元話語標記(metadiscourse)為言談的後設標記。語言使用者在寫作或說話時，能夠同時為自己正參與其中的對話做評論或註解。藉由元話語標記，語言使用者明確標記文本成分如何做連結、文本如何架構組織，以及傳遞話語的正確意圖、自身評價與態度給讀者或聽者，並且與他們完成互動。大多數過去的元話語標記研究著重在寫作分析，然而Ädel與Mauranen (2010)在合著中已指出元話語標記在寫作與口語中的形式與使用方法有所不同。再者，中文的元話語標記研究也一樣過度專注在寫作，以及跨語言對比分析上。因此，中文口語的元話語標記值得更多的研究投入。
本研究旨在研究尚未被充分討論的中文口語元話語標記。本研究語料來源為兩部電視談話節目：《爸媽冏很大》與《小燕有約》。前者為討論性節目，後者為藝人訪談節目。兩個節目各取三集以供研究。本研究主要套用Vande Kopple (1985; 2002)的方法來定義與分類元話語標記。總共有六個主要類別，包含連接詞(Text connective)、註解(Code gloss)、溝通行為(Communicative acts)、認識情態標記(Epistemology marker)、態度標記(Attitude marker)、話語評論(Commentary)。這六個主要類別根據不同功能再做細部分類。
藉由分析這筆語料，本研究目標是找出中文裡常用的元話語表達形式、元話語標記在文本中及互動中的使用目的，以及探討元話語標記的使用是否會跟隨不同的言談類型做改變。為此進行兩個節目中元話語標記使用的對比分析，包含質化與量化分析，以找出相同、相異之處。量化分析方面，本研究採用卡方檢定來檢驗元話語標記與言談類別之間的關係。質化及量化分析結果則是套用Biber與Conrad (2009)提出的情境特質(situational characteristics)來幫助解讀元話語標記使用不同的可能原因。
在相似處方面，研究結果顯示兩個節目的元話語表達型態有大量的重複，無論是在語彙層次或片語甚至句子層次都有相似之處。在語彙層次上，關聯詞(conjunction words)在標註邏輯關係(Logical relationship)時被大量使用，如：因為、可是、如果。有些元話語功能也能夠以言談標記(discourse markers)來完成，如：那、就是、你知道。除此之外以語用功能分類的詞彙也重複大量出現，包括Searle (1989) 提出的遂行動詞(performative verbs)，如：建議、假設、開玩笑，以及McCarthy (1991) 提出的言談組織詞彙(discourse organizing words)，如：問題、重點、原因。至於在片語及句子層次，特定元話語標記有相似的句構。舉例來說，附加問句常用在話語評論(Commentary)的評論可能觀點(Comment on probable views)。元話語標記也能是一整個句子，像是迴避標記(Shield)的規避效果就可以用完整的句子來描述說話者自身信心缺乏來完成。
至於相異之處，主要在三個方面：次數分布、使用目的、話語輪轉中的位置。元話語出現次數多寡顯示參與者在不同話語類型中的使用偏好。說話者意識到自己所處的對話環境，並隨之選擇適當的元話語策略來促使溝通順利。舉例來說，連接詞在《爸媽冏很大》裡的使用次數大為超越《小燕有約》，顯示說話者需要使用更多的連接詞來幫助組織較長的文本並傳遞較複雜的概念。
元話語標記在說話者的使用目的上也有所不同。同一類別的元話語標記可能被用來實現不同的目的。比如說，《小燕有約》的主持人利用連接詞裡的時空標記(spatio-temporal marker) 來中止來賓偏題的對話並且將他們的注意力拉回到尚未完成的主題或下一個新主題。然而在《爸媽冏很大》時空標記僅被主持人用來推動談話進行。
元話語標記在不同的話語輪轉位置也透露出不同的言談特色。舉例來說，《爸媽冏很大》裡的說話者通常在誤解發生前就使用註解裡的澄清(Clarification)來預防聽者可能的錯誤解讀。相反的，在《小燕有約》，澄清通常只發生在聽者質疑說話者之後。這相異點顯示兩個節目的說話者對於自身言論的謹慎度不同，參與者間的關係也有所差異。
本研究發現中文的元話語標記可能有一套常用的表達方式及典型句構。另一方面，元話語在兩個節目裡的使用差異，意味著在不同的言談環境裡，元話語使用有所變化。這些發現提供教學上的啟發，教師可以教授學生常用的元話語表達方式，但仍須幫助他們察覺到元話語標記在不同言談類別裡使用上的細微差異，順利達成充分有效的溝通。此外，本研究也提供未來元話語分析方法上的建議，考慮到元話語在不同言談類別的功能差異，分析上應同時考慮文本上與互動上的功能，而非將其限制在其中一方面。

Metadiscourse is discourse about discourse. When we write or speak, we reflexively make commentary on the discourse we are involved in. With the help of metadiscourse, the writer/speaker can link textual elements together, structure the text, communicate intended meanings, evaluation, and attitude with the reader/hearer, and interact with the reader/hearer overtly. Most researches in the past have focused on metadiscourse in the written register, while metadiscourse is also pervasive and crucial in speaking (Ädel & Mauranen, 2010). Metadiscourse studies in Chinese also overwhelmingly emphasize on the written register and comparative studies across languages. Therefore, metadiscourse in Chinese spoken interaction is worth investigation.
