درآمدی بر نظام مدیریت گفتمان: نظریه ها، مدل ها، راهبردها و پژوهش ها

نوع مقاله : علمی پژوهشی(عادی)

نویسنده

عضو هیئت علمی دانشگاه اراک

چکیده

بحث اصلی این مقاله پژوهش نظام مدیریت گفتمان می‌باشد. در این گستره سه نظریۀ انسجام، ارتباط، و معرفت‌شناسی ارائه شده‌اند. در گسترۀ هر یک از نظریه‌های انسجام و ارتباط ، سه مدل ارائه شده‌است. به کمک تجزیه و تحلیل مدل‌های ششگانه و پژوهش نظرات دیگر محققان، استنباط علمی پژوهش حاضر این است که مدل فریزر (1998) از کاربرد بیشتری در هدایت پژوهش‌ها برخوردار ‌است. گرچه مدل‌های دیگر، از جمله مدل شفرین (1987)، از نظر مباحث علمی و نظری دارای جامعیت، گستردگی و پیچیدگی بیشتری هستند، ولی دارای مشکلات متعددی می‌باشند. همچنین، نتایج نشان می‌دهد که راهبردهای مدیریت سه نوع‌اند: گوینده-محور، شنونده-محور و گوینده و شنونده-محور. بعضی از راهبردها هم از مشکلاتی برخوردارند. دستاورد بعدی این مطالعه این است که از پژوهش‌های انجام شده در این گستره دارای نقاط ضعف گوناگونی بوده و به قول شفرین (2001)، نمی‌توان آن‌ها را در یک مجموعۀ جامع و در هم‌تنیدۀ نظری و اجرایی گرداوری نمود. و در پایان، مجموعه‌ای از راه‌کارهای پژوهشی، علمی، آموزشی، و کاربردی برای تسهیل، آموزش و مدیریت گفتمان پیشنهاد گردید.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

An Introduction to Discourse Monitoring System: Theories,Models, Strategies, and Researches

چکیده [English]

