青少年語言因其獨特性和創造性而備受關注，其中值得注意的言特徵是他們在談話中普遍使用的語尾助詞 (UFP)。語尾助詞屬於語用標記，用來表達說話者的態度，並加強言談的組織。因此，本研究旨在了解青少年如何使用中文的語尾助詞。為了更加全面了解此議題，將特別探討性別使用狀況的差異。
本研究收集並分析六名高中男生與女生的同性線上聊天紀錄，並計算對話中語尾助詞的數量，最後歸類成不同種類的語尾助詞。觀察使用頻率較高的語尾助詞包含LA、BA、EI、A 和 O，透過對話分析法，觀察語尾助詞在語境和對話序列中的分布，來了解男生和女生是否偏好使用語尾助詞的不同功能。除了觀察語尾助詞的使用，也分析助詞周圍的語言特徵是否反映出性別的差異。
根據分析結果，青少年女性使用句尾助詞的頻率和種類高於男性，也會在線上聊天中交替使用中文字、注音或帶有強調或減弱意味的助詞變體來修飾語氣。男性偏好使用A來表達強烈驚嘆情緒，女性則多使用O於回應中來表達說話者的訊息接收。比較LA和BA於拒絕語境的使用，男性較常使用LA來增強個人論點和反駁語氣，女性則偏好使用BA來減弱衝突意見的強烈語氣。比較EI和O的使用情形，可以發現男生傾向運用語尾助詞於受話者導向的語境，強調給予的訊息的重要性，而女生傾向使用語尾助詞於說話者導向的語境，表明說話者對先前對話內容的理解。在青少年男性和女性的線上對話中，句尾助詞經常與短語一同使用，例如「好O」(表達贊同)、「不是LA」(表達否定)、「天啊」(表達驚嘆)等等，或是公式化句型和極端構句(ECF)來呈現個人態度與評論，例如 [太…了BA]。
兩性使用語言的差異顯示出青少年男性、女性建構出不同的溝通模式和特色，與兩性成年人的溝通模式相似，顯示青少年在同儕互動中社會化已漸漸成熟。儘管兩性青少年偏好使用的語尾助詞不同，他們都使用此言談標記來促進同儕間的正向互動，表現友好。

Adolescent language has attracted much attention due to its uniqueness and creativity. One of the noteworthy linguistic features in teens’ language is the ubiquitous use of utterance-final particles (UFPs) in their conversations. UFPs are pragmatic markers that express speakers’ attitudes and enhance discoursal organization. Therefore, the present study aims to understand how Mandarin Chinese UFPs are applied in teens’ online interactions. In order to gain a complete understanding of their usage, a comparative study between genders will be conducted.
To achieve the objective of the study, online written conversations in quasi-synchronous social platforms from three high school boys and three high school girls who are engaged in same-gender interactions are collected and analyzed. All of the UFP tokens are counted and categorized into different types. The frequently used UFPs include LA, BA, EI, A, and O, which are closely examined in different speech activities, contexts, and conversational sequences in order to reveal the gendered preference of the particles. In addition to the UFPs, surrounding linguistic features are also investigated.
According to the analysis, teenage girls use UFPs more frequently and with more variety of types than boys. In addition, they also alternately use Chinese characters, phonetic symbols, or different variants of UFPs with emphatic or weakening functions to modify the tones of utterances in online chats. The boys prefer to use A to express an exclamative attitude, while the girls mostly use O in response sequences to express the reception of information by the speaker. Comparing the use of LA and BA in rejection context, the boys tend to use LA to enhance the affirmative tone when making arguments to remain personal stance, while the girls prefer to use BA to weaken the strong tone in giving conflicting opinions. As for differences in the use of EI and O, the boys are found to use UFPs in addressee-oriented context, emphasizing the importance of the message given, while the girls use the particles in speaker-oriented context, showing the speaker’s understanding of the former discussion. In online conversations between teenage boys and girls, UFPs often co-occur with short phrases, such as hao-O (expressing agreement), bushi-LA (expressing negation), tian-A (expressing exclamation), etc., or formulaic patterns with extreme case formulations (ECFs) to present personal attitudes and comments, such as [tai adj. le BA].
The difference in language use between the genders shows that adolescent males and females have constructed different communication modes and characteristics, which are similar to the communication modes of the adults. It is inferred that they are experiencing socialization in peer speech interactions. Although adolescents of both genders have dissimilar preferences in using different UFPs, they both employ these pragmatic markers to enhance positive interaction among peers and show friendliness.

