table 5. 16 Tokens of clarification across adjacency pair types 235 Table 5. 17 Prosodic features in relation to the sequential position of meiyou 246 Table 5. 18 Mean duration of meiyou across discourse functions 248 ix ABBREVIATIONS ADV adverb ASP aspect marker CL classifier COMP complement DM discourse marker EXL exclamation INJ interjection LOC localizer PN proper noun PT particle x ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank the following institutions and individuals for their support as I wrote this dissertation: My home department, the Department of Asian Languages and Cultures (ALC) at UCLA, has provided consistent financial support that has enabled me to complete my PhD program. I also thank the UCLA Center for Chinese Studies for providing me with Summer Research Fellowship, which allowed me to go on a field trip to China to collect my dissertation data. I feel most indebted to Dr.