Literature Review范例

LiteratureReviewInthisthesis,IwillstudythecharacteristicsoftheconversationalmechanismofrepairinChineseconversationaldiscourse.Tothatend,itisnecessarytoconductareviewoftherelevantliteratureonconversationalrepair.Ishallstartwithanelaborationofthenotionof“repair”,goingontoresearchesintotheorganizationofconversationalrepairandconcludewiththeinterdisciplinaryandmulti-linguisticapplicationof“repair”research.1.FromCorrectiontoRepairAsarelativelynewfieldinconversationanalysis(CA),theproperstudyoftheconversationalphenomenonofrepairdidn’tstartuntilthepublicationofSchegloffetal’sseminalpaperin1977.Beforethat,therewereonlysomesporadicdiscussionsofthephenomenonundersuchgenericheadingsastongueslips(Laver1973,seeSchegloff1977)anderrorcorrection(Jefferson1975,seeSchegloff1977).Asastilloften-usedterm,“correction”,“commonlyunderstoodtorefertothereplacementofan‘error’or‘mistake’bywhatis‘correct’”(Schegloff1977:363),notonlylimitsresearchtoaminorityofthenaturaloccurrencesofrepairbutalsomisleadsresearchersaboutthenatureofthetrouble-sources.TheshiftoffocuswasledbySchegloffetal(1977),whosestudywasanempiricallybasedefforttoexaminetheorganizationofrepairasasetofordered,butnotequalpossibilities.Thephenomenonofcorrectionwasthereforeprovenpartofamuchwiderpicture,i.e.repairandthescopeofdiscussionwasgreatlyexpandedfromthemerecorrectingofsome“hearable[usuallylinguistic]errors”(1977:363)toallpossible“practicesfordealingwithproblemsortroublesinspeaking,hearing,andunderstandingthetalkinconversation”(2000:207),adefinitiongivenbySchegloffhimselfsome20yearslater.Indeed,potentialtrouble-sourcesinconversationincludenotonlycorrectionofinformation,butalsoandmoreimportantlyreplacementofinappropriateitemsorambiguousanaphors,wordsearchandclarificationofthepragmaticfunction/understandingofapreviousturn.Theseandmanyotheroccurrencesmayonlybesubsumedunderthemoregeneralscopeofrepair.Incidentally,correctionmaynotalwaysbecategorizedunderrepaireither,asisexemplifiedbythedisagreementovertheso-called“embeddedcorrection”(Jefferson1987)–basicallyacovertformofother-correction–whichSchegloff(2000)ruledoutasnotconstitutingakindofrepair.Equallyimportantastheexpansioninthescopeofresearchwasthechangeintheviewofthetrouble-sourcesthatdirectlyoccasiontherepair.AccordingtoSchegloffetal(1977),trouble-sourcesarenotself-evidentbutdeterminedinteractivelybyparticipants.Inotherwords,allthesegmentsinanutteranceis,intheory,potentialtrouble-sourcesandoftentheexistenceofatrouble-sourcecanonlybeevidencedbytheactualmobilizationofthepracticeofrepaironthepartofeitherthehearerorthespeaker(andsometimesboth).Itisworthnotingthatjustasthestatusofatrouble-sourceisanuncertaintytobeinteractivelydetermined,theactualneedandproperprotocolofitsrepairisnotanymorecertain.Thisdynamicandinteractiveviewofrepairhasprovenrewardingintermsofrevealingnotonlyitsownmechanismbutalsoothercognitive,socialandpsychologicalaspectsofconversationaldiscourse,asmaybeinterestinglyexplainedbysucheverydaywisdom:youdon’tknowsomething’satworkuntilitgoeswrong.2.TheorganizationofrepairManystudieshavebeencarriedoutwithregardtothevariousdimensionsofconversationalrepairitself,e.g.itsclassification,sites,formsandcauses.Schegloffetal(1977)classifiedfourinteractionaltypesofrepairaccordingtothesubject(s)ofinitiation/repair,namelyself/other-initiatedself/otherrepair.Thisclassificationhasbeenadoptedbymanyresearcherslater,makingiteasiertotackleconversationaldata.YetGeluykens(1994:56)suggests,rightlyIthink,thatthisclassificationisinneedofrefinementasitisnotalwayspossibletodrawasharpboundarybetweenselfandotherinitiation.Hefoundasortofother-promptedself-initiation,whichunderlinestheinteractiveaspectofconversationaldiscourse.Alongwiththeinteractionalfour-typeclassification,Schegloffetal(1977)proposedtheunequaldistributionofthefourtypes.Tobemoreexact,self-repairispreferredtoother-repairandself-initiationtoother-initiation.Itfollowsthatthemostfavoredtypeisself-initiatedself-repair.Theirclaimwasputforwardwithnostatisticalevidencesolaterresearchershavediscussedtheirempiricalfindingswithreferencetoeitherorbothofthetwopreferences.Manystudies,includingsomebasedondatainlanguagesotherthanEnglish,areinsupportoftheobservationthatself-repairispreferred,e.g.Geluykens(1994)andMa(2007).Yetsomeremaindoubtfulastothepreferenceofself-initiationoverother-initiation,e.g.Gaskell(1980),Schwartz(1980)andGass&Varonis(1985)(seeWang2007).Astrongobjectiontothepreferenceofself-correctionwasputforwardbyNorrick(1991,seeJiang&Li2003),whosedatawascollectedfromconversationinparent-child,teacher-studentandNS-NNScontexts.Afterexaminingtheorganizationofcorrectiveexchangesinthesecontexts,hecontendedthatthepartyablertoperformthecorrection–notnecessarilythespeaker–doesit.Further,hedismissedtheallegedpreferenceasasub-casewhichisonlypossiblebetweenadultnativespeakers,whoseabilityofrepairisapproximatelyequal.Inotherwords,theabsenceofsuchpreferenceisthenormwhilethepreferenceisaspecialcase.Interestingly,Schegloffetal(1977)hasalsoobservedthatother-correction“seemstobenotasinfrequent”and“appearstobeonevehicleforsocialization”inthosecontextswheresomeonenot-yet-competentinacertaindomain–beitlanguagefacilityorbackgroundinformation–isinvolved(381).However,theyfurtherarguedthatthisexceptiontotheinfrequencyofother-correctionisonlyatransitionalstageandwillbesupersededbythepreferenceofself-correctioneventually.JoiningintheheateddiscussionareJiang&Li(2003),whoalsoquestionedthevalidityofSchegloff’sclaimaboutthepreferenceforself-repair.TheyofferedasprooftheworkofNorrick(1991)andZhao(1996).Thelatter,onthebasisofdataobtainedinacademicseminars,ofwhichother-repairtakesuparemarkableproportion,suggestedthattheoptionofself-orother-repairshouldtakeintoaccountofthecontext,includingthecontentofconversationandtherespectivesocialstatusoftheparticipants(Jiang&Li2003:42).Intheirownsurvey,Jiang&Li(2003)calculatedthefrequenciesofrepairintwocategoriesandfoundthepreferenceofself-repaironlyexistentinthecategorythatincludedclearingupmisunderstandings,wordsearchorself-editingwhileinthecorrectionofrealerrors,other-repairenjoysabiggerpercentageof60%.ThereforetheyblamedthemysteryofthepreferenceontheoverlybroaddefinitionofrepairputforwardbySchegloffetal.Besidestheinteractionalfour-typeclassification,repairhasbeenclassifiedbyotherways.Intermsofthekindoftrouble-spotbeingrepaired,Levelt(1989,seeGeluykens1994:20)distinguishesbetweenE[rror]-repairandA[ppropriateness]-repair.Consideringthetemporalaspectofrepair,thereareimmediaterepairsanddelayedrepairs(Geluykens1994:22).Therehasalsobeenin-depthdiscussiononthesites,orwhatiscalledthesequentialenvironmentforrepairinitiationandreparans(therepairingsegment).Ausualwayofreferringtothepositionofrepairinitiationisbyreferencetotheturnwherethetrouble-sourceoccurs.Schegloffetal(1977)foundself-initiationmainlyinthreepositions,namelythesameturnasthetrouble-source,thesameturn’stransitionplaceandthethird-turntothetrouble-sourceturn;other-initiation,ontheotherhand,wasfoundmainlyinthenextturn(tothetrouble-sourceturn).Levinson(1983,seeGeluykens1994)identifiedfoursimilaropportunities,whichareorderedwithdecreasingpreferenceandmostoftenusedbyeitherself-orother-initiation.Inparticular,Schegloff(2000)elaboratedthelocusofother-initiation(OI)thatoccursinpositionsotherthantheturnfollowingthetrouble-sourceturn.HesuggestedseveralinteractionalconstraintsthatmaybeaccountableforthesesomewhatdeviantOIs,constraintsrelatedtotheorganizationofrepair,ofturnsorofturn-taking.Inaddition,heobservedoccasionaldelaysinOIswhichimpliesthespeaker’sintentionof“settingasidetheunderstandingproblem”(233)orassessingitlater.ThisobservationwasofgreatrelevancetothestudyofWong,whoexaminedaformof“delayednextturnrepairinitiation”inN-NNEnglishconversationandproposedthatitmightbeaccountedbythedifferencesbetweennativeandnon-nativeparticipantsintheirwaysofsocialinteraction–morespecifically,intheuseofcertaintokensandsequentialorganizationinconversation.FromthecomparisonbetweenSchegloff(2000)andWong(2000),itseemsthattheinstantaneityandcomplexityofconversationspelldangerforhastygeneralizationanddueattentionshouldbepaidtominutedifferentiation.AcaseinpointmaybefoundinSchegloff(1997)’sdistinctionbetween“thirdturnrepair”and“thirdpositionrepair”,bothofwhichoccupiesasaruletheturnsubsequenttotheturnfollowingthetrouble-sourceturn,hence“third”.Yetacloserlookwithafocusonsequentialrelevancewillclearuptheconfusionofthetwo.While“thirdpositionrepair”isusuallyself-repairinresponsetoother-initiationinthesecondturn,“thirdturnrepair”isakindofself-initiatedself-repairseparatedfromthetrouble-sourceturnonlybyanotfull-fledgedturnofacknowledgementorirrelevantinterpolation.Anotherdimensionofconversationalrepair,i.e.itsforms,hasalsoreceivedconsiderableacademicattention.Firstly,onthevariousformsofinitiation,Schegloff(1979)distinguishedbetweenlexicalandnon-lexicalinitiation;Kuang(2001)specifiedfiveformsofrepairinitiationwithdecreasingextentofrepetitionofthetrouble-sourceturn;Drew(1997)developedasequentialanalysisoftheuseof‘open’initiators(suchas“pardon?”,“sorry?”and“what?”),inwhichspecificformsofinitiationarecorrelatedwithspecifictypesoftroublesources.Secondly,theformsofthereparans(therepairingutterance)proveacomplexissue,asresearchershavefoundanundeniablerelationbetweenrepairandsyntax.Foronething,thefourformstakenbysame-turnreparans–recycling,replacing,insertingandrestarting(Schegloff1979)maychangethesyntacticstructureofthetrouble-sourceturn.Asitis,repair“can[drastically]changethesyntacticformbysubsuming,underanother‘frame’sentence,thewholesentencebeingsaidorstartingtobesaid”(Schegloff1979:280).Thisinteractionbetweenrepairandsyntaxispartlyresponsiblefortheconfusionofrepairwithotherconstructions,e.g.dislocations.Inthisinterestingaspect,Geluykens(1994)exploredintensivelythemechanismofrightdislocation(RD),whichoftenoverlapswithanaphoricrepairbecauseoftheirsimilarityinsyntacticcharacteristics,semanticrelationsandfunctions.Ma(2006)categorizedRDswithrepairingfunctioninChinesediscourse(includingadramascript)intothefourinteractionaltypesofrepair.ItisnoteasytojudgewhetheraRDisfunctioningasarepairanditisofgreathelptotakeintoaccounttheprosodicfeatures,asGeluykenswiselyandmeticulouslydid.Asakindofrepairwhichhasreceivedthewidestattention,anaphoricrepairsaremobilizedbythefollowinggeneralcauses,trouble-sourcesbeingtheirspecificcauses.Thesegeneralcausesmaybe:(1)theonlinenatureofnaturallyoccurringconversation(Biberetal,seeMa2007);(2)the“discrepancybetweenthespeaker’sassessmentandthehearer’sactualstateofknowledge”(Huang1994:213;alsocf.Sacks&Schegloff);(3)failuretosatisfyconcurrentlytwopragmaticprinciples,whicharetheQ[uantity]-andI[nformativeness]-principlesaccordingtoHuang(1994)butwhicharetheE[conomy]-andC[larity]-principlesaccordingtoGeluykens(1994).Itseemsthatthethreecausesarecloselyrelatedratherconflicting.Foronething,abalancedsatisfactionoftwopragmaticprinciplesrequiresaboveallthespeaker’scorrectassessmentofthehearer’sactualstateofknowledge.Moreover,thesecauseshavegeneralimplicationsforthecausesofotherkindsofrepair.3.TowardsabroaderscopeThoughthemajorityofempiricalmaterialsforthestudyofrepairaredrawnfromEnglishconversation,workshavebeendoneontalk-in-interactioninabroaderrangeoflanguagesandcommunities.Theseeffortshaveprovenfruitfultosomeextent.AcomparativestudybyRieger(2003)foundthatthestructuraldifferencebetweenEnglishandGermanmayhaveresultedinthedifferentpreferencesoftheformofrepetitionasself-repairstrategiesamongEnglishandGermannativespeakers.Similarly,Foxetal(seeShen2005:39-40)proposedthatthedifferenceintheformsofrepairinJapaneseandEnglishispartlycausedbythedifferenceinthesyntaxofthetwolanguages.Ma(2007)examinedrepairstrategiesemployedbynativespeakersofMandarinChineseandfoundasimilarskeweddistributionofthefourinteractionaltypesamongbothliterateandilliterategroups.OtherstudiesonrepairinMandarinChineseincludeabriefdiscussionofanaphoricrepairbyHuang(2000)andaninspiringsurveyoftheclassification,positioningandformsofrepairandrepairinitiationbyJiang(2001)andadetailedexaminationoftheformsofrepairaimedatproblemsofproductionorunderstandingbyLuo(2004).Moerman(1977,seeGeluykens1994:20)’sfindingsinaThaiconversationalcorpusalsoreinforcedtheclaimofthepreferenceforself-initiatedself-repair.Meanwhile,long-dueattentionhasbeenpaidtotheorganizationofrepairinnon-nativediscoursecommunities.Theinterestinrepairstrategiesofnon-nativeEnglishspeakersinEnglishconversationhasbeengivenaboostbytheneedtoexplore“thepotentialvalueofCAforthestudyofSLAthroughinteraction”(Wong244).QuantitativesurveyswerecarriedoutbyWang(2007)andChen&Pu(2007)amongnon-nativeEnglishspeakersinChina.Inbothsurveys,non-nativespeakerswerefoundtofavortherepairoferrorsinlinguisticformsratherthanimproperexpressionsorinadequateinformation.Thethreeresearchersthussuggestedthatlanguageteachersshouldplacegreateremphasisoncommunicativecompetence.Kasper’sinvestigationintheESLclassroomisalsoaneffortinthisdirection(seeShen40).Henceitseemsajustifiedeffortforlanguagelearningandteachingtotakeamuchcloserlookatnon-nativetalk–howitmaygowrongandthenberepaired.Asconversationisamostcommonpracticeofinterpersonalinteractionandsocialcommunication,theorganizationofrepairinconversationhasalsosparkedinterestininterdisciplinaryresearch.Schegloffrightlypointedoutthat“attheorganizationofrepair–thoughtnotexclusivelyhere–linguisticsandsociologymeet.”