选题的理由
Communication through language is a fundamental social behavior of humans, with "questioning" being a common form of verbal interaction in daily life Speakers typically use questioning to achieve two main objectives: to gather information and to facilitate other communicative actions These intentions are evident in both direct and indirect questioning behaviors, which reveal certain essential characteristics of language Studying the types of questions not only aids speakers in articulating their intentions and helps listeners accurately interpret them but also enhances our understanding of the distinct features of questioning in various languages This underscores the necessity for further research into questioning behaviors.
Existing literature reveals that numerous academic papers have explored speech act theory in relation to native languages, focusing on specific speech acts such as thanking, greeting, requesting, apologizing, persuading, and inviting While many scholars have conducted cross-linguistic comparative studies, there has yet to be a comprehensive paper titled "A Study of Questioning Speech Acts in Modern Chinese—With a Comparison to Vietnamese." Therefore, this study aims to investigate and elucidate the issue using key theories such as speech act theory, conversation analysis, and language comparison, with the goal of highlighting the distinct characteristics and usage of questioning speech acts in both Chinese and Vietnamese.
论文内容的相关研究综述
In the course of our research, we systematically examined relevant findings in chronological order, narrowing our focus progressively The studies conducted by various scholars can be broadly categorized into several key areas.
0.2.1 言语行为的纵观研究
The theory of speech acts originates from philosophers' exploration of linguistic meaning In the 1950s, British philosopher J.L Austin argued that many utterances not only convey information but also perform or assist in performing various actions By the 1960s, Austin had further developed the concept of speech acts based on his earlier work.
Austin's theory was further developed by American philosopher John Searle, who introduced the concept of indirect speech acts Searle's work addressed the limitations of Austin's explicit and implicit performative sentences, providing a more coherent framework for understanding how language functions in communication.
In the 1970s, Western modern pragmatic theories began to gain significant traction in various countries, sparking interest and initial explorations among scholars Researchers have conducted comprehensive analyses of key pragmatic and sociolinguistic issues, including context, speech acts, communication, conversation, information structure, presupposition, and discourse Their studies have evolved from detailed descriptions to systematic portrayals and precise analyses, connecting internal principles with external factors and transitioning from theory to practical applications The outcomes of their research have made substantial contributions to the fields of linguistics education and study.
By the 1980s, scholars both domestically and internationally shifted their focus from the theory of speech acts to the application of specific speech acts They conducted research based on diverse objectives, utilizing speech act theory in conjunction with their native languages for particular speech act studies, including numerous cross-linguistic comparative studies This trend has led to a multidimensional and interdisciplinary approach to speech act research, achieving unprecedented depth and breadth Additionally, comparative studies of bilingual and multilingual speech acts have emerged as a significant aspect of future research directions in this field Meanwhile, some linguists continue to explore the classification of speech acts, contributing to the theoretical development of speech act theory.
In the 1990s, the refinement of speech act theory prompted numerous scholars to conduct comprehensive studies from various perspectives and interdisciplinary approaches Researchers explored aspects such as communicative intentions, the purposes of speech acts, specific categories of speech acts, and indirect speech acts The existing literature reveals a trend towards combining analytical and descriptive methods, as well as static and dynamic approaches These studies significantly enhance our understanding of speech act theory and provide a crucial foundation for our research papers.
0.2.2 有关提问言语行为的研究
Current literature indicates that research on speech act theory is becoming increasingly refined and mature Studies focused on questioning as a speech act are not uncommon and continue to advance our understanding Through the dedicated research of various scholars on "questioning speech acts," we can categorize previous findings into several distinct areas.
The term "questioning" refers to a fundamental human behavior Various reference books have provided explanations for its meaning, with notable examples including authoritative dictionaries.
语 言 语 行 为 动 词语 义 词 典 》 （1987） 、 《 汉 字 古 今形 义 大 字 典 》
（1993） 、 《 朗 文 当 代 英 语 词 典 》 （1993） 、 《 现 代 汉 语 词 典 》
In 2005 and 2008, significant contributions to modern Chinese lexicography were made with the publication of the "New Modern Chinese Dictionary." Additionally, Liu Shuxin's research in 1983 focused on interrogative verbs, analyzing aspects such as their semantic emphasis, applicability, expressive nuances, and tonal qualities.
The terms "asking" and "questioning" are analyzed in terms of their meanings It is emphasized that both "asking" and "questioning" typically refer to the act of verbally posing a question, indicating the intention to inquire or seek information.
第二，“提问”的策略：除了给“提问”释义以外，Bloom、Branes、
Meister and Chapman、Sigel 等学者已经关注到“提问”的表达效果。他们
This article explores the art and techniques of questioning derived from everyday conversations and social interactions Its goal is to assist questioners in obtaining more satisfactory responses while significantly reducing the likelihood of respondents refusing or evading answers However, the research in this area lacks comprehensive data analysis and systematic conclusions.
The expression of "questioning speech acts" has been a focal point in early linguistic studies, where sentences are categorized into four main types: declarative, exclamatory, imperative, and interrogative Interrogative sentences serve as the primary means of expressing questioning speech acts Existing literature indicates that research on interrogative sentences has evolved significantly, yielding a wealth of findings Scholars have broadened their perspectives on the study of interrogative sentences, allowing for a more comprehensive exploration of this linguistic phenomenon.
