時至今日，談到中文言談標記「我覺得」的研究，大部分還是著重於成人在立場表述時的使用情形，至於兒童如何習得這個在日常生活中被廣泛運用的認識情態標記，相較來說反而鮮少著墨。有鑑於此，本實驗旨在探討以中文為母語之兒童在具體運思期發揮七種「我覺得」語用功能的發展，尤其在不同文體或情境下。採取量化與質化並行的研究方法來觀察實驗組四十五位兒童，其細分成三個年齡層和對照組十五位成人，以小組討論方式，來蒐集真實的自然語料，同時輔以統計檢定及言談分析作為佐證。
研究發現，如下：
一、所有參與者在論說類型之任務中使用「我覺得」的數量明顯偏高，於此兒童跟成人在偏好上相當類似。
二、就功能性而言不管兒童還是成人「我覺得」最常被用來評論，不過兒童仍然無法用「我覺得」做結論。
三、其固定模組或組成公式則顯示，位於句尾的「我覺得」分布比較狹隘。
四、依據兒童的能力指標也可以看到三階段發展：從低年級到中年級，逐漸習得如何使用「我覺得」來猜測或建議；從中年級到高年級，逐漸習得如何使用「我覺得」來表達事後想法。儘管如此，七歲到十一歲的兒童似乎尚未習得如何使用「我覺得」來提出結論。
總結而言，本論文不僅僅拓展了對中文言談標記的理解，更為往後此方面之母語習得帶來重要的教學啟示與應用。

While extensive research has been conducted on how adult native speakers take advantage of one of the most frequently-used Chinese discourse markers, wo juede, in their stance-takings, far too little attention has, until now, been paid to examine the first language acquisition of such a marker of epistemicity. Therefore, this study seeks to explore the way children at the concrete-operational stage acquire wo juede to fulfill a total of seven pragmatic functions within a variety of given contexts. Both quantitative and qualitative research methods were employed, and more specifically, sixty participants, inclusive of forty-five children and fifteen adults, partook in one production task with four missions through group discussion. Not merely was many a statistical test undergone quantitatively, but discourse analysis was performed qualitatively in the process.
Experimental results showed that the Child and Adult groups were more inclined to utilize wo juede in argumentative genre than in discursive genre. Moreover, all of them much preferred commenting wo juede (T3). Their capabilities of carrying out four wo juede functions suggested itself a stage of development; for example, from G1 to G2, T4 (speculating) and T5 (suggesting) emerged, and from G2 to G3, T7 (expressing afterthoughts) emerged. T6 (concluding) was still not yet acquired by any of the Child groups. Furthermore, wo juede was found to be more likely to occur in the pre-position (T1~T6) rather than post-position (T7), based on its regular patterns. In sum, the present study has not only broadened a growing understanding of discourse markers in the Chinese language, but also shed bright lights on wo juede in L1 acquisition pedagogically.

Aijmer, K. 1997. I think: An English modal particle. In T. Swan and O. J. Westvik (eds.), Modality in Germanic Languages: Historical and Comparative Perspectives. NY: Mouton de Gruyter.
Ambridge, B. et al. 2008. The effect of verb semantic class and verb frequency entrenchment on children’s and adults’ graded judgements of argument-structure overgeneralization errors. Cognition 106, 87-129.
Ambridge, B. 2012. Paradigms for assessing children’s knowledge of syntax and morphology. In E. Hoff (ed.), Research Methods in Child Language: A Practical Guide. London: Blackwell-Wiley.
Ambridge, B. and C. Rowland. 2013. Experimental methods in studying child language acquisition. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science 4, 1-20.
Anderson, L. and D. Krathwohl. 2001. A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. NY: Longman.
Baumgarten, N. and J. House. 2010. I think and I don’t know in English as lingua franca and native English discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 42, 1184-1200.
Biber, D. and E. Finegan. 1988. Adverbial stance types in English. Discourse Process 11, 1-34.
Biber, D. and E. Finegan. 1989. Styles of stance in English: Lexical and grammatical marking of evidentiality and effect. Text 9, 93-124.
Blum-Kulka, S. and G. Kasper. 1989. Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. NJ: Ablex.
Bowern, C. 2015. Linguistic Fieldwork: A Practical Guide. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
Bretherton, I. and M. Beeghly. 1982. Talking about internal states: The acquisition of an explicit theory of mind. Developmental Psychology 18, 906-921.
Brown, P. 1980. How and why are women more polite: Some evidence from a Mayan community. In S. McConnell-Ginet et al. (eds.), Women and Language in Literature and Society. NY: Praeger.
