| Discourse markers which are ubiquitous in daily language use are words orstructures used to indicate discourse information. To use and understand discoursemarkers properly is an important aspect of one’s pragmatic ability. So the study ofdiscourse markers has great theoretical value and practical significance.Verschueren believes that people’s use of language is a process of constantlymaking linguistic choice, the process which is instructed and regulated to differentdegrees by metapragmatic awareness. Discourse markers could function as indicatorsof metapragmatic awareness. Verschueren’s above statement which was sketchy andnot systematic was proposed when he explained the indicators of metapragmaticawareness. However, his description of the relationship between discourse markers andthe language user’s metapragmatic awareness is original and provided a newperspective for the study of discourse markers.Since discourse markers happen most frequently in verbal communication thepresent thesis chooses American sitcom Friends as the corpora and attempts to studythe illocutionary force regulated by discourse markers in carrying out speech acts onthe basis of metapragmatic awareness theory and from the speaker’s perspective. Thatis to analyze the motive of using discourse markers and discuss the influence andregulation of language user’s metapragmatic awareness to his choice of discoursemarkers. A classification of discourse markers according to the metapragmaticawareness they reflect is made first. The reason that the language user uses discoursemarkers to regulate illocutionary force was explained. How discourse markers reflectthe speaker’s metapragmatic awareness, what metapragmatic awareness they reflectand how they regulate the illocutionary force of speech acts in conversations arediscussed and illustrated with examples. At last, after the discussion we will compilethe statistics of the frequency and distribution of discourse markers boosting andattenuating illocutionary force in the sitcom Friends and make a conclusion of thelanguage user’s tendentiousness and motive of his choice.After the discussion we first find that the study on discourse markers from theperspective of metapragmatic awareness is reasonable and workable. Compared withprevious researches it provides a new perspective for the study of discourse markers. Second, a classification of discourse markers according to the metapragmaticawareness they reflect is made. There are altogether nine types: relationship buildingmarkers, topic-related markers, evidential markers, inferential markers, manner ofspeaking markers, self assessment markers, locutionary performatives, utterance fillersand tag questions. Third, discourse markers could be used to regulate the illocutionaryforce of speech acts to some extent. This regulation could be achieved in two ways:boosting and attenuation. Moreover, we get a conclusion that people in communicationfrequently use discourse markers to regulate illocutionary in order to fulfill theircommunicative purpose. In the corpus from the macro aspect the language user tendsto use more mitigators than boosters. From the micro aspect topic related markers aremost frequently used to boost illocutionary force. It indicates that the use of boosters isto keep communication go on. Utterance fillers are most frequently used to boostillocutionary force. It indicates that the use of mitigators is to show politeness andlessen the face threat.This thesis expounds how discourse markers reflect the speaker’s metapragmaticawareness and regulate illocutionary force. Discourse markers’ regulation ofillocutionary force helps the smooth going of communication. The study ofillocutionary force regulated by discourse markers integrated with certain corporabroadens the study on discourse markers. The integration of theory and real contextalso makes the study instruct our understanding of language. It is helpful tocross-culture communication and at the same time it help people to better understandand appreciate the sitcom. |
PDF Full Text Request