Anderson, G. 2001. Pragmatic Markers and Sociolinguistic Variation: A Relevance-theoretic Approach to the Language of Adolescents. John Benjamins Publishing
Androutsopoulos, J. 2006. Introduction: Sociolinguistics and computer-mediated communication. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 10(4), 419-438.
Balk, D. E. 1995. Adolescent Development: Early Through Late Development: Brooks/Cole Pub Co.
Baumel, Jonathan P. 2020. Gendered Use of Sentence-Final Particles in Taiwan Mandarin: A Corpus Study. Bachelor's thesis, Harvard College.
Benwell B. & Stokoe E. 2006. Discourse and Identity: Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press.
Berentzen, S. 1984. Children constructing their social world: An analysis of gender contrast in children's interaction in a nursery school. Lilian Barber Press.
Biq, Y.-O. 2003. From collocation to idiomatic expression: The grammaticalization of hao phrases/constructions in Mandarin Chinese. Journal of Chinese Language and Computing, 14(2), 73-95.
Brinton, L. J. 2010. Pragmatic markers in English: Grammaticalization and discourse functions (Vol. 19). Walter de Gruyter.
Brown, G., Brown, G. D., Yule, G., Brown, G. R., & Gillian, B. 1983. Discourse analysis. Cambridge university press.
Brown, P. 1980. How and why are women more polite: Some evidence from a Mayan community. In Women and language in literature and society (pp. 111-136). Praeger.
Brown, P. 1990. Gender, politeness, and confrontation in Tenejapa. Discourse Processes, 13(1), 123-141.
Cameron, D. 1998. Performing gender identity: Young men’s talk and the construction of heterosexual masculinity. In J. Coates and P. Pichler (Ed.), Language and gender: A reader (pp. 42-54). Oxford/Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.
Carter, R., & McCarthy, M. 2006. Cambridge grammar of English: A comprehensive guide. Cambridge University Press.Chang, M.-H., & Lin, S.-Y. 2009. Response tokens in MSN conversations. Concentric: Studies in Linguistics 35.1: 111-139.
Chang, M.-H., & Iûnn, Ú.-g. 2021. A corpus-based study of directives in Taiwanese Southern Min. Concentric, 47(2), 300-336.
Chang, T.-N. 2019. Character Language in Mandarin Chinese: A Case Study of Sentence-final Particles A, Ya, Ma, and Ne. National Taiwan University, Master’s thesis.
Chao, Yuen-ren, 1968. A Grammar of Spoken Chinese. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Chen, K.-H. 2003. The Relationships Between Life Style, Leisure Attitude, and Leisure Participation among Adolescence. National Yunlin Iniversity of Science and Technology, Master’s thesis.
Chen, Y. T. 2008. A corpus-based study of hedges in Mandarin spoken discourse. National Taiwan University. Unpublished MA thesis.
Cheshire, J. 1997. Linguistic variation and social function. Sociolinguistics: A Reader, 185-198. Palgrave, London.
Chiou, J.-T. 2002. Relevant Studies on Junior High School Students' Second Culture, Peer Companionship and Life Suitability. National Pingtung University of Education, Master’s thesis.
Coates, J. 1997. Competing discourses of femininity. Pragmatics and Beyond New Series, 285-314.
Coates, J. 1998. Gossip revisited: Language in all-female groups. In J. Coates (Ed.), Language and Gender: A Reader (pp. 226-253): Blackwell Publisher.
Coates, J. 1998. Language and gender: A Reader (2nd ed.) Oxford/Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.
de Klerk, V. 1992. How taboo are taboo words for girls? Language in Society, 21(2), 277-289.
Eckert, P. 1990. Cooperative competition in adolescent “girl talk”. Discourse Processes, 13(1), 91-122.
Eckert, P. 1998. Gender and sociolinguistic variation In J. Coates (Ed.), Language and Gender: A Reader (pp. 64-80): Blackwell Publisher.
Eckert, P. 2005. Stylistic practice and the adolescent social order. Talking adolescence: Perspectives on communication in the teenage years, 3, 93.
Eckert, P., & McConnell-Ginet, S. 2003. Language and Gender. Cambridge University Press.
Eisikovits, E. 1998. Girl-talk/boy-talk: Sex differences in adolescent speech. In J. Coates (Ed.), Language and gender: A reader (pp. 42-54). Oxford/Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.