Brown, P. and S. C. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bucholtz, M. and H. Kira. 2005. Identity and interaction: A sociocultural linguistic approach. Discourse Studies 7, 585-614.
Chang, Y. W. 2016. Pragmatic functions of Mandarin Wo Juede and Wo Xiang in the Spoken Corpus. Master’s Thesis: National Taichung University of Education (in Chinese).
Cheng, W. and A. B. M. Tsui. 2009. Ahh laugh well there is no comparison between the two I think: How do Hong Kong Chinese and native speakers of English disagree with each other. Journal of Pragmatics 41, 2365-2380.
Chomsky, N. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding: The Pisa Lectures. Dordrecht: Foris Publishing.
Conrad, S. and D. Biber. 2000. Adverbial marking of stance in speech and writing. In S. Hunston and G. Thompson (eds.), Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
De-Cock, S. et al. 1998. An automated approach to the phrasicon of EFL learners. In S. Granger (ed.), Learner English on Computer. NY: Longman.
Du-Bois, J. W. 2007. The stance triangle. In R. Englebretson (ed.), Stancetaking in Discourse: Subjective, Evaluation, and Interaction. PA: John Benjamins.
Ellis, D. 2015. Argument Discourse. The International Encyclopedia of Language and Social Interaction. London: Blackwell-Wiley.
Endo, T. 2013. Epistemic stance in Mandarin conversation: The positions and functions of wo juede, I feel or think. In D. Z. Kadar and Y. Pan (eds.), Chinese Discourse and Interaction: Theory and Practice. Sheffield: Equinox Press.
Fang, M. 2005. On grammatical bleaching of the evidential and epistemic verbs: From complement-taking predicates to pragmatic markers. Studies of the Chinese Language 6, 495-574.
Fischer, K. 2006. Towards an understanding of the spectrum of approaches to discourse particles: Introduction to the volume. In K. Fischer (ed.), Approaches to Discourse Particles. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Ford, C. E. et al. 2002. The Language of Turn and Sequence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gilbert, G. N. and M. J. Mulkay. 1984. Opening Pandora’s Box: A Sociological Analysis of Scientists’ Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Goodwin, C. 1979. The interactive construction of a sentence in natural conversation. In G. Psathas (ed.), Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology. NY: Irvington.
Goodwin, C. and M. H. Goodwin. 1987. Concurrent operations on talk: Notes on the interactive organization of assessments. Interactional Pragmatics Association Papers in Pragmatics 1, 1-55.
Granger, S. 1998. Prefabricated patterns in advanced EFL writing. In R. W. Bailey et al. (eds.), Phraseology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Guo, Z. J. 2004. The weak assertive predicate wo xiang in Mandarin Chinese. Linguistics Studies 24, 43-47.
Hakulinen, A. and M. Selting. 2005. Syntax and Lexis in Conversation. PA: John Benjamins.
Holmes, J. 1984. Modifying illocutionary force. Journal of Pragmatics 8, 345-365.
Holmes, J. 1985. Sex differences and miscommunication: Some data from New Zealand. In J. B. Pride (ed.), Cross-Cultural Encounters: Communication and Miscommunication. Melbourne: River Seine.
Holmes, J. 1990. Hedges and boosters in women’s and men’s speech. Language and Communication 10, 185-205.
Huang, S. F. 2003. Doubts about complementation: A functionalist analysis. Language and Linguistics 4, 429-455.
Hyland, K. 1998. Hedging in Scientific Research Articles. PA: John Benjamins.
Hyland, K. 2000. Hedges, boosters, and lexical invisibility: Noticing modifiers in academic texts. Language Awareness 9, 179-197.
Ifantidou, E. 2001. Evidentials and Relevance. PA: John Benjamins.
Jaffe, A. 2009. Stance: Sociolinguistic Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Johnson, C. and M. Maratsos. 1977. Early comprehension of mental verbs: Think and know. Child Development 48, 1743-1747.
Jucker, A. 1986. New Interviews. PA: John Benjamins.
Jucker, A. et al. 2003. Interactive aspects of vagueness in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 35, 1737-1769.
Kaltenbock, G. 2007. Position, prosody, and scope: The case of English comment clauses. Vienna English Working Papers 16, 3-38.
Kaltenbock, G. 2008. Prosody and function of English comment clauses. Folia Linguistica 41, 83-134.
Kaltenbock, G. 2010. Pragmatic functions of parenthetical I think. In G. Kaltenbock et al. (eds.), New Approaches to Hedging. Bingley: Emerald.
