开题报告文献综述范文

学生姓名： 学 号：

专 业： 技术经济 班

设计(论文)题目： 资本运营及某某企业资本运营的案例分析

指导教师：

200 年 4 月 21 日

目 录

毕业论文开题报告

1论文题目

2所选论题的背景情况，包括该研究领域的发展概况

3本论题的现实指导意义

4本论题的主要论点或预期得出的结论、主要论据及研究（论证）的基本思路 5本论文主要内容的基本结构安排

6进度安排

文献综述

1 资本运营运作模式国内外研究现状、结论

1.1资本运营的涵义

1.2资本运营相关理论综合

1.2.1资本集中理论与企业资本运营

1.2.2 交易费用理论与企业资本运营

1.2.3产权理论与企业资本运营

1.2.4规模经济理论与企业资本运营

1.3资本运营的核心——并购

1.3.1概念

1.3.2西方并购理论的发展

1.3.4并购方式

1.4研究课题的意义

2目前研究阶段的不足

参考文献

1论文题目

资本运营及某某企业资本运营的案例分析

2所选论题的背景情况，包括该研究领域的发展概况

企业资本运营是实现资本增值的重要手段，是企业发展壮大的重要途径。纵观当今世界各大企业的发展历程，资本运营都起到过相当关键的作用，并且往往成为它们实现重大跨越的跳板和发展历史上的里程碑。在我国，近年来不少企业也将资本运营纳入企业发展战略，并获得了成功。越来越多的企业走出了重视生产经营、忽视资本运营的瓶颈，认识到资本运营同生产经营一起，构成了企业发展的两个轮子。可以预见，资本运营在我国企业发展进程中所起的作用特会越来越大。本文以经济全球化和我国加入 WTO为背景，比较全面描述了国内外资本运营的现状，深入地剖析了存在的问题，提出了一些思路和对策，以及对于国外资本运营经验的借鉴和教训的吸取。

在研究领域发展方面，国外对资本运营的研究和运用都多于我国。在中国，资本运营是一个经济学新概念，它是在中国资本市场不断发展和完善的背景下产生的，也是投资管理学科基础的理论学科。资本运营是多学科交叉、综合的一门课程。它是将公司财务管理、公司战略管理、技术经济等相关学科的理论基础综合起来，依托资本市场相关工具，以并购和重组为核心，以企业资本最大限度增值为目标，通过资本的有效运作，来促使企业快速发展的一种经营管理方式。资本运营概念虽然产生时间短，但随着中国资本市场发展，越来越多的企业正广泛地进行资本运营。事实证明，如何有效依托资本市场进行资本运营已成为企业管理的一个至关重要的问题。正因为如此，资本运营课程在我国研究也比较热门。 3本论题的现实指导意义

近年来,随着我国资本市场的建立和发展，资本运营观念在不断影响着企业管理者们。在资本运营的大潮面前，许多企业也在跃跃欲试。但从我国资本运营的实际来看，进行资本运营并不是一件简单的事情。同时，国内企业也要面对跨国企业的挑战。要搞好资本运营，必须先去了解和认识资本运营。

本文就是针对上述现实，充分考虑到国内企业的实际情况，对资本运营的内涵、形式、核心、企业并购的相关内容进行了研究。对企业开展资本运营提供依据和参考，具有一定的指导意义。

4本论题的主要论点或预期得出的结论、主要论据及研究（论证）的基本思路

本文主要介绍资本运营国内外发展、趋势，以及资本运营的相关理论内容综述。重点分析和

探讨资本运营核心——并购的模式、动因、效应分析，并通过国内外资本运营历程分析我国资本运营发展趋势。最后通过企业并购案例说明资本运营的过程及总结资本运营重点把握的要点和技巧。预期通过本文对整个资本运营在企业管理运营中的重要性、特点、操作、评价过程有一个深刻的认识，同时对资本运营中的发展提出自己的观点。

