Literature Review范例

浙江大学学士学位论文文献综述1LiteratureReviewInthisthesis,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.Theseandmanyother浙江大学学士学位论文文献综述2occurrencesmayonlybesubsumedunderthemoregeneralscopeofrepair.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)浙江大学学士学位论文文献综述3proposedtheunequaldistributionofthefourtypes.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)hasalsoobservedtha