This study attempts to make up the gap of metadiscourse studies in Chinese, and investigate how metadiscourse is used in Chinese spoken interaction. The dataset for analysis is collected from two TV talk shows in Taiwan, Bringing up Parents (BUP), a forum-like talk show, and Xiaoyan Date (XYD), an entertainer interview talk show. Three episodes of each talk show are used for analysis. Vande Kopple’s approach (1985; 2002) is primarily adopted to define and categorize metadiscourse, and some modifications are made to accommodate Chinese spoken data. Six main types in total are identified: Text connectives, Code gloss, Communicative acts, Epistemology marker, Attitude marker, and Commentary. The six main types are further classified on the basis of their functions.
With this dataset, it is aimed to find out the commonly-used metadiscourse expressions in Chinese, for what purposes metadiscourse is exploited at both textual and interactive level, and whether the speaker makes use of metadiscourse differently in different discourse types. Metadiscourse in the two talk shows will be compared regarding similarities and differences qualitatively and quantitatively. For quantitative analysis, Chi-square test will be conducted with the help of R (R Core Team, 2014) to examine the association between metadiscourse and discourse types. Both qualitative and quantitative results will be interpreted by adopting Biber and Conrad’s situational characteristics (2009).
In terms of similarities of the two talk shows, results of this study show that metadiscourse expressions in the two talk shows have a lot of overlaps at both lexical level and phrasal or sentential level. At lexical level, conjunction words (e.g., 因為, 可是, and 如果) are used a lot to mark logical relationship. Some discourse markers are used to fulfill metadiscourse functions (e.g., 那, 就是, and 你知道). In addition, performative verbs (Searle, 1989), e.g., 建議, 假設, and 開玩笑, and discourse organizing words (McCarthy, 1991), e.g., 問題, 重點, and 原因, are repeatedly used in the data. As for phrasal and sentential level, certain metadiscourse is realized in similar constructions. For example, tag questions are frequently used for Comment on probable views of Commentary. Metadiscourse can also be expressed by a full sentence. The hedging effects of Shields (subtypes of Epistemology marker) can be reached by a complete sentence to admit the speaker’s lack of confidence.
As for differences of metadiscourse use, metadiscourse mainly differs from three aspects: frequency and distribution, purposes of use, and position in turns. The number of occurrences of each metadiscourse function is a reflection of the participants’ preference in different discourse types. The speaker is aware of the context s/he is involved in and accordingly chooses appropriate metadiscourse strategies to facilitate successful communication. For example, the frequency of Text connective in BUP outnumbers that in XYD, displaying the speaker’s need of Text connective to help organize a longer text and convey more complex ideas.
Metadiscourse can also differ in the speaker’s purposes of use. Instances of metadiscourse of the same category may be used for different specific purposes within context. For example, saptio-temporal markers in Text connective are exploited by the host in XYD to interrupt the guests’ talks diverged from the main topic and draw their attention back on a previous unfinished topic or a new topic. However, in BUP, spatio-temporal markers are simply used by the host to move forward the communication.