本文理论部分主要参考金融投资类、经济类报刊杂志；以及图书馆中大量有关资本运营与企业并购方面的书籍；投资学教材与参考书和教学中老师对资本运营模式的总结与案例分析；另外，指导老师在研究过程中会提供较大量的参考资料。

5本论文主要内容的基本结构安排

本文主要内容分为三块：第一部分为理论部分，主要介绍资本运营及其相关的概念、资本运营的特点、形式、国内外发展状况及重组、并购的相关理论。第二部分重点介绍资本运营的核心——M&A，并通过一个案例分析说明资本运营的全过程、特点和技巧。最后一部分主要总结全文，对资本运营的发展趋势、特点做一分析和总结。文章在阐述理论问题紧扣what—how—why，并加以背景的介绍，使文章具有较严密的逻辑性。

6进度安排

本文从去年11月份确定研究题目后，12月到今年3月份主要进行相关理论、文献和案例的收集、整理。从3月到4月初完成开题报告（含文献综述）和前期正文的编写。计划到4月底完成初稿，并交给指导老师审核、修改。争取5月中旬完稿，并进行论文答辩的准备。 开题报告范文 ·英语开题报告范文 ·论文开题报告格式 ·会计开题报告

文献综述

摘 要：从理论上讲，企业都在进行两种经营：一种是所谓产品经营；而另一种为资本经营。一般说来，企业、特别是大企业都不可能没有资本运营，只是程度大小的问题。所谓产品经营，就是企业围绕产品与服务等主要业务，进行生产（含服务）管理、产品改进、质量提高、市场开发等一系列活动。而企业的资本运营，是指企业通过对资本大街够、融资和投资的运筹，以谋求实现在风险与赢利之间的特定平衡，争取企业资本增值最大化。

关键词：资本运营；并购

1 资本运营运作模式国内外研究现状、结论

1.1资本运营的涵义

在论述资本运营前，有必要把产品运营说一下。从理论上讲，企业都在进行两种经营：一种是所谓产品经营；而另一种为资本经营。资本运营与产品经营就有联系也有区别。一般学术

界定义产品经营（生产经营）是以物化为基础，通过不断强化物化资本，提高市场资源配置效率，获取最大利润的商品生产与经营活动。（张铁男，企业投资决策与资本运营，2002.4，哈尔滨工程大学出版社）

有关资本运营的概念表述各有不同，综合起来可以大体上划分为广义资本运营和狭义资本运营。广义资本运营是指企业通过对可以支配的资源和生产要素进行组织、管理、运筹、谋划和优化配置，以实现资本增值和利润最大化。广义资本运营的最终目标是要通过资本的运行，在资本安全的前提下，实现资本增值和获取最大收益。广义资本运营内涵广泛．从资本的运动过程来看，资本运营涵盖整个生产、流通过程，既包括金融资本运营(证券、货币)、产权资本运营与无形资本运营，又包括产品的生产与经营。从资本的运动状态来看，既包括存量资本运营，又包括增量资本运营。存量资本运营是指企业通过兼并、收购、联合、股份制改造等产权转移方式促进资本存量的合理流动与优化配置。增量资本运营是指企业的投资。 狭义资本运营是指以资本急剧增值和市场控制力最大化为目标，以产权买卖和“以少控多”为策略，对企业和企业外部资本进行兼并、收购、重组、增值等一系列资本营运活动的总称。资本运营的总体目标是实现资本增值和市场控制力最大化。具体目标是加快资本增值，扩大资本规模，获取投资回报。提高企业的市场控制力和影响力，优化经营方向。狭义资本运营主要研究的是存量资本的配置，具体运营方式包括股票上市、企业、企业联合、资本互换、产权转让等。

1.2资本运营相关理论综合

在资本运营理论研究过程中，有许多学者将它与其他经济学理论结合起来进行分析和研究。深刻分析资本运营产生的原因和作用的原理，从理论的高度掌握资本运营的精髓，有助于增强我们进行资本运营的自觉性，提高资本运营的技巧。