分 类 、 程 度 、 识 别 、 句 式 、 教 学 、 对 比 等 方 面 。 其 中 ， Quirk
Randolph ； Greenbaun Sidney ； Leech ； Geoffrey 和 Svartvik Jan
（1972）、吕叔湘（1982）、朱德熙（1982）、陆俭明（1984）、林裕
文 （1985） 、 郭 婷 婷 （2005） 、 邵 敬 敏 （1996） 、Crytal David
Prominent scholars in the field include Huang Borong (1997), Ye Guangban (2000), Lu Jianming (2000), Cao Xiaoli (2008), Huang Chongpian (2008), Ruan Dengchou (2010), Liu Zhicheng (2010), Ruan Shixiu (2010), and Chen Jiaxuan (2012), who have significantly contributed to the academic discourse both domestically and internationally.
The classification of "questioning speech acts" highlights that questioning is not merely a human behavior but a distinct speech act According to Austin (1962) and Searle (1965), questioning can be categorized within the framework of speech acts Austin, building on his study of performative verbs, identified five main types of speech acts: verdicts, exercises, commitments, statements, and elucidations, placing "questioning" under the category of elucidations He emphasized that questioning encompasses various sentence structures, not solely interrogative forms Conversely, Searle categorized speech acts into five new types: assertions, directives, commitments, expressives, and declarations, placing "questioning" within the directive category, as he believed that the force of questioning is to elicit answers.
Anna Wierzbicka 教授对英语言语行为动词作过专项的系统研究。她的
The book "English Speech Act Verbs: A Semantic Dictionary" breaks free from traditional classifications of speech acts It carefully selects from approximately 270 English speech act verbs, omitting less commonly used ones to focus on those that are more relevant and applicable.
研究目的
The purpose of this study is to analyze Chinese questioning discourse to identify two types of questioning expression patterns: direct and indirect It aims to highlight the distinct characteristics and usage of these two questioning forms in modern Chinese Additionally, the research employs a comparative linguistic approach to examine the nuances between Chinese and other languages.
This article conducts a comparative analysis of speech acts related to questioning in Chinese and Vietnamese, aiming to reveal the similarities and differences between direct and indirect questioning styles in both languages.
研究任务
为了达到上述的目的，本论文要做以下四个主要任务：
This article first reviews relevant theories related to the topic, establishing a theoretical foundation for the research presented in this paper Secondly, it defines the concept of questioning speech acts and explains the two forms of expression: direct and indirect.
This article systematically studies the characteristics of direct and indirect questioning expressions in the Chinese language and conducts a comparative analysis with Vietnamese.
This study examines the usage of direct and indirect questioning expressions in the Chinese language, comparing them with similar expressions in Vietnamese.
研究对象及范围
This paper investigates the speech acts of questioning in Chinese and Vietnamese It primarily focuses on various questioning forms used in communication between these two languages, encompassing both direct and indirect expressions.
This paper examines the distinct characteristics and usage of direct and indirect questioning speech acts in Chinese and Vietnamese from a pragmatic perspective The focus is on the linguistic forms of direct and indirect questions, excluding non-verbal questioning behaviors The study analyzes indirect questioning speech acts primarily through the lens of "questioning forms." A comparative analysis of Chinese and Vietnamese is conducted, emphasizing a bidirectional approach; however, the research is predominantly centered on the manifestation of questioning speech acts in the Chinese language, thus limiting the scope to the questioning behaviors in both languages.
研究方法及考察的语料来源
在研究的过程中，我们已经使用以下的基本研究方法：
The combined approach of induction and deduction is interdependent and complementary in research practices Induction involves examining and collecting data from a corpus, allowing for accurate generalizations from complex information Following this, the conclusions drawn from induction are analyzed through deduction By employing this research method, we systematically collect and filter Chinese-Vietnamese interrogative phrases, enabling a comparative analysis of their propositional forms and content.
The combined approach of qualitative and quantitative methods is essential for comprehensive research Qualitative research typically involves deriving general principles from specific phenomena, while quantitative research is deductive, focusing on applying general theories to particular situations In this paper, we utilize qualitative methods due to the lack of specialized studies in existing literature on this topic, necessitating definitions, classifications, and characteristic analyses of speech acts To effectively compare and contrast questioning behaviors in Chinese and Vietnamese languages, we also incorporate quantitative research based on statistical analysis.
The method of comparative research involves analyzing the distinct characteristics of language objects through comparison This comparison can occur simultaneously in both directions or may focus more heavily on one side based on a two-way analysis The goal of this comparison is to identify differences within commonalities In this paper, we have conducted a comparative description of the features of direct and indirect questioning patterns in both Chinese and Vietnamese languages, highlighting their similarities and differences.
0.6.2 考察的语料来源
This paper's research on the topic primarily derives its Chinese and Vietnamese questioning discourse from two distinct sources.
Modern literary works include Ba Jin's "Family" (People's Literature Publishing House, 1981), Chen Zhongshi's "White Deer Plain" (People's Literature Publishing House, 1993), and the anthology "Chinese Modern Novel Classics: Lu Xun Volume," edited by Zhou Pengfei (Shaanxi People's Publishing House, 1995).
The book "Selected Modern Chinese Novels: Bing Xin Volume," edited by Peng Fei and published by Shaanxi People's Publishing House in 1995, showcases notable works in modern Chinese literature Additionally, the "Selected Modern Chinese Novels: Guo Moruo Volume," also edited by Peng Fei and released by the same publisher in 1995, highlights significant contributions from the renowned author Guo Moruo.
第二，口语自然语篇
"Questioning" is a highly practical verbal behavior in spoken language However, due to various reasons, we have not conducted a large-scale survey of natural spoken Chinese corpus Therefore, the examples used in this article primarily rely on written materials We consciously selected examples with strong spoken characteristics from the literary works of Chinese authors such as Lu Xun, Ba Jin, and Bing Xin, with sources noted at the end of each example Additionally, during the comparative analysis of Chinese and Vietnamese languages, our research in Vietnam provided field data in a native communication environment, making most examples of questioning in Vietnamese derived from natural spoken corpus.