Kaltenbock, G. 2013. Development of comment clauses. In B. Aarts et al. (eds.), The Verb Phrase in English: Investigating Recent Change with Corpora. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Karkkainen, E. 2003. Epistemic Stance in English Conversation: A Description of Its Interactional Functions with a Focus on I think. PA: John Benjamins.
Karkkainen, E. 2007. The role of I guess in conversational stancetaking. In R. Englebretson (ed.), Stancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, Evaluation, and Interaction. PA: John Benjamins.
Karkkainen, E. 2010. Position and scope of epistemic phrases in planned and unplanned American English. In G. Kaltenbock et al. (eds.), New Approaches to Hedging. Bingley: Emerald.
Leech, G. N. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. NY: Longman.
Liddicoat, A. J. et al. 1999. Striving for the third place: Consequences and implications. In J. L. Bianco et al. (eds.), Striving for the Third Place: Intercultural Competence through Language Education. Language Australia.
Lim, N. E. 2011. From subjectivity to inter-subjectivity: Epistemic marker wo juede in Chinese. In Y. Xiao et al. (eds.), Current Issues in Chinese Linguistics. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Press.
Liu, B. 2008. The semantic bleaching and subjectivation of wo shuo. Linguistic Research 3, 18-23.
Liu, Y. H. 1986. Special usages of shuo, xiang, kan in dialogue. Studies of the Chinese Language 3, 168-172.
Lyons, J. 1982. Dexis and subjectivity: Loquor, ergo sum. In R. J. Jarvella and W. Klein (eds.), Speech, Place and Action. London: Blackwell-Wiley.
Lyons, J. 1994. Subjecthood and subjectivity. In M. Yaguello (ed.), Subjecthood and Subjectivity: The Status of the Subject in Linguistic Theory. Paris: Ophrys.
Moore, C. et al. 1989. Mental terms and the development of certainty. Child Development 60, 167-171.
Moore, C. and D. Furrow. 1991. The development of the language of belief: The expression of relative certainty. In D. Frye and C. Moore (eds.), Children’s Theories of Mind: Mental States and Social Understanding. NJ: Hillsdale.
Mucauley, R. K. S. 1995. The adverbs of authority. English Worldwide 16, 37-60.
Muller, S. 2004. Well you know that type of person: Functions of well in the speech of American and German students. Journal of Pragmatics 36, 1157-1182.
Naigles, L. 2000. Manipulating the input: Studies in mental verb acquisition. In B. Landau et al. (eds.), Perception, Cognition and Language. MA: MIT Press.
Ochs, E. et al. 1996. Interaction and Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Piaget, J. 1926. The Language and Thought of the Child. London: Routledge.
Piaget, J. 1952. The Origins of Intelligence in Children. NY: International Universities Press.
Pomerantz, A. 1984. Agreeing and disagreeing with assessment: Some features of preferred or dispreferred turn shapes. In J. M. Atkinson and J. Heritage (eds.), Structure of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Preisler, B. 1986. Linguistic Sex Roles in Conversation: Social Variation in the Expression of Tentativeness in English. NY: Mouton de Gruyter.
Prince, E. F. et al. 1982. On hedging in physician-physician discourse. In R. J. D.-Pietro (ed.), Linguistics and the Professions. NJ: Ablex.
Ruhlemann, C. 2007. Conversation in Context: A Corpus-Driven Approach. London: Continuum.
Sacks, H. 1987. On the preferences for agreement and contiguity in sequences in conversation. In G. Button and J. R. E. Lee (eds.), Talk and Social Organization. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Schegloff, E. A. 2007. Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Scheibman, J. 2000. I dunno: A usage-based account of the phonological reduction of don’t in American English conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 32, 105-124.
Scheibman, J. 2002. Point of View and Grammar: Structural Patterns of Subjectivity in American English Conversation. PA: John Benjamins.
Schiffrin, D. 1985. Everyday argument: The organization of diversity in talk. In T. A. van Dijk (ed.), Handbook of Discourse Analysis: Discourse and Dialogue. NY: Academic Press.
Schiffrin, D. 1987. Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Selting, M. and E. Couper-Kuhlen. 2001. Studies in Interactional Linguistics. PA: John Benjamins.
Shatz, M. et al. 1983. The acquisition of mental terms: A systematic investigation of the first reference to mental state. Cognition 14, 201-321.
Shen, Y. 2008. The pragmatic functions and lexicographical application of I think as a hedge. Horizon of Social Sciences 4, 305-307.