Erikson, E. H. 1963. Childhood and society (2nd Ed.). New York: Norton.
Fishman, P. 1980. Interactional shitwork. Heresies, 1, 99-101
Fishman, P. 1978. The work women do. Social Problems, 25(4), 397-406.
Fortman, J. 2003. Adolescent language and communication from an intergroup perspective. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 22(1), 104-111.
Fraser, B. 1990. An approach to discourse markers. Journal of Pragmatics, 14(3), 383-398.
Gilligan, C. 1982. In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Harvard University Press. (book published in 1993)
Goodwin, C., & Heritage, J. 1990. Conversation analysis. Annual review of anthropology, 19(1), 283-307.
Goodwin, M. H. 1990. Tactical uses of stories: Participation frameworks within girls' and boys' disputes. Discourse Processes, 13(1), 33-71.
Goodwin, M. H. 1998. Cooperation and competition across girls' play activities. In Language and Gender: A Reader (pp. 121-146): Blackwell Publisher.
Goodwin, M. H. 2002. Exclusion in girls' peer groups: Ethnographic analysis of language practices on the playground. Human development, 45(6), 392-415.
Goodwin, M. H., & Kyratzis, A. 2011. Peer language socialization. In A. Duranti & E. Ochs (Eds.), The Handbook of Language Socialization (pp. 365-390): Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Hall, K. 1996. Cyberfeminism. In Computer-Mediated Communication: Linguistic, Social, and Cross-Cultural Perspectives (pp. 147-170). John Benjamins.
Herring, S. C. 2000. Gender differences in CMC: Findings and Implications. Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility Journal, 18(1):0
Herring, S. C. 2004. Computer-mediated discourse analysis: An approach to researching online behavior. In S. A. Barab, R. Kling, & J. H. Gray (Eds.), Designing for Virtual Communities in the Service of Learning (pp. 338-376). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Herring, S. C. 2005. Computer‐mediated discourse. In Tannen, Schiffrin and Hamilton (Ed.), The handbook of discourse analysis (pp.612-634). Oxford: Blackwell.
Herring, S. C., & Stoerger, S. 2013. Gender and (a)nonymity in computer-mediated communication. In J. Holmes, M. Meyerhoff, & S. Ehrlich (Eds.), Handbook of Language and Gender, 2nd edition (pp. 567-586). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell Publishing
Holmes, J. 1984. Hedging your bets and sitting on the fence: Some evidence for hedges as support structures. Te Reo, 27(1), 47-62.
Holmes, J. 1998. Complimenting - A positive politeness strategy. In J. Coates (Ed.), Language and Gender: A Reader (pp. 100-120): Blackwell Publisher.
Huang, Y.-J., & Depner, S. C.-Y. (2020). The evidentiality of utterance-final particles de and e in Taiwan Mandarin. NCUE Journal of Humanities, 21, 55-75.
Huffaker, D. A., & Calvert, S. L. 2005. Gender, identity, and language use in teenage blogs. Journal of computer-mediated communication, 10(2), JCMC10211.
Hutchby, I. 2001. Conversation and technology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Jefferson and Schegloff 1972 "On the Analyzability of Stories by Children"
Jitpaisarnwattana, N. 2018. Gender-Differential Tendencies in LINE Use: A Case of Thailand. Journal of Studies in the English Language, 13(1), 53-70.
Johnson, F. L., & Aries, E. J. 1983. Conversational patterns among same-sex pairs of late-adolescent close friends. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 142(2), 225-238.
Kuo, Sai-Hua. 1996. Gender and Discourse: A Comparative Study of Male-female Differences in Conversational Style, in Proceedings of NSC Linguistic Research Project Reports, by Academia Sinica (Taipei, Taiwan: Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica, 1996), 18.1-18.20.
Kyratzis, A. 2004. Talk and interaction among children and the co-construction of peer groups and peer culture. Annu. Rev, Anthropol., 33, 625-649.
Labov, T. 1992. Social and language boundaries among adolescents. American Speech, 67(4), 339-366.
Labov, W. 1970. Stages in the acquisition of Standard English. In H. Hungerford, J. Robinson, & J. Sledd (Eds.), English Linguistics (pp. 275-302). Illinois: Scott Foresman.
Labov, W., & Fanshel, D. 1977. Therapeutic discourse: Psychotherapy as conversation. Academic Press.