(Schegloff1977:381).Faerch&Kasper(seeYao2005)proposedthatproblematicutteranceisaface-threateningactandaccordingly,self-repairisaface-savingact.Similarly,Wong(2000)interpretedthenon-nativespeaker’sambiguousresponse(e.g.“oh”)tothenativespeakerasa“face-savingacknowledgmenttoken”(263),whichdoesnotsignalanadequateunderstandingoftheprecedingturnandwhichisoftenfollowedbyother-initiationfromthenon-nativespeaker.Here,asenseof“nonnative-ness”seemstobeatwork.Surprisingly,evenamongnativespeakersthemselves,thesenseof“nonnative-ness”mayalsoariseandmembershipcategorizingmaybeunderway.ByanalyzingGermanconversation,Egbert(2004)showedjustexactlyhow“coparticipantsengageinlinguisticandregionalmembershipcategorizinginother-initiatedrepairsequences”(28).BothWongandEgberthasshownthepotentialforCAmethodologytobeappliedtoresearchininterculturalandintra-culturalcommunications.Researchersinpsycholinguisticsandcomputationallinguisticshavealsobeeninterestedintheclassificationofself-repairandtheperceptionofrepairthroughsoundsignalsandsyntacticanalysis(cf.Yao2005andShen2005).ReferencesDrew,P.(1997).‘Open’classrepairinitiatorsinresponsetosequentialsourcesoftroublesinconversation[J].JournalofPragmatics28:69-101.Egbert,M.(2004).Other-initiatedrepairandmembershipcategorization–someconversationaleventsthattriggerlinguisticandregionalmembershipcategorization[J].JournalofPragmatics36:1467-1498.Geluykens,R.(1994).ThepragmaticsofdiscourseanaphorainEnglish:evidencefromconversationalrepair[M].Berlin/NewYork:MoutondeGruyter.Huang,Yan.(1994).Thesyntaxandpragmaticsofanaphora:AstudywithspecialreferencetoChinese[M].Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Jefferson,G.(1987).Exposedandembeddedcorrections[A].InG.ButtonandJ.R.E.Lee(eds.):TalkandSocialOrganization[C].Clevedon,England:MultilingualMattersLtd.86-100.Retrieved25June2007,fromtheWorldWideWeb.<http://www.liso.ucsb.edu/Jefferson/Embedded_Correction.pdf>Rieger,C.L.(2003).Repetitionsasself-repairstrategiesinEnglishandGermanconversations[J].JournalofPragmatics35:47-69.Sacks,H.andE.A.Schegloff,(1979).TwoPreferencesintheOrganizationofReferencetoPersonsinConversationandTheirInteraction[A].InG.Psathas(eds.):EverydayLanguageStudiesinEthnomethodology[C].NewYork:IrvingtonPublishers,15-21.Schegloff,E.A.(1979).Therelevanceofrepairtosyntaxforconversation[A].InD.Sudnow(eds.):DiscourseandSyntax[C].NewYork:AcademicPress,261-286.Schegloff,E.A.(1997).ThirdTurnRepair[A].InGuy,G.R.,C.Feagin&J.Baugh(eds.):TowardsaSocialScienceofLanguage2[C].Amsterdam/Philadelphia:JohnBenjaminsPublishingCompany,31-40.Schegloff,E.A.(2000).When‘Others’InitiateRepair[J].AppliedLinguistics21:205-243.Schegloff,E.A.,G.Jefferson&H.Sacks,(1977).Thepreferenceforself-correctionintheorganizationofrepairinconversation[J].Language53:361-382.Wong,J.(2000).Delayednextturnrepairinitiationinnative/non-nativespeakerEnglishconversation[J].AppliedLinguistics21:244-67.陈立平、濮建忠.2007.基于语料库的大学生英语口语自我修正研究[J].《外语教学》，28(2)：57-61.姜望琪、李梅.2003.谈谈会话中的纠偏问题[J].《外国语》，(4)：39-45.匡小荣.2001.汉语口语交谈过程的动态研究[D].上海：复旦大学.罗维.2004.汉语会话修正研究[D].山东：山东大学.马文.2006.广义右偏置结构及其修正功能[J].《四川外语学院学报》，22(3)：70-74.沈蔚.2005.会话修正研究在国外[J].《外语学刊》，(4)：38-42.王晓燕.2007.会话偏误修补模式与特征研究——以PETS口试为研究个案[J].《外语与外语教学》，(5)：42-46.姚剑鹏.2005.会话修补的认知研究[J].《外语教学》，26(3)：1-6.