法律咨询热线中的打断研究

发布时间：2024-06-13 23:14

　　打断作为一种语言现象及社会行为被语言学家,社会学家和人类学家广泛研究。在机构话语和非机构话语中,打断现象通常被认作是一种不礼貌的社会行为,容易引起冲突,然而打断有时会在会话中提供语言支持,并在会话中扮演重要角色.因此,诱发打断产生的根本原因,执行打断的策略以及打断的功能非常值得探讨。本研究以60次法律咨询现场直播节目中自然发生的对话录音为语料,采用会话分析(CA)的研究方法,重点探究专业法律服务人员和咨询者之间的互动,并对会话中打断的原因,策略和功能进行了深入探讨。我们发现,当咨询者的陈述有重复、混乱以及不相关等特征时,往往会出现打断;当不相关性陈述出现时,打断出现的频率较高。律师同咨询者间知识域的不对称性则导致了不同的打断策略。在法律领域认知立场较高的律师习惯使用直接否定的策略执行打断.本研究发现,若打断策略直接,则打断的主要功能是获取信息、引领会话及进行调解;若打断策略迂冋,则打断主要服务于解释会话及核实信息准确性等目的。其中为获取信息执行打断的做法在法律咨询热线中最为常见。此外,本研究对打断之后被打断人的冋应做了详细探讨。研究发现以律师为代表的专业人士被打断后会做出非合作性冋应,...

【文章页数】：121 页

【学位级别】：硕士

【文章目录】：
Abstract
摘要
Chapter One Introduction
    1.1 Background of the Study
    1.2 Objectives of the Study
    1.3 Significance of the Study
    1.4 Organization of the Thesis
Chapter Two Literature Review
    2.1 Introduction
    2.2 Conversation Analysis
    2.3 Institutional Talk
    2.4 Previous Studies of Interruption in the Field of CA
        2.4.1 General Studies of Interruption in the Field of CA
        2.4.2 Interruptions in Ordinary Talks
        2.4.3 Interruption in Institutional Talks
    2.5 Previous Studies of Interruption in Helplines
    2.6 Research Gaps
    2.7 Summary
Chapter Three Theoretical Underpinnings
    3.1 Introduction
    3.2 The Interaction Order
    3.3 Epistemics
    3.4 Summary
Chapter Four Methodology
    4.1 Introduction
    4.2 Research Questions
    4.3 Research Method
    4.4 Data Source and Data Collection
    4.5 Summary
Chapter Five Initiation of Interruption in Law Consultation Helpline
    5.1 Introduction
    5.2 Initiators of Interruption in Law Consultation Helpline
        5.2.1 Repetition-initiated Interruption
        5.2.2 Illogical Formulation-initiated Interruption
        5.2.3 Disagreement-initiated Interruption
        5.2.4 Irrelevance-Initiated Interruption
    5.3 Distribution of the Initiators in Law Consultation Helpline
    5.4 Summary
Chapter Six The Strategies and Functions of Interruption in Law ConsultationHelpline
    6.1 Introduction
    6.2 The Strategies of Interruption in Law Consultation Helpline
        6.2.1 Three Interruption Strategies in Law Consultation Helpline
        6.2.2 The Distribution of Interruption Strategies in Law Consultation Helpline
    6.3 Interruption by Direct Negation
        6.3.1 Interruption for Information
        6.3.2 Interruption for Leading the Conversation
        6.3.3 Interruption for Mediation
    6.4 Interruption through Indirect Negation
        6.4.1 Interruption for Introducing a New Topic
        6.4.2 Interruption for Explanation
    6.5 Interruption by Partial Agreement
        6.5.1 Interruption for Confirmation
        6.5.2 Interruption for Clarification
    6.6 Summary
Chapter Seven Responses to Interruption in Law Consultation Helpline
    7.1 Introduction
    7.2 Cooperative Responses as Post-interruption
        7.2.1 Giving Direct Information after Being Interrupted
        7.2.2 Giving Agreement Tokens after Being Interrupted
        7.2.3 Continuer as a Response to Interruption
    7.3 Uncooperative Response after Interruption
        7.3.1 Constructing Authority after Being Interrupted
        7.3.2 Negation after Being Interrupted
    7.4 Summary
Chapter Eight An Epistemic Interpretation of Interruption in Law ConsultationHelpline
    8.1 Introduction
    8.2 Epistemic Access and Interruption
        8.2.1 Epistemic Status and Interruption
        8.2.2 Epistemic Stance and Interruption
    8.3 Epistemic Primacy and Interruption
    8.4 Episteemic Responsibility and Interruption
    8.5 Summary
Chapter Nine Conclusion
    9.1 Major Findings
    9.2 Implications
    9.3 Limitations and Suggestion for Future Research
References
Acknowledgments
Appendix Ⅰ The Transcription Symbols
Appendix Ⅱ Example Transcripts of Law-consultation Radio Live Program
学位论文评阅及答辩情况表



本文编号：3993794