1.2.1资本集中理论与企业资本运营

在19世纪上半叶，资本主义世界还没有出现过大规模的企业并购浪潮：但是，通过对资本主义生产方式和发展规模的深入分析，马克思非常敏锐地抓住了资本集中这一重大问题，并且建立了资本集中型论。在《资本沦》中．马克思首先论述了生产集中,并指出生产集中包括了资本积聚和资本集中。在文中，他还提到了“规模经济”、“所有权与经营权的分离”等。马克思关于资本集中的机制的理论论述，是完整的、有力的。即使在今天，这个由商品市场和经理市场所形成的竞争制度、股份公司制度、金融信用制度和股票市场等几个方面所形成的整体，也的确是资本得以流动、重组乃至集中的最重要的机制。

马克思的资本循环与周转理论强调资本的流动性，指出资本的生命在于运动，这正是资本运营的核心所在，资本运营是建立在资本充分流动的基础之上的，企业资本只有流动才能增值，资产闲置是资本最大的流失。因此，一方面，企业要通过兼并、收购等形式的产权重组．盘活沉淀、闲置、利用效率低下的资本存量，使资本不断流动到报酬率高的产品和产业上，通

过流动获得增值的契机。另一方面，企业要缩短资本流动过程，加快资本由货币资本到生产资本，由生产资本到商品资本，再由商品资本到货币资本的形态转换过程，以实现资本的快速增值。同时在资本运动总公式中，也相应地反映了生产经营和资本运营的关系。

1.2.2 交易费用理论与企业资本运营

19xx年，著名经济学家科斯在《企业的性质》一文中首次提出交易费用理论。该理论认为，企业和市场是两种可以相互替代的资源配置机制，由于存在有限理性。机会主义、不确定性与小数目条件使得市场交易费用高昂，为节约交易费用．企业作为代替市场的新型交易形式应运而生。交易费用决定了企业的存在，企业采取不问的组织方式最终目的也是为了节约交易费用。所谓交易费用是指企业用于寻找交易对象、订立合同、执行交易、洽谈交易、监督交易等方面的费用与支出，主要由搜索成本、谈判成本、答约成本，监督成本构成。企业运用收购、兼并、重组等资本运营方式，可以将市场内部化，消除由于市场的不确定性所带来的风险，从而降低交易费用。

交易费用理论与垂直兼并、混合兼并有着密切的关系。它很好地解释了企业垂直兼并、混合兼并的内在原因，并对原有理论作了补充和调整。

1.2.3产权理论与企业资本运营

产权理论认为，资产的权利界定是市场交易的先决条件，明晰的产权界限是企业资本运营的客观基础。企业资本运营是建立在规范化的公司产权基础上，没有界定清晰的产权、规范的股权结构和合理有效的股权流动机制，真正的公司并购、重组等资本运营行为是难以产生和发展的。在清晰的产权界定基础上，企业资本运营行为有助于推动产权的合理流动，盘活存量资产，实现资产的价值型管理和优化重组，进而促进资源的科学配置与有效流动，实现资源配置的优化。同时，企业运用兼并、收购、重组等资本运营方式，推动公司产权的聚合与裂变，可以进一步促使公司产权明晰化。

产权理论要求产权必须明确．必须能够白由流动．这将从如下方面对资本运营产生推动作用。首先，产权的自由流动可以推动公司并购的社会化。其次，产权的自由流动可以推进企业资本运营市场化进程。第三，产权的白由流动有助于推动企业资本运营国际化。

1.2.4规模经济理论与企业资本运营

企业通过兼并收购等资本运营方式，有助于推动企业获取规模经济效益，优化企业规模结构。有关资料的研究成果表明，一个企业通过兼并收购其他企业而形成的规模经济效应是非常明显的。 西方发达国家大型跨国公司的成长经历表明：运用资本运营方式，有助于谋求规模经济效益．推动企业规模和经济效益的同步增长，进而推动本国经济的发展。通过企业的联合与兼并，日本在不到10年的时间内，实现了产业结构的优化与重组，获取了规模经济效益。在我国，企业小型化、分散化的特点极为明显．通过兼并、收购重组扩大企业规模，谋求规模经济效益对于我国企业的成长与发展更具有现实意义。

