English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 11 |  Items with full text/Total items : 89671/119468 (75%)
Visitors : 23927204      Online Users : 588
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
  • Adv. Search
    HomeLoginUploadHelpAboutAdminister Goto mobile version
    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/58745


    Title: 語言與手勢的觀點表現
    Representations of Viewpoints in Language and Gesture
    Authors: 謝培禹
    Hsieh, Pei Yu
    Contributors: 徐嘉慧
    Chui, Kawai
    謝培禹
    Hsieh, Pei Yu
    Keywords: 觀點
    手勢特徵
    手勢產製
    viewpoint
    gesture
    conversational discourse
    character viewpoint
    observer viewpoint
    speech-gesture coordination
    Date: 2012
    Issue Date: 2013-07-11 15:48:05 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 本文旨在探討在中文的日常生活對話當中,當說話者談論到他人過去事件時,語言與手勢的觀點表現。以McNeill曾經提到語言與手勢能夠共同表達觀點的說法作為根據,本研究也探討這些伴隨著語言的手勢是否和語言表達相同或者是不同的觀點。
    本研究的架構根據Koven(2002)的說話者角色理論(speaker role inhabitance)和McNeill(1992)提出的事件當中人物的觀點(character viewpoint)和旁觀者的觀點(observer viewpoint),定義了三中觀點—當下說話者觀點(speaker viewpoint)、事件當中人物觀點(character viewpoint)和旁觀者觀點(observer viewpoint)。而在手勢的分析上,本研究提出五個手勢特徵—手勢使用空間範圍,手勢使用單手或是雙手、手勢表達語意的stroke階段執行時間的長短、手勢stroke階段同一手部動作是否有重複的現象,以及手勢是否伴隨身體上其他的動作作為五個手勢觀點分析的關鍵指標。
    量化研究發現,說話者在生活對話當中描述他人過去事件使用搭配語言的手勢,在每一種觀點的分布和語言上的表現不同。事件當中人物觀點在語言上雖然鮮少被採用,在手勢上卻是最常被表達的觀點。相反的,儘管當下說話者觀點在語言上也常出現,手勢上卻很罕見。另外,旁觀者觀點則在語言上和手勢上的分布都很頻繁。針對同一事件語言與手勢共同表達觀點的量化研究則發現,百分之六十四點七的手勢表達了和語言不同的觀點。因此,本研究說明儘管語言和手勢可以合作表達觀點,手勢卻更常表達和伴隨語言不同的觀點。
    語言與手勢合作表達觀點的探討不僅說明語言與手勢如何互相協調組織要表達的訊息和觀點,更進一步引領我們去探討在人與人溝通時,語言與手勢展現的認知過程。本研究藉由兩個手勢產製的假說—the Lexical Semantics Hypothesis和the Interface Hypothesis,提供了針對本研究結果理論上的解釋。而每一個假說也都由相關的研究結果作為證據支持。另外,the Interface Hypothesis還可以針對語言與手勢在表達觀點時的分工現象提出合理的解釋。
    This thesis explores linguistic and gestural representations of viewpoints utilizing the descriptions of third-person past events within Chinese conversational discourse. Following McNeill’s idea that language and gesture are co-expressive in viewpoints, the present study also attempts to investigate whether speakers’ speech-accompanying gesture works in collaboration with language in expressing the same or different viewpoints.
    The framework of this study utilizes Koven’s (2002) framework of speaker role inhabitance and McNeill’s (1992) notion of character and observer viewpoint, and defines three viewpoints—speaker, character and observer viewpoint. In analyzing gestural viewpoints, the present study recognizes five gestural features—gestural space, handedness, stroke duration, frequency, and the involvement of other parts of the body as five distinctive criteria for use in identifying different viewpoints.
    Quantitative study of linguistic and gestural viewpoints shows that speech-accompanying gesture in the descriptions of third-person past events within conversational contexts displays different patterns from that of those found in language in the distributions of the three viewpoints. Character viewpoint, which is rarely adopted in language, is the most often conveyed viewpoint in gesture. On the other hand, despite the fact that speaker viewpoint is also commonly expressed in language, it rarely occurs in gesture. Observer viewpoint, in addition, is frequently seen in both the linguistic and gestural channels. With respect to the collaborative expressions of viewpoints in language and gesture concerning a description of the same event, quantitative study shows that 64.7% of all gestures produced in the current data represent a viewpoint different from that conveyed in language. Therefore, this study suggests that while language and gesture are co-expressive in terms of viewpoints, gesture more often collaborates with the accompanying speech in representing different viewpoints.
    The collaborative expressions of viewpoints in language and gesture suggest how speech and gesture coordinate with each other in organizing information and expressing different viewpoints also lead us to see the cognitive process that underlies both linguistic and gestural modalities within daily human communication. Two hypotheses—the Lexical Semantics and the Interface Hypothesis are referred to in order to provide theoretical accounts for the findings in this study. Each hypothesis is also supported by different pieces of evidence and percentages of gestures produced in the current data. The Interface Hypothesis can further provide an explanation concerning the division of labor between language and gesture in expressing viewpoints, which the Lexical Semantics Hypothesis cannot supply.
    Reference: Bakhtin, Mikhail. 1981. The Dialogic Imagination. Austin, TX: University of TexasPress.

    Bakhtin, Mikhail. 1986. Speech Genres and Other Late Essays. Austin, TX:University of Texas Press.

    Butterworth, Brian, and Uri Hadar. 1989. Gesture, speech and computational stages: A reply to McNeill. Psychological. Review 96:168-174.

    Chu, Chauncey. 2002. Relevance theory, discourse markers and the Mandarin utterance-final particle a/ya. Journal of the Chinese Language Teachers Association 37.1:1-42.