Different positions of metadiscourse in turns reflect the different features of discourse. For example, Clarification in Code gloss is usually used before possible misinterpretation happens in BUP. On the contrary, in XYD Clarification is made after the hearer has questioned the speaker. This shows that participants in the two shows have different degrees of carefulness about their own utterances and relationship between participants is also different.
Findings of this study suggest that Chinese metadiscourse may have a group of commonly used expressions and typical constructions. On the other hand, the differences of metadiscourse use between the two shows imply that metadiscourse is used differently in different types of context. These findings provide pedagogical implications that we may provide a list of common metadiscourse expressions for students, but we still have to help them be conscious of the intricate differences of metadiscourse use in varying discourse types for effective and successful communication. Moreover, this study also offers implications for future metadiscourse studies in terms of the importance of investigating metadiscourse at both textual level and interactive level since metadiscourse may function differently in different situations.

Ädel, A. (2006). Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Ädel, A., & Mauranen, A. (2010). Metadiscourse: Diverse and divided perspectives. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 9(2), 1–11.
Beauvais, P. J. (1989). A speech act theory of metadiscourse. Written Communication, 6(1), 11–30.
Biber, D., & Conrad, S. (2009). Register, Genre, and Style. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Biq, Y.-O. (2001). The grammaticalization of jiushi and jiushishuo in Mandarin Chinese. Concentric: Studies in English Literature and Linguistics, 27(2), 53–74. Retrieved from http://web.ntnu.edu.tw/~ybiq/papers/2001Biq JIUSHISHUO Concentric download.pdf
Blum-kulka, S., & Olshtain, E. (1984). Requests and apologies: A cross-cultural study of speech act realization patterns (CCSARP). Applied Linguistics, 5(3), 196–213. http://doi.org/10.1093/applin/5.3.196
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Caffi, C. (2006). Metapragmatics. In Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics (2nd ed., pp. 82–88). London, UK: Elsevier.
Chang, M.-H. (2008). Discourse and grammaticalization of contrastive markers in Taiwanese Southern Min: A corpus-based study. Journal of Pragmatics, 40, p. 2114-2149
Chang, M.-H., Luo, Y.-W., & Hsu Y.-K. (2012). Subjectivity and objectivity in Chinese academic discourse: How attribution hedges indicate authorial stance. Concentric: Studies in Linguistics, 38(2), p. 293-329.
Du Bois, J. W., Schuetze-Coburn, S., Cumming, S., & Paolino, D. (1993). Outline of discourse transcription. In J. A. Edwards & M. D. Lampert (eds.), Talking data: Transcription and Coding in Discourse Research (pp. 45-90). Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Gries, S. Th. (2013). Statistics for linguistics with R a practical introduction (2nd ed.). Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter Mouton.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. New York, NY: Longman.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2004). An Inroduction to Functional Grammar (3rd ed.). London, UK: Hodder Education.
Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse. London, UK: Continuum.
Hyland, K. (2015). Metadiscourse. In The International Encyclopedia of Language and Social Interaction (pp. 1–11). http://doi.org/10.1002/9781118611463/wbielsi003
Hyland, K. (2017). Metadiscourse: What is it and where is it going? Journal of Pragmatics, 113, 16–29.
Jakobson, R. (1980). The Framework of Language. Michigan, MI: Michigan Studies in the Humanities.
Jucker, A. H., and Ziv, Y. (1998). Discourse markers: Introduction. In A. H. Jucker and Y. Ziv (Eds.). Discourse Markers: Description and Theory (pp. 1-12). Amsterdam: JC Benjamins.
Keenan, E. O. (1977). Why look at unplanned and planned discourse. Discourse across Time and Space, 5, 1–41.
Kim, L. C., & Lim, J. M. H. (2013). Metadiscourse in English and Chinese research article introductions. Discourse Studies, 15(2), 129–146.
Li, Y-L. V. (2014). The use of connectives in Chinese doctoral dissertation abstracts (master’s thesis). National Taiwan Normal University. Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/11296/39cfns
Liu, B. (2009). Chinese Discourse Markers in Oral Speech of Mainland Mandarin Speakers. Proceedings of the 21st North American Conference on Chinese Linguistics (NACCL-21), 2, 358–374.
Liu, P., & Liu, H. (2017). Creating common ground: The role of metapragmatic expressions in BELF meeting interactions. Journal of Pragmatics, 107(2017), 1-15.
Lucy, J. A. (1993). Reflexive language and the human disciplines. In J.Lucy (Ed.), Reflexive Language: Reported Speech and Metapragmatics (pp. 9–32). Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Ma, W. Y. & Chen, K. J. (2003). Introduction to CKIP Chinese word segmentation system for the first international Chinese word segmentation bakeoff. In Proceedings of ACL, Second SIGHAN Workshop on Chinese Language Processing (pp.168-171).
Mauranen, A. (2010). Discourse reflexivity: a discourse universal? The case of ELF. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 9(2), 13–40.
McCarthy, M. (1991). Discourse Analysis for Language Teachers. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press. http://doi.org/10.2307/3587181
Mey, J. L. (1993). Pragmatics: An Introduction. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Miracle, W. C. (1991). Discourse markers in Mandarin Chinese (Ph. D thesis). The Ohio State University. Retrieved from http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=745410361&sid=3&Fmt=2&clientId=69955&RQT=309&VName=PQD
Mu, C. (2010). A contrastive analysis of metadiscourse in Chinese and English editorials. Foreign Language Learning Theory and Practice, (4), 35–43.
Mu, C., Zhang, L. J., Ehrich, J., & Hong, H. (2015). The use of metadiscourse for knowledge construction in Chinese and English research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 20, 135–148.
Olinghouse, N. G., & Wilson, J. (2013). The relationship between vocabulary and writing quality in three genres. Reading and Writing, 26(1), 45–65. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-012-9392-5
R Core Team (2014). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL: http://www.R-project.org/.
Schiffrin, D. (1980). Meta-talk: Organizational and evaluative brackets in discourse. Sociological Inquiry, 50(3–4), 199–236. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682X.1980.tb00021.x
Scollon, R., Scollon, S. W., & Jones, R. H. (2012). Intercultural Communication: A Discourse Approach (3rd ed.). Oxford, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
Searle, J. R. (1989). How performatives work. Linguistics and Philosophy, 12(5), 535–558.
Sinclair, J. (2004). Planes of discourse. In Trust the Text: Language, Corpus and Discourse (pp. 51-66). London, UK: Routledge. (Reprinted from The Two-fold Voice: Essays in Honour of Ramesh Mohan, pp. 70-91, by S.N.A. Rizvi, Ed., 1982, India: Pitambar Publishing)
Tang, K. S. (2017). Analyzing teachers’ use of metadiscourse: The missing element in classroom discourse analysis. Science Education, 101(4), 548–583. http://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21275
Tao, H. (2003). Phonological, grammatical, and discourse evidence for the emergence of zhidao constructions in Mandarin conversation. Zhongguo Yuwen, 4(295), 291–302.
Thompson, G. (2001). Interaction in academic writing: Learning to argue with the reader. Applied Linguistics, 22(1), 58–78.
Thompson, G., & Thetela, P. (1995). The sound of one hand clapping: The management of interaction in written discourse. Text, 15(1), 103–128.
Vande Kopple, W. J. (1985). Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication, 36(1), 82–93. http://doi.org/10.2307/357609
Vande Kopple, W. J. (2002). Metadiscourse, discourse, and issues in composition and rhetoric. In E.Barton & G.Stygall (Eds.), Discourse Studies in Composition (pp. 91–113). Cresskill, N.J.: Hampton Press.
Vande Kopple, W. J. (2012). The importance of studying metadiscourse. Applied Research in English, 1(2), 37–44. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-2415.2011.01276.x
Verschueren, J. (1999). Understanding Pragmatics. London, UK: Edward Arnold.
Williams, J. M. (1981). Style: Ten Lessons in Clarity and Grace. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman and Company.
Zeng, L. (2005). The subjectivisation of “wo-kan” and “ni-kan”. Chinese Language Learning, (2), 15–22.
Zhang, M., Sun, W., Peng, H., Gan, Q., & Yu, B. (2017). A multidimensional analysis of metadiscourse markers across spoken registers. Journal of Pragmatics, 117, 106–118.
Zhang, Q. (2016, November 25). Metalinguistic discourse and language ideology in sociolinguistic change. Speech presented at English NTNU Talk in National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei.
Zhijun, W. (2014). Dui bu dui and dui as discourse markers: Evidence from Chinese natural discourse (master’s thesis). Central China Normal University.