研究意义
Recent studies have shown that many scholars have applied speech act theory to investigate specific speech acts in various languages However, there is still a lack of research focused on questioning speech acts in Chinese and Vietnamese This gap highlights the practical significance of this paper's topic The theoretical implications and practical value of this research can be articulated as follows:
This paper systematically examines the characteristics and usage of questioning speech acts in Chinese and Vietnamese The findings will offer valuable insights for theories of speech acts, language comparison, conversation analysis, and the teaching and research of Chinese and Vietnamese languages.
This research paper offers valuable insights for the in-depth study of various speech acts, particularly in understanding and expressing questioning behaviors among users from two different countries The findings facilitate accurate communication, addressing cultural barriers and promoting successful interactions Additionally, the results serve practical purposes in language translation, language teaching, and the development of educational materials.
论文的结构
除了前言、结语、参考文献以外，本论文的结构主要分为以下三 大部分：
第一章：总论
第二章：现代汉语直接提问言语行为——与越南语对比
第三章：现代汉语间接提问言语行为——与越南语对比
总论
言语行为理论
1.1.1.言语行为理论的形成与发展
Speech act theory is a framework for studying the meaning of language, originating from philosophers' exploration of linguistic significance In the 1920s, as philosophy shifted towards language analysis, Western philosophers diverged into two main schools of thought: logical positivism and ordinary language philosophy.
（ordinary language phylosophy）两个主要分支。两大派别对于自然语言
的 认识存 在明显分 歧。二 十世纪五 十年代 末 ，英国 哲学家 奥斯 汀
J Austin established the theory of speech acts, which arose as a response to the everyday linguistic school's rejection of logical positivism This theory effectively elucidates the relationship between language and its communicative functions.
Traditionally, language has been viewed primarily as a descriptive tool for conveying facts However, in 1923, Polish anthropologist Bronislaw Malinowski from the University of London argued that the original function of language is as a mode of action rather than a mere reflection of thought He emphasized that in its earliest use, language served as a means to connect human actions and facilitate collective behavior, functioning as a form of action rather than merely a tool for thinking.
John Langshaw Austin, a philosophy professor at a UK university, shares a perspective similar to that of Malinowski, emphasizing that the primary function of language is to perform various speech acts, with factual description being just one aspect of its utility In 1952, he began teaching about the relationship between "saying" and "doing" at Oxford, and in 1955, he published his influential work, "How to Do Things with Words."
In 1957, the work "How to Do Things with Words" gained significant attention when it was presented in a lecture at Harvard University, where the complete content was published under the title "Performative Utterances."
In 1969, John Searle, a student of Austin, further developed and systematized Austin's theories Searle posited that speech acts are fundamental components of social communication.
1959 年的博士论文为基础，出版了《言语行为-一篇语言哲学论文》。
The theory of "speech acts" holds significant importance in pragmatic research, becoming a core theoretical framework It posits that the fundamental units of human verbal communication are not merely words, sentences, or other linguistic forms, but rather the actions accomplished through these forms, known as speech acts When individuals speak, they not only convey relationships between entities but also perform specific actions In essence, the central tenet of speech act theory is the relationship between saying and doing Since its inception, this theory has had a profound impact on the field of linguistics This article will provide an overview of the theory.
1.1.2 奥斯汀的言语行为理论
J Austin, a prominent figure in ordinary language philosophy, developed his theory of speech acts by examining the functions of everyday language He discovered that, in a certain sense, every utterance can perform an action, leading to his assertion that to speak is to act Austin termed this functional aspect of language as "performative utterance." In his work "How to Do Things with Words," he elucidates that when an individual speaks, they are simultaneously executing both a "speech act" and an "action act."
The concept of "performative acts" encompasses three types of behaviors For instance, when a speaker asks the listener, "Have you eaten?", we can analyze this interaction through Austin's speech act theory, which emphasizes the significance of the speaker's intention and the listener's interpretation in communication.
其一，说话人移动发音器官发出这些语音“你”、“吃”、“饭”、“了”、
In the study of language, the arrangement of words into coherent sentences, such as "Have you eaten?", exemplifies the concept of "speech acts" as defined by philosopher J.L Austin This process highlights how meaningful communication is constructed through specific linguistic structures.
The phrase "Have you eaten?" serves as both a greeting and a form of inquiry about the listener's meal status, indicating that it is mealtime and expressing concern for their well-being This question reflects the speaker's intention and conveys meaning, a concept referred to by Austin as "illocutionary force" or "performative utterance."
The speaker, while posing this question, simultaneously engages in actions such as greeting and inquiring about the listener's well-being Moreover, this statement conveys the speaker's genuine concern for the listener, highlighting the importance of connection and empathy in communication.
After a statement is made, listeners may or may not perceive the speaker's emotions Regardless of their feelings, the statement still creates a sense of warmth and exerts an effect on the audience This phenomenon is referred to as the "illocutionary act" by philosopher J.L Austin, who distinguishes it from the "performative act." While performative acts are linked to the speaker's intentions, illocutionary acts operate independently of those intentions.
According to Austin's theory, "speech acts" refer to the utterance of words that are structured in a specific way and carry meaning Generally, when someone says phrases like "close the door" or "it's raining," the speaker uses sentences that adhere to grammatical rules to convey information and express thoughts, thereby performing an act of communication.