    Chui, Kawai. 2012. Cross-linguistic comparison of representations of motion in language and gesture. Gesture 12:1.40-61.

    Coulmas, Florian. 1986. Direct and Indirect Speech. New York, NY: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Du Bois, John W., Stephan Schuetze-Coburn, Danae Paolino, and Susanna Cumming 1992. Discourse Transcription. Santa Barbara Papers in Linguistics, vol.4. Santa Barbara: University of California, Santa Barbara.

    Goffman, Erving. 1981. Footing. Forms of Talk, ed. by Erving Goffman, 124-159. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

    Goffman, Erving. 1986. Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience.Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press.

    Goodwin, Charles. 1981. Conversational Organization: Interaction Between Speakers and Hearers. New York: Academic Press.

    Goodwin, Charles. 2006. Interactive footing. Reporting Talking: Reported Speech in Interaction, ed. by Elizabeth Holt and Rebecca Clift, 16-46. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

    Hu, Mingyang. 1981. Běijīnghuà de yŭqì zhùcí hé tàncí ‘Mood helping-words and interjections in Beijing dialect’. Zhōngguó Yŭwén 5:6.

    Jefferson, Gail. 1984. On the organization of laughter in talk about troubles. Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, ed. by John Maxwell Atkinson and John Heritage, 346-369. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Jucker, Andreas H. 1998. Introduction. Discourse Markers. Theory and Descriptions,ed. by Andreas H. Jucker and Yael Ziv, 1-12. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

    Kitagawa, Chisato, and Adrienne Lehrer. 1990. Impersonal uses of personal pronouns. Journal of Pragmatics 14:739-759.

    Kita, Sotaro, and Asli Ö zyürek. 2003. What does cross-linguistic variation in semantic coordination of speech and gesture reveal? Evidence for an interface representation of spatial thinking and speaking. Journal of Memory and
    Language 48:16-32.

    Koven, Michèle. 2002. An analysis of speaker role inhabitance in narratives of personal experience. Journal of Pragmatics 34:167-217.

    Krauss, Robert M., Yihsiu Chen, and Purnima Chawla. 1996. Nonverbal behavior and nonverbal communication: What do conversational hand gestures tell us?. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, ed. by Mark P. Zanna, 28:389-450. Tampa: Academic Press.

    Krauss, Robert. M., Yihsiu Chen, and Rebecca F. Gottesman. 2000. Lexical gestures and lexical access: A process model. Language and Gesture, ed. by David McNeill, 261-283. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Labov, William, and Joshua Waletzky. 1967. Narrative Analysis. Essays on the Verbal and Visual Arts, ed. by June Helm,12-44. Seattle: U. of Washington Press.

    Labov, William. 1972. Sociolinguistic Pattern. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.

    Labov, William. 1997. Some further steps in narrative analysis. Journal of Narrative and Life History 7.1-4:395-415.

    Levelt, Willem J.M. 1989. Speaking. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Li, Charles N. 1986. Direct and indirect speech: A functional study. Direct and Indirect Speech, ed. by Florida Coulmas, 29-45. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Li, Charles N., and Sandra A. Thompson. 1981. Mandarin Chinese. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.

    McNeill, David. 1985. So you think gestures are nonverbal?. Psychological. Review 92:350-371.

    McNeill, David. 1992. Hand and Mind: What Gestures Reveal About Thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    McNeill, David and Elena T. Levy. 1993. Cohesion and gesture. Discourse Processes 16.4:363-386.

    McNeill, David. 2000. Language and Gesture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Niemelä, Maarit. 2005. Voiced direct reported speech in conversational storytelling:Sequential patterns of stance taking. SKY Journal of Linguistics 18:197-221.

    O’Connor, Patricia. 1994. You could feel it through your skin: Agency and positioning in prisoners’ stabbing stories. Text 14.1:45-75.

    Schiffrin, Deborah. 1987. Discourse Markers. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Silverstein, Michael. 1993. Metapragmatic discourse and metapragmatic function.Reflective Language: Reported Speech and Metapragmatics, ed. by John Lucy,33-58. New York. NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Shao, Jingmin. 1989. Yŭqìcí ne zài yíwènjù zhōng de zuòyòng ‘The function of the mood word ne in interrogative sentences’. Zhōngguó Yŭwén 3:170-175.

    Slobin, Dan I. 1987. Thinking for speaking. Proceedings of the 13th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society Meeting, ed. by Jon Aske, Natasha Beery, Laura Michaelis, and Hana Filip,435-445.

    Slobin, Dan I. 1996. From “thought and language” to “thinking for speaking”. Rethinking Linguistic Relativity, ed. by John J. Gumperz and Stephen C. Levinson, 70-96. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Tannen, Deborah. 1989. Talking voices: Repetition, dialogue, and imagery in conversational discourse. Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics 6. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Thompson, Sandra A., and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen. 2005. The clause as a locus of grammar and interaction. Discourse Studies 7.4-5:481-505.

    Volosinov, Valentin Nikolaevic.1973. Marxism and the Philosophy of Language. New York, NY: Seminar Press.

    Wierzbicka, Anna. 1974. The semantics of direct and indirect discourse. Linguistics 7:267-307.

    Wu, Guo. 2005. The discourse function of the Chinese particle ne in statements.Journal of the Chinese Language Teachers Association 40.1:47-82.
    Description: 碩士
    國立政治大學
    語言學研究所
    99555004
    101
    Source URI: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0099555004
    Data Type: thesis
    Appears in Collections:[語言學研究所] 學位論文

    Files in This Item:

    File SizeFormat
    500401.pdf3776KbAdobe PDF636View/Open


    All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏,無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用,惟仍請適度,合理使用本網站之內容,以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用,則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    2.本網站之製作,已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益,如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者,請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw),維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback