医患沟通中作为（不）礼貌策略的模糊限制语语用分析

发布时间：2018-03-09 05:18

本文选题：医患沟通　切入点：模糊限制语　出处：《华侨大学》2016年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：医患沟通在医患关系中有着重要的作用,因此医患双方都非常注重交际策略的选择,其中就包括模糊限制语的使用。本文以100例真实的医患沟通音频语料为研究对象。语料由华侨大学部分在校大学生志愿者利用2013-2014学年度的寒假,使用手机、录音笔等设备在国内不同医院、诊所录制而成,并由收集者根据音频转写,笔者进行校对。本文采用定量和定性相结合的研究方法,借助ROST内容挖掘软件5.0版本,并以(不)礼貌理论为理论框架,对语料中出现的医患模糊限制语的分布频率及其作为(不)礼貌策略的语用功能进行分析。本文着重探讨以下四个问题:(1)医患门诊沟通中模糊限制语如何分布?有何特点?(2)从(不)礼貌角度,医患门诊沟通中交际者是如何使用模糊限制语的?(3)患者(含家属)是否有可能实施不礼貌言语行为?如果是,为什么?(4)医患双方在不礼貌言语行为的回应策略方面有什么差异?研究发现:(1)医患双方出于不完全相同的动机都会经常使用模糊限制语,比如“一点”“很”;(2)模糊限制语的使用具有双重功能:一方面,模糊限制语是医患双方用于实施礼貌策略以维护对方面子、建立良好医患关系的语言表达手段;另一方面,模糊限制语的使用既可直接表达对听话人的不礼貌态度,也可在医患双方表明不同意见、威胁对方面子时起强化作用;(3)医生是不礼貌话语的主要发起者,而患者有时也使用模糊限制语干涉医生的诊治活动,表达自己的不同意见,威胁医生的面子;(4)医生既采用攻击性策略也采用防卫性策略来回应不礼貌,但是患者通常不作回应或接受对方的不礼貌或偶尔采用防卫性策略来回应,极少使用攻击性回应策略。本文对医患沟通中模糊限制语的语用分析具有多方面的意义。从理论上来说,模糊限制语可作为不礼貌策略的语用功能,是对Brown和Levinson(1987)将模糊限制语视为消极礼貌策略的补充,并且增强了Culpeper(1996,2005)不礼貌框架理论的解释力和适用面。从实践上来说,本研究所收集到的医患门诊沟通语料可以丰富医患沟通研究的语料范围;最后但同样重要的是,本研究有助于医患双方了解模糊限制语在沟通过程中的重要地位,从而改善双方交际策略,促进医患关系。
[Abstract]:Doctor-patient communication plays an important role in the doctor-patient relationship, so both doctors and patients attach great importance to the choice of communication strategies. Among them is the use of hedges. In this paper, 100 cases of real doctor-patient communication audio data were studied. The data were used by some college students volunteers in overseas Chinese University to use mobile phones during the winter vacation in 2013-2014. The recording pen and other equipment are recorded in different hospitals and clinics in China and proofread by the collector according to the audio frequency. This paper adopts the method of combining quantitative and qualitative research, and makes use of the 5.0 version of ROST content mining software. And take the (no) politeness theory as the theoretical framework, This paper analyzes the distribution frequency of doctor-patient hedges in the corpus and its pragmatic function as a politeness strategy. This paper focuses on the following four questions: 1) how to distribute hedges in doctor-patient outpatient communication? What are the characteristics? (2) from the point of view of politeness, how do communicators use hedges in doctor-patient clinic communication? Is it possible for a patient (including a family member) to perform an impolite speech act? If so, why? What are the differences between doctors and patients in response strategies to impolite speech acts? The study found that both doctors and patients often use vague hedges for different motivations, such as "a little" and "a bit".) the use of vague hedges has a dual function: on the one hand, Hedges are language expressions used by both doctors and patients to implement politeness strategies to protect the face of each other and to establish good doctor-patient relations. On the other hand, the use of hedges can directly express the impolite attitude towards the hearer. Doctors are also the main initiators of impolite words, and patients sometimes use hedges to interfere with doctors' diagnosis and treatment activities and express their different opinions. Doctors use both offensive and defensive strategies to respond to impoliteness, but patients often do not respond or accept the other's impoliteness or occasionally respond with defensive strategies. Aggressive response strategies are rarely used. This paper has many implications for pragmatic analysis of hedges in doctor-patient communication. In theory, hedges can be used as pragmatic functions of impolite strategies. It is a supplement to Brown and Levinsonian's view of hedges as a negative politeness strategy, and enhances the explanatory power and application of the theory of impoliteness framework. The data collected in this study can enrich the scope of the research on doctor-patient communication. Last but not least, this study helps both doctors and patients to understand the important role of hedges in the communication process. In order to improve the communication strategies and promote the relationship between doctors and patients.
【学位授予单位】：华侨大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2016
【分类号】：H136

【相似文献】