This paper intends to investigate discourse monitoring system through the analysis of theories, models, strategies, and researches. Three theories of coherence, relevance, and norm epistemic outlook are offered. Six models are offered. The critical analysis of the models resulted in a scientific, research, and educational inference that Fraser’s (1992, 1998) model possesses the highest rate of application. Other models suffer from various practical limitations. Moreover, the study revealed that discourse monitoring strategies are speaker-oriented, hearer-oriented, and speakerhearer-oriented. Some of them overlap and are not separate and may be mixed up. And the researches, in the area, have mostly been quantitative, discovered the type and the frequency of occurrences, have been limited to TEFL, and other languages and the relevant areas are mostly ignored. As a result, they could not support formulation of an integrated theory. And finally, some scientific, educational, research, executive, social, and managerial implications are provided to facilitate, manipulate, and influence the process of monitoring discourse.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • discourse monitoring
  • Theories
  • Models
  • strategies
  • researches
منابع
Aijmer, K. (2002 ). English Discourse Particles . Evidence from a Corpus . : . Amsterdam : John Benjamins.
Anderson, G. (1998). The pragmatic marker like from a relevance-theoretic perspective. In A. a. Jucker, Discourse Markers (pp. 147-171). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Blakemore, D. (1987). Semantic constraints on relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.
Blakemore, D. (1992 ). Understanding Utterances . Oxford : Blackwell .
Blakemore, D. (1992). Understanding utterances: An introduction to pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell.
Bolinger, D. (1989). Intonation and its uses: Melody and grammar in discourse. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Crystal, D. (1985). A Dictionary of linguistics and Phonetics. Oxford: Blackwell.
Blakemore, D. (2001). Discourse and Relevance Theory. In D. ,. Schiffrin, The Handbook of Discourse Analysis (pp. 100-119). Oxford: Blackwell.
Erman, B. (2001). Pragmatic markers revisited with a focus on you know in adult and adolescent talks. Journal of Pragmatics, 33(3), 1337-1359.
Faghih, E. &. A. Mousaee.(2015). English Writing Skill in Terms of Discourse Markers inINTERPOL Electronic Messages Written by Non-Native andNative Police Officers: A Comparative and Contrastive Study. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 2(7), . 10-23.
Fraser, B. (1990). An approach to discourse markers. Journal of Pragmatics, 14(3), 383-395.
Fraser, B. (1996). Pragmatic markers. Pragmatics, 6, 167 - 190.
Fraser, B. (1996). Pragmatic Markers. Pragmatics, 6 (2), 167–190.
Fraser, B. (1999). What are discourse markers? . Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 931-952.
Fraser, B. (2009). An account of discourse markers. International Review of Pragmatics, 1(2), 293-320.
Fraser, B. (2009). Topic orientation markers. Journal of Pragmatics, 41 , 892 - 898.
Fraser, B. (2013). Combinations of Contrastive discourse markers in English. International Review of Pragmatics, 5, 318-340.
Furko, P. (2014). Perspectives on the Translation of Discourse Markers. Acta Universitatis Sapientiae, Philologica,, 6(2), 181–196.
Hauge, K. (2014). Found in translation: discourse markers out of the blue. Oslo Studies in Language, 6(1), 43-52.
Jalilifar, A. (2008). Discourse markers in composition writings: The case of Iranian learners of English as aForeign Language. English LanguageTeaching, 1(3), 31-48.
Jucker, A. (1993). The discourse marker ‘well’: a relevance theoretical account. Journal of Pragmatics, 19, 435–452.
Khazaee, H. (2012). Use of Discourse Markers by Iranian Teachers of English as a Foreign Language. J. Basic. Appl. Sci. Res.,, 2(9), 8912-8917.
Lenk, U. (1998). Discourse markersand global coherence in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 12(4), 245-257.
Mirshamsi, A. &. H. Allami. (2013). Metadiscourse markers in the discussion/conclusion, section of Persian andEnglish master's theses. The Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 12(5), 23-40.
Mohammadi, A. M., D. Nejadansari, M. Yuhannaee. (, 2015). The index of pragmatic uses of 'Well' in university classroom discourse: a case study in Iran. Taiwan Journal of TESOL, 12(2), 86-116.
Nejadansari, D. &. (2014). The frequencies and functions of discourse markers in the Iranian University EFL classroom discourse. International Journal of Research Studies in Language Learning, 4(2), 1-18.
Rahimi, F. &. H. Riasati. (2012). The effect of explicit instruction of discourse markers on the quality of oraloutput. International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature, 11(3), 65-79.
Rahimi, M. (2011). discourse markers in argumentative and expository writing of Iranian EFL learners. World Journal of English Language,, 11(2), 41-58.
Redeker, G. (1990).  Ideational and pragmatic markers of discourse structure . Journal of Pragmatics, 14 , 367 - 381.
Redeker, G. (1991). Linguistic markers of discourse structure. Linguistics, 29 , 1139 - 1172.
Rezaee, M. &. F. Aghagolzadeh. (2014,). Discourse Markers and Lecturers' Gender. International Journal of Multidisciplinary and Scientific Emerging Research, 3(1), 20-45.
Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse markers . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schiffrin, D. (2001). ‘Discourse Markers: Language, Meaning and Context. In D. D. Schiffrin (Ed.), The Handbook of Discourse Analysis (pp. 54–75). Oxford : Blackwell.
Schourup, L. (1999). Discourse markers. Lingua, 107 , 227 - 265.
Schourup, L. (2001). Rethinking Well’. Journal of Pragmatics, 33(10), 25–60.
Simon-Vandenbergen, A. &. (2004). A model and amethodology for the study of pragmatic markers: the semantic field of expectation. Journal of Pragmatics, 36, 1781–1805.
Sperber, D. & A. Wilson. (1995). Relevance . Oxford: Blackwell.
Tajdin, Z. & A. Alemi (2012). L2 Learners’ Use of Metadiscourse Markers. Issues in Language Teaching, 1(1), 93-121.
Trillo, R. (2002). The pragmatic fossilization of discourse markers in non-native speakersof English. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 769-784.
Van Dijik, T. A. (1972). The semantics and pragmatics of functional coherence. Journal of Pragmatics, 4(2), 233-252.
Walsh, S. (2005). Classroom discourse. Oxford: OUP.
Wang, Y. (2014). A short analysis of discourse coherence. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 5(2), 460-465.
Yang, S. (2011). Investigating discourse markers in educational settings: a literature review. ARECLS, 8, 95-108.
Yang, S. (2012). Discourse markers: An area of confusion. PhilologicaUrcitana.Revista Semestral de Iniciación a la Investigaciónen Filología, 7, 37-44.
Zarei, F. (2013). Discourse markers in English. International Research Journal of Applied and Basic Sciences, 4(1), 107-117.