According to Austin, "performative speech acts" are the most significant among the three types of speech acts Performative speech acts involve using statements to convey the speaker's intended purpose or intention When a speaker engages in a performative act, they simultaneously perform other speech acts such as questioning, answering, requesting, suggesting, affirming, guaranteeing, and congratulating, which elicit a response from the listener These actions must also adhere to established conventions For instance, when a priest at a wedding says, "I now pronounce you husband and wife," this statement officially marries the couple due to the priest's role as an officiant The context of the wedding in a church aligns with local customs and established rules, validating the performative nature of the statement.
言语行为内部所关联的交际原则
In the process of verbal communication, a speaker aims to achieve their communicative goals primarily through speech acts that reflect their intentions The successful realization of these goals is closely linked to communication principles, which are the shared guidelines that participants follow to convey information, exchange ideas, and accurately express and understand conversational meanings This implies that speakers must clearly articulate their intentions while listeners need to accurately interpret the speaker's messages, adhering to relevant communication principles such as the principles of cooperation and politeness.
Effective communication relies on the collaborative efforts of participants to achieve a specific goal, which is often clear from the outset of the conversation For instance, when one person asks another a question, the intent is usually to obtain information or perform a specific verbal action, necessitating a response from the listener To successfully reach this objective, speakers must adhere to certain principles of dialogue.
In his 1975 paper "Logic and Conversation," American philosopher H.P Grice emphasizes that conversation is often a cooperative act where participants share a mutual understanding of the dialogue's direction When conversational exchanges are inappropriate, they risk being rejected To ensure effective communication, participants must adhere to fundamental principles, particularly the Cooperative Principle This principle dictates that each speaker's contributions should align with the conversation's goals, making the dialogue meaningful Grice outlines four maxims that underpin this Cooperative Principle.
第一， 数量准则（quantity maxim）：使你的话语包含交谈目的所
需要的信息。不要使你的话语包含超出需要的信息。例如，
The phrase "Xiao Lan is not here" conveys essential information needed for the conversation Similarly, the response "Work is great" reflects the speaker's perspective on their current job From these replies, the listener can infer the implied meaning, which indicates that the speaker is quite satisfied with their work.
第二， 质量准则（quality maxim）：设法使你的话语真实，不要说
Self-awareness is often misleading; refrain from making statements lacking sufficient evidence Questions like "When are you going to Beijing?" "Will you come to work tomorrow?" and "Is he your cousin?" adhere to the quality maxim of the cooperative principle, demonstrating clarity and reliability in communication.
了自己真的不知道有关信息，从而提出问题，并且真心想从你 获得信息。
第三， 关 系 准 则 （relevant maxim） ： 要 有 关 联 。 例 如 ： “ 下 班
In communication, phrases like "Are you doing laundry?" or "Haven't you taken a break yet?" are contextually relevant and serve specific purposes Speakers formulate questions based on the situational context, while listeners infer the speaker's implied meaning, whether it is a greeting or a reminder For instance, in a conversation where A asks, "Are you going tomorrow?" and B responds, "It’s going to rain heavily," B's reply is unrelated to A's question According to Grice's theory, this demonstrates a violation of the principle of relevance in conversational exchanges.
第四， 方式准则（manner maxim）：要避免含混不清，避免歧义，
To ensure clarity and coherence in communication, it is essential to maintain a logical order in sentences For instance, the phrase "He eats bread and drinks milk" implies a sequence where he first eats bread and then drinks milk If rephrased to "He drinks milk and eats bread," the order of actions changes, yet both sentences still adhere to the principle of organized narration However, from a pragmatic perspective, these actions can also be interpreted as occurring simultaneously—eating bread while drinking milk To eliminate ambiguity and clarify whether the actions are sequential or simultaneous, speakers should use appropriate conjunctions, such as "then," when introducing the second action.
Grice's four maxims establish fundamental standards for effective communication The maxim of quantity emphasizes delivering the right amount of information—neither too little nor too much—by addressing the recipient's needs or expectations The maxim of quality focuses on the truthfulness of statements, requiring speakers to share only accurate and well-supported information The maxim of relevance ensures that contributions are pertinent to the topic at hand, while the maxim of manner advocates for clarity and conciseness, avoiding ambiguous language Despite these principles, violations of cooperative communication often occur, as many individuals tend to complicate their speech in conversational contexts.
Indirect expression of thoughts is essential for effective communication According to Grice, both parties in a conversation must cooperate, ensuring that their messages are mutually comprehensible This collaborative effort facilitates the most efficient exchange of information.
In summary, the essence of the Cooperative Principle and the process of deriving conversational meaning form the core of Grice's theory of conversational implicature Grice emphasizes that each rule of the Cooperative Principle holds varying significance, leading speakers to prioritize different rules depending on the context When a speaker's utterance violates these principles, it typically conveys a specific intention According to Grice, the true meaning behind such utterances lies in their conversational implications The primary value of Grice's theory is not merely to assess whether a speaker adheres to the Cooperative Principle, but rather to enable listeners to infer the speaker's genuine intentions from the literal meaning of their words when the principles are violated.
Grice identified the cooperative principles that govern verbal communication; however, real-world interactions often reveal a common occurrence of "non-cooperation." His theory does not adequately explain why individuals frequently violate these principles Renowned British scholar Leech, in his work "Principles of Pragmatics," suggests that speakers may intentionally flout cooperative principles to prompt listeners to infer their true intentions, often as a means of politeness.
Politeness is regarded as a fundamental social constraint in human communication, regulating participants' behaviors and reminding them to consider others' feelings In today's complex social interactions, politeness serves as a crucial guideline for successful communication and a significant indicator of human civilization's progress It is understood as a sociological principle centered around the speaker, explaining various phenomena and acting as a key determinant of speech acts Western scholars like Brown and Levinson, along with Leech, have proposed principles of politeness that must be adhered to in verbal communication, emphasizing that these principles complement the cooperative principle in communication theory.
People often violate the principle of cooperation in conversations for the sake of politeness, adhering to rules or principles of courtesy This article briefly outlines their views on politeness.
Geoffery Leech's Politeness Principle enhances speech act theory and the cooperative principle by addressing the indirect nature of language, filling gaps left by the latter This principle comprises six maxims: the Tact Maxim, which emphasizes minimizing harm to others; the Generosity Maxim, which encourages self-sacrifice over personal gain; the Approbation Maxim, advocating for reducing disparagement of others while promoting praise; the Modesty Maxim, which suggests minimizing self-praise and emphasizing humility; the Agreement Maxim, aimed at reducing disagreement and fostering consensus; and the Sympathy Maxim, which seeks to lessen emotional opposition between individuals.
（尽量减少双方的反感；尽量增加双方的同情）。
The six maxims proposed by Leech emphasize different aspects of communication, particularly guiding the behavior of speakers Maxims a and b focus on interpersonal interactions, with a advising on the importance of polite questioning and b emphasizing the need to agree to others' requests Maxims c and d address self-perception and perception of others, where c encourages praising others, while d advises against self-promotion Lastly, maxims e and f highlight the importance of tactful disagreement, suggesting that one should avoid directly opposing another's viewpoint, even if it is incorrect, while f encourages expressing shared feelings with others.
会话分析理论
1.3.1 话语分析和会话分析
Discourse refers to a coherent series of statements within a topic, encompassing continuous speech by an individual or conversations among multiple people The term "Discourse Analysis" was first introduced by American linguist Harris in 1952, and by the 1960s, it gained significant traction and spread across various fields This analysis primarily focuses on the pragmatic variations at the levels of text, conversation, and beyond-sentence structures, exploring the functions, forms, patterns, and relationships of discourse sequences Through discourse analysis, researchers examine the interplay between language, its impact, and the relationship between language and context, utilizing both spoken and written materials as subjects of study.
Discourse analysis focuses on larger linguistic units than sentences, revealing structural, semantic, and pragmatic characteristics It identifies patterns and rules within a series of sentences, clarifying how meaning is conveyed, how speakers express intentions, and how listeners interpret discourse Additionally, it explains how language is used to accomplish specific actions.
Conversation analysis primarily focuses on the study of conversations Since the 1960s, conversations have become a key subject in various fields, including the philosophy of language, sociolinguistics, human linguistics, pragmatics, and psycholinguistics Most scholars agree that conversations are a collaborative effort between speakers and listeners.
参 ， 并 相 互 协 调 谈 话 内 容 和 合 作 所 产 生 的 社 会 交 往 。 会 话 分 析
Conversation analysis is an in-depth study of dialogue that helps individuals understand the rules of verbal communication, thereby enhancing their communication skills Currently, it is a significant area within pragmatics, encompassing all research related to conversational phenomena, particularly focusing on the American school of thought This approach treats everyday conversations as legitimate subjects for scientific inquiry, systematically examining the nature and usage patterns of dialogue The ultimate goal of this research is to uncover how people organize their conversational activities and the methods they use to comprehend various conversational contexts, ultimately revealing the essence of language Conversation analysis includes studies on conversation structure, types of conversation, and more.
In the 1970s, Western conversation analysts had varying perspectives on the structure of conversation Some scholars introduced the concepts of "turn" and "turn-taking," emphasizing that the fundamental unit of conversation is the "adjacency pair."
营业员：你要寄什么东西？
海蒂：就寄一个包裹。
营业员：里边装的是什么？有没有违禁物品？请打开看一看。
海蒂：啊，有两瓶药，一双布鞋，还有一个项链。（录音）
In this conversation, each statement made by one party constitutes a turn in the dialogue These turns can vary in length, with some consisting of a single action, such as a question in Turn 1.
轮 2（回答）。有的话轮带有两个或两个以上的行为，如：话轮 3（提
In a conversation, the connection between two turns of speech forms an adjacent pair Participants engage in a turn-taking process, alternating their speech throughout the entire dialogue.
Some scholars argue that statements in conversations can be classified as dialogue statements, which encompass both stimuli and responses, forming a cohesive dialogue unit Although the terminology may vary, many Western conversation analysts believe that the concepts of "dialogue unit" and "adjacent pairs" essentially convey the same meaning, reflecting the characteristics and patterns of conversational sequential structure.
A complete conversation structure typically consists of three main parts: the opening, the body, and the closing The opening marks the beginning of the conversation and is usually followed by additional content The body contains the main discussion that occurs after the opening The closing signifies the end of the conversation, which requires effective communication skills to conclude properly To maintain conversational cooperation, both speakers should strive to avoid abrupt endings, as this behavior is considered impolite.
From a localized perspective, a conversation structure consists of six key elements: the turn-taking model, feedback, adjacency pairs, repairs, interruptions, and overlaps.
The turn-taking model is a fundamental mechanism for speech transition, encompassing components such as the construction of speech turns, which includes words, phrases, sentences, and groups of sentences, along with the rules governing the exchange of these turns.
Role switching involves the dynamics of conversation, where feedback serves as a crucial response mechanism Listeners can utilize gestures, eye contact, facial expressions, and verbal cues to support the speaker, aiming not for a specific reply but to facilitate the speaker's ongoing discourse Additionally, adjacency pairs consist of two related components: the first part establishes the context for the second, exemplified by interactions such as "question-answer," "suggestion-acceptance/refusal," "statement-reaction," and "invitation-response."
接 受 / 谢 绝 ” 等 。 其 中 ， “ 提 问 – 回 答 ” 是 最 典 型 的 语 例 ； ④ 重 叠
（overlap）专指重复第一部分的词语，并构成相邻对的第二部分，即下
In conversational dynamics, speakers may repeat the words of their predecessors, often employing questioning or exclamatory intonations Interruption occurs when a speaker breaks the turn-taking rule by speaking over another before they have finished, reflecting a power dynamic influenced by the speaker's authority and status Additionally, repair mechanisms are essential for correcting misinformation and overcoming barriers in understanding, allowing conversations to flow smoothly Participants utilize repair strategies to foster a positive communication environment and achieve various communicative goals.
1.3.3 会话角色类型及其关系
Conversation is a bidirectional relationship involving both the speaker and the listener, encompassing various communication activities such as listening, speaking, reading, and writing When a communication process begins, the participants inevitably assume specific roles, such as teacher-student, superior-subordinate, military-civilian, friends, couples, or host-guest relationships These communicative roles reflect the overall social relationships among people, forming a network of interpersonal connections Consequently, conversation roles can be categorized into two types: social roles and discourse roles.
Social roles refer to the relationships between individuals in communication, such as that between a manager and an employee or a teacher and a student According to Thomas (1991), discourse roles pertain to the relationship between communicators and the information being conveyed, distinguishing between producers of conversation (speakers, authors, representatives, transmitters, and mouthpieces) and recipients (listeners, audience members, bystanders, eavesdroppers) Although social roles and discourse roles are distinct categories, they are interconnected, as every participant in communication is a social being In social interactions, individuals serve as "multifunctional" entities, assuming various roles across different contexts For instance, a man may be a husband to his wife, a father to his children, and an older brother to his younger sibling at home, while in society, he may hold a different position altogether.
对比语言学理论
1.4.1 对比语言学概述
Contrastive linguistics is a branch of linguistics focused on comparing two or more languages to describe their similarities and differences, applying this research to specific fields According to Xu Yulong (2001), contrastive linguistics consists of two main parts: theoretical contrastive linguistics and applied contrastive linguistics, each with general and specific aspects Theoretical contrastive linguistics aims to explore reasonable models and theoretical frameworks for comparative studies, while applied contrastive linguistics seeks to implement the findings of theoretical research in practical activities such as foreign language teaching, translation, and bilingual dictionary compilation, addressing theoretical and methodological issues in application.
In contrastive linguistics, comparative studies often focus on specific theoretical or applied aspects such as phonetics, vocabulary, grammar, discourse, and pragmatics Pragmatic comparison primarily examines language expression and pragmatic meaning This involves using similar language expressions as a basis for comparison to analyze their pragmatic functions in two languages Alternatively, one can compare similar pragmatic functions to explore how these functions are expressed through different linguistic forms in each language Similar language expressions refer to linguistic forms that exhibit correspondence across phonetic, lexical, morphological, syntactic, and discourse levels in both languages Similarly, comparable pragmatic functions refer to speech acts in one language that correspond to speech acts in another language.
In the past decade, comparative studies of specific languages have made significant progress, grounded in shared reference points or commonalities between the languages being compared These comparisons can be categorized into two main types: internal comparisons, which focus on factors related to the internal structure of a language, and external comparisons, which involve external factors influencing language Researchers can choose to compare synchronic or diachronic language phenomena, as well as linguistic features within a single language or across different languages The materials for language comparison fall into two categories: instance corpora, which include recorded spoken and published written examples, and introspective corpora, comprising self-reflective and experimental data The former reflects actual language use, while the latter reveals speakers' intuitions about their native language's acceptability Selecting comparative language materials requires careful consideration of the nature and purpose of the research, the theoretical framework, and the content being described.
In summary, comparative language studies can be conducted within various theoretical frameworks and descriptive models The process begins with an objective description of two language systems, followed by the identification of components or elements for comparison This is succeeded by a meticulous comparative analysis to uncover the similarities and differences between the two languages The findings not only provide new insights into the languages being compared but also stimulate discussions and research on diverse linguistic theories, contributing to the overall advancement of linguistics.
1.4.2 论文汉、越提问言语行为对比说明
Research on speech acts can be categorized into monolingual studies and bilingual comparative studies However, contemporary linguists agree that monolingual research fails to fully capture the similarities and differences between languages, which provides a foundation for comparative studies As noted by Li Jinx in "Comparative Grammar," "language comparison is an effective method for deepening the understanding of the essence and differences between two languages." Consequently, many researchers in the linguistic community have compared the speech acts of native speakers and learners of different languages, aiming to investigate the variations in speech act expressions across diverse linguistic cultures.
Prominent researchers such as Blum-Kulka, Wolfson, and Herbert have conducted specialized studies on speech acts, focusing on key communicative functions like requests, apologies, and compliments.
Questioning is one of the most frequently used speech acts in daily life It is widely employed in cross-cultural communication between Chinese and Vietnamese speakers; however, there has been a lack of comparative studies on questioning speech acts in both languages From a linguistic perspective, both Chinese and Vietnamese are isolating languages, yet they belong to different language families: Chinese is part of the Sino-Tibetan family, while Vietnamese belongs to the Austroasiatic family These characteristics create both commonalities and distinct features in the two languages Therefore, this study focuses on a comprehensive comparative analysis of questioning speech acts in Chinese and Vietnamese The findings will help identify the similarities and differences in the use of questioning speech acts, ultimately revealing the universal characteristics of questioning in both languages.
This paper conducts a comparative study of questioning speech acts in Chinese and Vietnamese, focusing on the similarities and differences in the direct and indirect expressions of these languages The comparison is limited to two aspects: the propositional forms and content of direct and indirect questions in both languages The research employs two primary methods: treating the first language as the main subject while using the second language as a comparative reference, or considering both languages as equal subjects in a bilingual comparative study In this analysis, the expressions and pragmatic functions of questioning speech acts in Chinese serve as the foundation for comparison, followed by an examination of Vietnamese questioning speech acts in these two dimensions This approach highlights the correspondence and discrepancies in the propositional forms and content of questioning speech acts between Chinese and Vietnamese, indicating that the chosen comparative method aligns with the first approach.
This paper focuses on the comparative analysis of question formation and its pragmatic functions in Chinese and Vietnamese languages The comparison is structured around three linguistic dimensions to highlight the similarities and differences in expressive techniques Specifically, it emphasizes that interrogative sentences serve as the primary means of expressing inquiry, thus examining the forms and content of questioning speech acts in both languages.
Trong nghiên cứu về câu hỏi trong tiếng Hán, các học giả như Lữ Thúc Hương, Vương Lực và Lục Kiệm Minh đã có những đóng góp quan trọng cho việc phân loại câu hỏi Ngoài ra, các nhà nghiên cứu như Hoàng Bá Vinh, Liu Yuehua và Hình Công Bàn đã phân chia câu hỏi trong tiếng Hán hiện đại thành bốn loại: "câu hỏi đúng sai", "câu hỏi đặc thù", "câu hỏi lựa chọn" và "câu hỏi phản biện", và phân loại này đã được chấp nhận rộng rãi trong giới học thuật Trong tiếng Việt, các nhà ngữ pháp cũng phân loại câu hỏi dựa trên mối quan hệ nội tại, cấu trúc và mục đích giao tiếp Theo Nguyễn Thiện Giáp (2000) trong tác phẩm "Ngữ dụng học tiếng Việt", câu hỏi được chia thành ba loại: "câu hỏi tổng quát", "câu hỏi bộ phận" và "câu hỏi lựa chọn" Ông chỉ ra rằng câu hỏi tổng quát sử dụng các từ nghi vấn như "à", "ư", "nhỉ" hoặc cấu trúc "có không?"; câu hỏi bộ phận sử dụng đại từ nghi vấn như "ai", "cái gì" hoặc cấu trúc "có phải không?"; và câu hỏi lựa chọn đưa ra một hoặc hai khả năng để người nghe lựa chọn, thường sử dụng từ "hay".
Trong tài liệu "Ngữ pháp tiếng Việt", câu nghi vấn được phân loại thành bốn loại chính: câu nghi vấn dùng đại từ nghi vấn, câu nghi vấn dùng phó từ, câu nghi vấn dùng quan hệ từ lựa chọn, và câu nghi vấn dùng tiểu từ chuyên dụng Mỗi loại câu đều có những đặc điểm riêng biệt và cách sử dụng cụ thể.
Bài viết phân tích các loại câu hỏi trong tiếng Việt, bao gồm câu hỏi sử dụng đại từ nghi vấn, câu hỏi với phó từ và câu hỏi lựa chọn Câu hỏi sử dụng đại từ nghi vấn tập trung vào đại từ, trong khi câu hỏi với phó từ nhấn mạnh vào phần bị lược bỏ trong cấu trúc "có không" Câu hỏi lựa chọn được xác định qua mô hình "có x >< không x" Đặc biệt, câu hỏi sử dụng tiểu từ chuyên dụng có thể trở nên mơ hồ khi không có ngữ cảnh rõ ràng Theo quan điểm của hai học giả Việt Nam, câu hỏi trong tiếng Việt chủ yếu được chia thành ba loại: câu hỏi đặc chỉ, câu hỏi lựa chọn và câu hỏi đúng sai, với câu hỏi đúng sai còn bao gồm hai hình thức khác nhau.
气词的是非疑问句）和“câu nghi vấn dùng phó từ”（用疑问副词的是非疑 问句）。
Based on the classifications provided by various scholars regarding the interrogative sentences in Chinese and Vietnamese, we can summarize the comparative analysis of questioning speech acts in both languages as outlined in the table below.
表 1.1：汉、越提问言语行为的对比基础
句式 汉语 越语
In this article, we use "+" to denote commonalities and "–" to indicate individualities Although Vietnamese lacks the "affirmative-negative question" structure found in Chinese, it can express similar meanings through "yes-no questions using interrogative adverbs." Therefore, we categorize Vietnamese "yes-no questions using interrogative adverbs" alongside Chinese "affirmative-negative questions" for comparative analysis This comparison of the four sentence structures serves as the foundation for examining the pragmatic functions of questioning speech acts.
This article compares two languages based on two criteria: first, whether the speech acts of questioning correspond in both languages; and second, whether these questioning speech acts share the same propositional form and content If both conditions are met, we can conclude that the questioning speech acts in the two languages correspond Conversely, if either condition is lacking, it suggests a disparity in the pragmatic functions of questioning between the languages As noted by Xu Yulong in "Contrastive Linguistics," referencing Oleksy (1984), despite differences arising from religion and culture that lead to distinct ritual procedures, each language allows its users to perform a set of fundamental speech acts, providing sentence structures with specific semantic frameworks for executing these acts.
，以及采取什么策略来实施等方面，语言之间存在差别”[80；128]。
现代汉语提问言语行为概说
1.5.1 提问言语行为的概念界定
"Questioning" serves as a key in our daily lives When we encounter unclear issues or have doubts that need addressing, we should reach out to others to "ask questions," with the goal of uncovering more unknown information.