Lakoff, R. T. 1975. Language and Woman's Place. New York: Harper & Row.
Lakoff, R., & Bucholtz, M. 2004. Language and Woman's Place: Text and Commentaries (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Levinson, S. C., Levinson, S. C., & Levinson, S. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge university press.
Li, C. N., & Thompson, S. A. 1989. Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference Grammar: University of California Press.
Li, I. C. 1999. Utterance-Final Particles in Taiwanese: A Discourse-pragmatic Analysis. Taipei: The Crane Publishing.
Lin, C. H. 2014. Utterance-final particles in Taiwan Mandarin: Contact, context, and core functions. Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics.
Lo, Y.-W. 2010. Hedges in Chinese Academic Texts: How Authors Qualify Their Argument. National Taiwan Normal University, Master’s thesis.
Luke, K.-k. 1988. A Conversation Analytic Approach to the Study of Utterance Particles in Cantonese. University of York. Ph.D. Dissertation.
Maltz, D., & Borker, R. 1982. A cultural approach to male-female misunderstanding. Language and social identity, 198-215.
Martinez, I. P. 2014. Variation, development and pragmatic uses of innit in the language of British adults and teenagers. English Language and Linguistics, 19.3, 383-405.
Meredith, J. 2019. Conversation analysis and online interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 52(3), 241-256.
Meredith, J., & Stokoe, E. 2014. Repair: Comparing Facebook ‘chat’with spoken interaction. Discourse & communication, 8(2), 181-207.
Miller, J., & Weinert, R. 1995. The function of LIKE in dialogue. Journal of Pragmatics, 23, 365-393.
Nakamura, K. 2001. Gender and language in Japanese preschool children. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 34(1), 15-43.
Opsahl, T. 2009. Wolla I swear this is typical for the conversational style of adolescents in the multiethinic areas in Oslo. Nordic Journal of Linguistics, 32.2, 221-244.
Paulus, T., Warren, A., & Lester, J. N. 2016. Applying conversation analysis methods to online talk: A literature review. Discourse, context & media, 12, 1-10.
Phillips, N., & Hardy, C. 2002. Discourse Analysis: Investigating Processes of Social Construction: Sage Publications, Inc.
Pichler, H. 2020. Tagging Monologic Narratives of Personal Experience: Utterance-Final Tags and the Construction of Adolescent Masculinity 1. In Advancing Socio-grammatical Variation and Change (pp. 377-398). Routledge.
Pomerantz, A. 1984. Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shaped.
Pomerantz, A. 1986. Extreme case formulations: A way of legitimizing claims. Human studies, 9, 219-229.
Potter, J. 1997. Discourse analysis as a way of analysing naturally occurring talk. Qualitative research: Theory, method and practice, 2, 200-222.
Reed and Ashmore 2000: The naturally-occurring chat machine. M/C: A Journal of Media and Culture, 3(4). Retrieved from http://www.api-network.com/mc/0008/machine.php
Rehm, Georg. 2002. Schriftliche Mundlichkeit in der Sprache des World Wide Web. ¨
In Arne Ziegler and Christa Durscheid (eds.) Kommunikationsform E-Mail. Tubingen,
Germany: Stauffenburg. 263–308.
Rodino, M. 1997. Breaking out of binaries: Reconceptualizing gender and its relationship to language in computer-mediated communication. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 3(3).
Romaine, S. 1984. The Language of Children and Adolescents: The Acquisition of Communicative Competence. Basil Blackwell Publisher.
Sacks 1972 "Notes on a Conversational Practice: Formulating Place"
Sacks, H. 1992. Lectures on conversation: Volume I, Volume 2. Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. 1978. A simplest systematics for the organization of turn taking for conversation. In Studies in the organization of conversational interaction (pp. 7-55). Academic Press.
Sadanobu, T. 2006. Kotoba to hatsuwa kyarakuta [Speech and speech characters]. Bungaku [Literature], 7(6), 117-129.
Schegloff, E. A. 1972a. Sequencing in conversational openings. In Gumperz & Hymes (1972: 346-80).
Schegloff, E. A. 1979. The relevance of repair to syntax-for-conversation. In Discourse and syntax (pp. 261-286). Brill.
Schegloff, E. A., & Sacks, H. 1973. Opening up closings.
Schiffrin, D. 1987. Discourse Markers. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Searle, J. R. 1976. A classification of illocutionary acts1. Language in society, 5(1), 1-23.