Stenstrom, A. 1995. Some remarks on comment clauses. In B. Aarts and C. F. Meyer (eds.), The Verb in Contemporary English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Stiver, T. and F. Rossano. 2010. Mobilizing response. Research on Language and Social Interaction 43, 3-31.
Stubbe, M. and J. Holmes. 1995. You know, eh, and other exasperating expressions: An analysis of social and stylistic variation in the use of pragmatic devices in a sample of New Zealand English. Language and Communication 15, 63-88.
Stubbs, M. 1983. Discourse Analysis: The Sociolinguistic Analysis of Natural Language. IL: University of Chicago Press.
Su, L. I. W. and K. Y. Cheng. 2011. From subjectification to inter-subjectification: A cognitive-pragmatic analysis of hedging expression. In J. H. Chang (ed.), Language and Cognition: Festschrift in Honor of James H. Y. Tai on His 70th Birthday. Taipei: Crane Publishing.
Sweller, J. 1988. Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science 12, 257-285.
Tabor, W. and E. C. Traugott. 1988. Structural scope expansion and grammaticalization. In A. Giacalone-Ramat and P. J. Hopper (eds.), The Limits of Grammaticalization. PA: John Benjamins.
Tao, H. Y. 2003. Phonological, grammatical, and discourse evidence for the emergence of zhidao constructions in Mandarin conversation. Studies of the Chinese Language 4, 291-302.
Tao, H. Y. 2005. The gap between natural speech and spoken Chinese teaching material: Discourse perspectives on Chinese pedagogy. Journal of the Chinese Language Teachers Association 40, 1-24.
Theakston, A. 2004. The role of entrenchment in children’s and adult’s performance on grammaticality judgment tasks. Cognitive Development 19, 15-34.
Thompson, S. 1991. The discourse conditions for the use of the complementizer that in conversational English. Journal of Pragmatics 15, 237-251.
Thompson, S. and A. Mulac. 1991a. A quantitative perspective on the grammaticalization of epistemic parentheticals in English. In E. C. Traugott and B. Heine (eds.), Approaches to Grammaticalization. PA: John Benjamins.
Thompson, S. and A. Mulac. 1991b. The discourse conditions for the use of complementizer that in conversational English. Journal of Pragmatics 15, 237-251.
Thompson, S. 2002. Object complements and conversation: Towards a realistic account. Studies in Language 26, 125-164.
Trappes-Lomax, H. 2007. Vague language as a means of self-protective avoidance: Tension management in conference talks. In J. Cutting (ed.), Vague Language Explored. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
Traugott, E. and R. B. Dasher. 2002. Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Traugott, E. 2003. From subjectivation to inter-subjectivation. In R. Hickey (ed.), Motives for Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Traugott, E. 2010. Inter-subjectivity and inter-subjectification: A reassessment. In H. Cuyckens et al. (eds.), Subjectification, Inter-subjectification and Grammaticalization. NY: Mouton de Gruyter.
Trillo, J. R. 2002. The pragmatic fossilization of discourse markers in non-native speakers of English. Journal of Pragmatics 34, 769-784.
Turnbull, W. and K. L. Saxton. 1997. Modal expressions as face-work in refusals to comply with requests: I think I should say no right now. Journal of Pragmatics 27, 145-181.
Urmson, J. O. 1963. Parenthetical verbs. In C. E. Caton (ed.), Philosophy and Ordinary Language. IL: University of Illinois Press.
Wetherell, M. 2001. Debates in discourse research. In M. Wetherell (ed.), Discourse Theory and Practice: A Reader. CA: Sage.
Willard, C. A. 1989. A Theory of Argumentation. AL: University of Alabama Press.
Wooffitt, R. 2005. Conversation Analysis and Discourse Analysis: A Comparative and Critical Introduction. CA: Sage Publishing.
Wu, Y. et al. 2010. The use of I think by Chinese EFL learners: A study revisited. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics 33, 3-24.
Xu, J. N. 2012. The epistemic marker wo juede. Chinese Teaching in the World 2, 209-219.
Zeng, L. Y. 2005. The subjectivation of wo kan and ni kan. Chinese Language Learning 2, 15-22.
Zhang, G. 2011. Elasticity of vague language. Intercultural Pragmatics 8, 571-599.
Zhang, G. 2014. The elasticity of I think: Stretching its pragmatic functions. Intercultural Pragmatics 11, 225-257.
Zhang, G. and P. G. P. Sabet. 2016. Elastic I think: Stretching over L1 and L2. Applied Linguistics 37, 334-353.