在中国出版的工具书中，关于“提问”一词的含义有以下的解释。
In modern Chinese, "提问" is understood as "to pose a question and seek an answer." Similar interpretations are found in Lü Jinghe, Qian Ye, and Qian Zhongli's "Comprehensive Dictionary of Ancient and Modern Chinese Characters," where "提" is defined as "to hold something up, making it suspended," and "问" is viewed as a tangible entity This suggests that the act of "提问" involves a concrete question that inherently carries the expectation of a response The "New Modern Chinese Dictionary" offers a concise definition, stating it simply means "to pose a question." Additionally, the "Modern Chinese Dictionary" clarifies that "提问" refers to the act of asking a question, often in the context of teachers questioning students.
The four reference works provide similar definitions of "questioning," primarily focusing on its basic meaning According to these dictionaries, "questioning" encompasses three main aspects: first, it involves the act of posing a question, which is the essence of questioning; second, since the expression of "questioning" is inherently linked to "asking," it logically connects to the concept of answering; and third, a common scenario of questioning occurs when teachers pose questions to students Thus, these reference works highlight the general significance of the term "questioning."
In the realm of scholarly research, the definition of "questioning" extends beyond the conventional understanding of merely "posing a question." Scholars have approached the concept from various perspectives, leading to a rich and diverse interpretation of its meaning within linguistic studies, both domestically and internationally.
In the context of teaching, scholars such as Nunan, Tsui, Allwright, Hu Qingqiu, Chen Wei, and Jin Honggang emphasize that the scope of "questioning" is often limited to interactions between teachers and students As a crucial component of teacher discourse, questioning serves as a significant source of language input for students and plays a vital role in facilitating their learning process.
Over the years, "questioning" has been a central focus in language teaching research, providing opportunities for language output and feedback correction.
从 认 知 角 度 来 看 这 个 问 题 ，Bloom 、Branes 、Meister and
Chapman、Sigel 等学者已把“提问”看成认知策略及元认知策略。他们认
Asking questions is an effective pathway for cognitive development, a perspective echoed by ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle, who believed that thinking originates from wonder and inquiry The act of questioning, whether directed at oneself or others, serves as a crucial method for humans to seek and acquire knowledge Through questioning, individuals can articulate their problems more clearly and accurately, leading to more focused and purposeful thinking, which enhances communication and facilitates meaningful exchanges.
Traditional grammar scholars place a strong emphasis on describing and explaining the morphological and semantic structures of the Chinese language, as well as their interrelations Their primary focus is on the external forms and structures of language In their research, they categorize sentences into four types: declarative, interrogative, imperative, and exclamatory Each type serves distinct communicative purposes—narrating, questioning, requesting, and expressing emotions Consequently, the speaker's communicative intent dictates the choice of sentence type; for instance, if the speaker's goal is to inquire, an interrogative sentence is employed.
The expression of "questioning" is highlighted through the function of interrogative sentences This indicates that traditional grammar has emphasized the form of "questioning" and is capable of describing the general process of this behavior.
Ngoài những quan điểm đã nêu, nhiều học giả đã áp dụng lý thuyết hành động ngôn ngữ để giải thích về "câu hỏi" Từ góc độ này, một số học giả đã định nghĩa "hành động ngôn ngữ hỏi" dựa trên các điều kiện sử dụng ngôn ngữ Austin đã đưa "hành động ngôn ngữ hỏi" vào loại hành động giải thích, cho rằng hành động này nhằm trình bày quan điểm, lập luận, giải thích cách sử dụng và chỉ định, như câu "ai biết?" có thể biểu thị cho "tôi không biết" Trong khi đó, Searle lại phân loại "câu hỏi" vào nhóm mệnh lệnh, vì "câu hỏi" yêu cầu người nghe thực hiện một hành động ngôn ngữ, đó là trả lời câu hỏi.
In her 1987 publication, "English Speech Act Verbs: A Semantic Dictionary," Anna Wierzbicka reorganizes the meanings associated with "questioning." She identifies two primary meanings of "questioning": the first denotes the act of inquiring.
The term "asked" can convey two primary meanings: first, it indicates a question, as in "A asked B" (meaning "A inquired of B"); second, it signifies a request, as in "A asked B to do C" (meaning "A instructed B to perform C") To enhance user comprehension, related verbs are grouped with these definitions For instance, "asking" in the context of "A asked B" is closely associated with terms like "question" and "interrogate." Meanwhile, "asking" in the sense of requesting is linked to verbs such as "beg."
（请求）、beseech（恳求）等有联系。
对 Anna Wierzbicka 的解释来看，“提问言语行为”只包含两个义
项。但是，钟守满在《言语行为释义及相关研究》已经引出 Longman
Dictionary of Contemporary English （朗文当代英语词典）对“提问”的四 个释义：
① to call on a person for an answer; request information from someone（本 义：“要求回答、取得信息”）
② to make a request for（本义：“提出请求”）
③ to demand something, such as price（本义：“询问，诸如询问价格”）
④ to invite（本义：“邀请”）
The "Dictionary of English Speech Act Verbs" and the "Longman Contemporary English Dictionary" share similarities and differences in their definitions of "questioning." The latter expands the meaning of "questioning" by emphasizing that it requires a response, highlighting the expectation of an answer Additionally, "questioning" is not solely about verbal inquiries or requests; it also serves other functions, such as inviting others to engage.
He Gang (1995) in "The Cultural Function of Questions in the Analects" emphasizes that "questioning" involves the questioner constructing interrogative discourse driven by specific contextual and pragmatic needs.
Different speech acts and processes result in varied information and contextual functions derived from questioning within social and cultural contexts These distinctions shape the ways in which questions are articulated.