{"title":"汉语话语标记词 \"zhege \"和 \"nage \"的变异语用学:地区和性别的影响","authors":"Jing Zhang","doi":"10.1016/j.pragma.2024.07.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Discourse markers are critical for maintaining discourse coherence. This study investigated the regional and gender variations of discourse markers <em>zhege</em> and <em>nage</em> in spoken Chinese. In this study, the interactive conversations were collected from native Chinese speakers in Taiwan and Chinese mainland, including 36 males and 50 females in each group. Regarding the influence of region, both groups used a higher number of <em>nage</em> than <em>zhege</em>. And they used <em>zhege</em> and <em>nage</em> in similar conversational situations (i.e., <em>zhege</em> was more often used as resumptive opener than <em>nage</em>, while <em>nage</em> was more frequently used as pause filler than <em>zhege</em>). However, the significant differences in the frequency of <em>zhege</em> and the preference of ‘only use <em>zhege</em>’ were observed between the two groups. Regarding the impact of gender, there existed significant differences in the frequency of <em>zhege</em> and the preference of ‘only use <em>nage</em>’ between Mainland males and females. Also, these differences were found between Mainland and Taiwanese males. By contrast, Taiwanese males and females used <em>zhege</em> and <em>nage</em> in similar ways, as do Mainland and Taiwanese females. It means that region is a more influential factor than gender on the use of <em>zhege</em> and <em>nage</em>.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":16899,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Pragmatics","volume":"230 ","pages":"Pages 76-88"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Variational pragmatics in Chinese discourse markers zhege and nage: The influence of region and gender\",\"authors\":\"Jing Zhang\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.pragma.2024.07.001\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Discourse markers are critical for maintaining discourse coherence. This study investigated the regional and gender variations of discourse markers <em>zhege</em> and <em>nage</em> in spoken Chinese. In this study, the interactive conversations were collected from native Chinese speakers in Taiwan and Chinese mainland, including 36 males and 50 females in each group. Regarding the influence of region, both groups used a higher number of <em>nage</em> than <em>zhege</em>. And they used <em>zhege</em> and <em>nage</em> in similar conversational situations (i.e., <em>zhege</em> was more often used as resumptive opener than <em>nage</em>, while <em>nage</em> was more frequently used as pause filler than <em>zhege</em>). However, the significant differences in the frequency of <em>zhege</em> and the preference of ‘only use <em>zhege</em>’ were observed between the two groups. Regarding the impact of gender, there existed significant differences in the frequency of <em>zhege</em> and the preference of ‘only use <em>nage</em>’ between Mainland males and females. Also, these differences were found between Mainland and Taiwanese males. By contrast, Taiwanese males and females used <em>zhege</em> and <em>nage</em> in similar ways, as do Mainland and Taiwanese females. It means that region is a more influential factor than gender on the use of <em>zhege</em> and <em>nage</em>.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16899,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Pragmatics\",\"volume\":\"230 \",\"pages\":\"Pages 76-88\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Pragmatics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378216624001267\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Pragmatics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378216624001267","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Variational pragmatics in Chinese discourse markers zhege and nage: The influence of region and gender
Discourse markers are critical for maintaining discourse coherence. This study investigated the regional and gender variations of discourse markers zhege and nage in spoken Chinese. In this study, the interactive conversations were collected from native Chinese speakers in Taiwan and Chinese mainland, including 36 males and 50 females in each group. Regarding the influence of region, both groups used a higher number of nage than zhege. And they used zhege and nage in similar conversational situations (i.e., zhege was more often used as resumptive opener than nage, while nage was more frequently used as pause filler than zhege). However, the significant differences in the frequency of zhege and the preference of ‘only use zhege’ were observed between the two groups. Regarding the impact of gender, there existed significant differences in the frequency of zhege and the preference of ‘only use nage’ between Mainland males and females. Also, these differences were found between Mainland and Taiwanese males. By contrast, Taiwanese males and females used zhege and nage in similar ways, as do Mainland and Taiwanese females. It means that region is a more influential factor than gender on the use of zhege and nage.
期刊介绍:
Since 1977, the Journal of Pragmatics has provided a forum for bringing together a wide range of research in pragmatics, including cognitive pragmatics, corpus pragmatics, experimental pragmatics, historical pragmatics, interpersonal pragmatics, multimodal pragmatics, sociopragmatics, theoretical pragmatics and related fields. Our aim is to publish innovative pragmatic scholarship from all perspectives, which contributes to theories of how speakers produce and interpret language in different contexts drawing on attested data from a wide range of languages/cultures in different parts of the world. The Journal of Pragmatics also encourages work that uses attested language data to explore the relationship between pragmatics and neighbouring research areas such as semantics, discourse analysis, conversation analysis and ethnomethodology, interactional linguistics, sociolinguistics, linguistic anthropology, media studies, psychology, sociology, and the philosophy of language. Alongside full-length articles, discussion notes and book reviews, the journal welcomes proposals for high quality special issues in all areas of pragmatics which make a significant contribution to a topical or developing area at the cutting-edge of research.