Shao, J. and Zhu, X. 2005. The Discourse Functions of Hao and its Evolution Toward Functional Usage, Zhongguo Yuwn [Chinese Language] 5: 399–407.
Sheldon, A. 1980. Pickle fights: gendered talk in preschool disputes. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Gender and Conversational Interaction (pp. 83-106). New York: Oxford University Press.
Shie, C.-C. 1991. A Discourse-Functional Analysis of Mandarin Sentence-Final Particles. National Chengchi University Master’s thesis.
Shie, Y.-C. 2006. A Gender Pragmatic Analysis of Casual Conversations. National Hsinchu University of Education Master’s thesis.
Starr, R. 2011. Variation in affective sentence-final particle use and transcription on Taiwanese Mandarin television dramas. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Nineteenth Annual Symposium About Language and Society, Texas Linguistics Form 54.
Stenström, A.-B. 2014. Teenage Talk: From General Characteristics to the Use of Pragmatic Markers in a Contrstive Perspective: Palgrave MacMillan.
Stenström, A.-B., Andersen, G., & Hasund, I. K. 2002. Trends in teenage talk: Corpus compilation, analysis and findings: John Benjamins Publishing
Stewart, L. 1986. Communication Between the Sexes: Sex Differences and Sex-role Stereotypes: Gorsuch Scarisbrick.
Su, H.-Y. 2012. Language and gender research: literature reviews [語言與性別研究：文獻回顧]. Journal of National Taiwan Normal University: Language and Literature [師大學報：語言與文學類], 57(1), 129-149.
Swann, J. 1992. Girls, Boys, and Language. Blackwell Publishers.
Tagliamonte, S. 2005. So who? Like how? Just what? Discourse markers in the conversations of young Canadians. Journal of Pragmatics, 37, 1896-1915.
Tagliamonte, S. 2016. Teen Talk: The Language of Adolescents. Cambridge University Press.
Tagliamonte, S., & Hudson, R. 1999. Be like et al. beyond America: The quotative system in British and Canadian youth. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 3(2), 147-172.
Tannen, D. (Ed.). 1993. Gender and conversational interaction. Oxford University Press.
Tannen, D. 1984. Conversational Style: Analyzing Talk among Friends Oxford University Press.
Tannen, D. 1990. You Just Don't Understand: Women and Men: New York: Ballantine books
Tannen, D. 1994. Gender and Discourse. New York: Oxford University Press.
Trudgill, P. 1972. Sex, covert prestige and linguistic change in the urban British English of Norwich. Language in society, 1(2), 179-195.
Wamsley, J. C. 2019. Gendered Usage of Sentence-Final Particles in Mandarin Chinese. IULC Working Papers, 19(1).
Wang, L.-y. 2005. The Polysemy and Grammaticalization of 'Hao' in Mandarin Chinese. National Taiwan Normal University Master’s thesis.
Wang, Y.-F., Tsai, P.-H., Goodman, D., & Lin, M.-Y. 2010. Agreement, acknowledgment, and alignment: The discourse-pragmatic functions of hao and dui in Taiwan Mandarin conversation. Discourse Studies, 12(2), 241-267.
West, C., & Zimmerman, D. H. 1987. Doing gender. Gender & society, 1(2), 125-151.
Wierzbicka, A. 1987. English Speech Act Verbs: A Semantic Dictionary. Marrickville,
Australia: Academic Press. Winter, J. 2002. Discourse quotatives in Australian English: Adolescents performing voices.
Australian Journal of Linguistics, 22(1), 5-21.
Wu, R.-J. R. 2004. Stance in Talk: A Conversational Analysis of Mandarin Final Particles. John Benjamins Publishing.
Yan, Y.-F. 1993. The Study of Relationship Between Junior High School Students' Social Interest and Their Peer Relationship. National Changhua University of Education Master’s thesis.
Yan, Y.-L. 2000. Nice "Typing" to You! Gender Differences between Males's and Female's Conversational Styles on BBS in Taiwan. National Kaohsiung Normal University Master’s thesis.
Yueh, H.-I. 2012. The Tactic of the Weak: A Critical Analysis of Feminine Persuasion in Taiwan. (PhD), The University of Iowa.
Zimmermann, D. H., & West, C. 1996. Sex roles, interruptions and silences in conversation. In Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science Series 4 (pp. 211-236). John Benjamin Publisher.