基于语料库的中国英语专业学生口语中话语标记语So的使用分析-外国语言学及应用语言学专业论文.docxVIP

PAGE PAGE 13 PAGE PAGE 10 Chapter Two Literature Review In this chapter, a general review of the theoretical framework on which this research is based will be presented, including contents of previous studies on DM so, such as the conception, classifications, the two perspectives of studying DMs and the corpus-based studies of DMs. Conception of so as a discourse marker In order to avoid misunderstandings caused by the term DM, it is necessary to mention that, in previous studies, some other labels have been employed for different research perspectives: semantic conjuncts (Quirk, et al., 1985), sentence connectives (Halliday Hasan, 1976), semantic connectives (Van Dijk, 1979), discourse operators (Redeker, 1991), pragmatic expressions (Erman, 1987), pragmatic formatives (Fraser, 1987), pragmatic markers (Schiffrin, 1987) and so on. In this research, the term DMs is employed since it tries to explore the causes of these misuses from the pragmatic and cognitive perspective via studying the misuses of so by native speakers and Chinese EFL learners. Since there is no agreement on the definition, characteristics or the functions of DMs, various opinions of previous researchers will be presented in the following part with their contributions and deficiencies. Levinson (1983) considers DMs as a class worthy of study though he does not give it a name. So, as an example provided by Levinson, is also classified as a DM with other expressions like but, therefore, in conclusion, to the contrary, still, however, anyway, well, besides, actually, all in all and after all. Levinson (1983: 87-88) holds that “there are many words and phrases in English, and no doubt most languages, that indicate the prior discourse.” He claims that “it is generally conceded that such words have at least a component of meaning that resists truth-conditional treatment” and that “what they seem to do is to indicate, often in very complex ways, just how the utterance that contains them is a respon