A discourse-pragmatic functional study of Chinese epistemic markers haoxiang “seem” and keneng “probably”

IF 0.1 4区 文学 0 LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS International Journal of Chinese Linguistics Pub Date : 2022-12-06 DOI:10.1075/ijchl.20014.wan
Yan Wang
{"title":"A discourse-pragmatic functional study of Chinese epistemic markers haoxiang “seem” and\n keneng “probably”","authors":"Yan Wang","doi":"10.1075/ijchl.20014.wan","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n This study investigates the discourse-pragmatic functions of the epistemic markers haoxiang\n “seem” and keneng “probably” in natural conversations of Mandarin Chinese. By examining 107 cases of\n haoxiang and 152 cases of keneng in sequential contexts, it demonstrates that both\n haoxiang and keneng are hedge expressions showing the speaker’s attitude of lack of\n commitment to the truthfulness of their own utterance, which is often driven by an intersubjective motivation.\n As epistemic markers, haoxiang tends to mitigate informational certainty that is based on the\n speaker’s personal but vague experience, while keneng is often used to mitigate the assertiveness of the\n speaker’s personal speculation deduced from background knowledge, general knowledge or commonly accepted logic.\n Further, this study claims that both haoxiang and keneng often serve as\n politeness devices to mitigate various Face Threatening Acts (FTAs) such as disconfirmation, disagreement or negative assessment.\n In either case, haoxiang and keneng are not merely epistemic markers revealing the speaker’s\n subjective uncertainty, but also serve as politeness markers for the purpose of intersubjectivity, and their multiple\n discourse-pragmatic usages are rooted in their semantic meanings, respectively.","PeriodicalId":41020,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Chinese Linguistics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Chinese Linguistics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1075/ijchl.20014.wan","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study investigates the discourse-pragmatic functions of the epistemic markers haoxiang “seem” and keneng “probably” in natural conversations of Mandarin Chinese. By examining 107 cases of haoxiang and 152 cases of keneng in sequential contexts, it demonstrates that both haoxiang and keneng are hedge expressions showing the speaker’s attitude of lack of commitment to the truthfulness of their own utterance, which is often driven by an intersubjective motivation. As epistemic markers, haoxiang tends to mitigate informational certainty that is based on the speaker’s personal but vague experience, while keneng is often used to mitigate the assertiveness of the speaker’s personal speculation deduced from background knowledge, general knowledge or commonly accepted logic. Further, this study claims that both haoxiang and keneng often serve as politeness devices to mitigate various Face Threatening Acts (FTAs) such as disconfirmation, disagreement or negative assessment. In either case, haoxiang and keneng are not merely epistemic markers revealing the speaker’s subjective uncertainty, but also serve as politeness markers for the purpose of intersubjectivity, and their multiple discourse-pragmatic usages are rooted in their semantic meanings, respectively.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
汉语认识标记郝翔“似乎”和可能“可能”的语篇语用功能研究
摘要本研究探讨了普通话自然会话中认识标记“似乎”和“可能”的语用功能。通过对顺序语境中107个“好香”和152个“可能”的分析,我们发现“好香”和“可能”都是一种模糊表达,表现出说话人对自己话语的真实性缺乏承诺的态度,这种态度往往是由主体间动机驱动的。作为认知标记,“好象”倾向于减轻基于说话人个人模糊经验的信息确定性,而“可能”则常用于减轻说话人从背景知识、一般知识或公认逻辑中推断出的个人推测的自信。此外,本研究还发现,“好香”和“可能”都是缓解不确认、不同意或负面评价等各种“面子威胁行为”的礼貌手段。在这两种情况下,“好香”和“可能”不仅是揭示说话人主观不确定性的认知标记,而且是主体间性目的的礼貌标记,它们的多种语用用法都植根于它们各自的语义意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
6
期刊最新文献
Problems with universal metrics 形容词并列短语对其关联词的选择 The ho-V construction in Taiwanese Southern Min and the degree-introducing morpheme ho and u Review of Cai (2022): Teaching and Researching Chinese Second Language Listening 同源異形漢字考六則
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1