1.3资本运营的核心——并购

1.3.1概念

所谓并购，即兼并与收购的总称，是一种通过转移公司所有权或控制权的方式实现企业资本扩业务发展的经营手段，是企业资本运营的重要方式。

并购的实质是一个企业取得另一个企业的财产、经营权或股份，并使一个企业直接或间接对另一个企业发生支配性的影响。并购是企业利用自身的各种有利条件，比如品牌、市场、资金、管理、文化等优势，让存量资产变成增量资产，使呆滞的资本运动起来，实现资本的增值。

并购的具体方式包括企业的合并、托管、兼并、收购、产权重组、产权交易、企业联合、企业拍卖、企业出售等具体方式。

1.3.2西方并购理论的发展

并购理论来源于实践，并推动并购实践的发展；在研究西方

第二篇：开题报告和文献综述范例

自考英语语言文学本科毕业论文撰写须知（二）

一、 收集资料途径：

1）清华学术期刊网

2）国内各类学术刊物，如《外语教学与研究》、《外国语》、《现代外语》、《外语与外语教学》和《外语教学》〈外国文学评论〉、〈外国文学研究〉、〈外国文学〉、〈国外文学〉、〈当代外国文学〉等

3）国外各类学术刊物，如World Englishes, International Journal of Applied Linguistics, English Today, Language International, etc.

4) or

二．开题报告范例：

Research Proposal

----ON KINGSTON‘S SEARCHING FOR SELF-IDENTITY

麦淑华

Research Purpose

In the past 20 years, there has been a rapid progress in the Chinese American literature. Vast quantities of influential American writers with Chinese origin have emerged on the stage of American literature, and there has been depth academic research in this filed. As far as Chinese academia is concerned, research on Chinese American literature is of multiple importance. It is not only a brand-new cross-cultural topic, but also cross subject. On one hand, Chinese American writers enjoy both Chinese and American cultural backgrounds, and their works, therefore, should represent a dialogue between China and the West. On the other, Chinese American literature can be included into the fields of both American literature and Chinese overseas research, which determines its cross-subject characteristics. Furthermore, the way Chinese American writers write about the Chinese image can be used as a mirror to reflect upon us native Chinese.

Maxine Hong Kingston (1940--) is perhaps the most famous among all the Chinese American writers. Her works include The Woman Warrior—Memoirs of a Girlhood Among Ghosts (1976), China Men (1980), and Tripmaster Monkey—His Fake Book (1989). All of these books have received high praises in the U.S., and some chapters of her works have been included into required courses for English majors in American universities. Kingston herself is perhaps one of the most frequently discussed writers alive in the U.S., and the researches on her have even evaded Europe. She is commonly regarded as the leader who brought Chinese American literature into the mainstream writing of American literature. There are three literary significances in Kingston‘s works, namely cultural identity, woman identity and writing identity. This paper attempts to explore Kingston‘s searching for

self-identity from these three angles.

Research Background

RESEARCH SITUATION IN THE U.S. AND OTHER WESTERN COUNTRIES

RESEARCH INSTITUTIONS: Chinese American literature, as a part of Asian American literature, has been widely studied in the U.S. It can be categorized into both Asian Studies as well as English literature. Several famous academic journals contribute to this study, such as MELUS, Amerasia Journal, Association for Asian American Studies, and Chinese Historical Society of America. American universities offer courses on Chinese or Asian American literatures, and each year, a large number of university graduates obtain their MA or PhD degrees by studying this subject. For instance, as early as in 1987, Mao—Chu Lin, a teacher from The National Chung-Hsing University in Taiwan obtained his PhD in the University of Minnesota with the paper Identity and Chinese—American Experience: A Study of Chinatown American Literature since World War II.

BOOKS AND CRITICS: There are more than ten research books on the study of Chinese or Asian American literature. These books are mainly collections of papers, and authors or editors are of Chinese or Asian origins. Amy Ling (1939--1997) published Between Worlds—Women Writers of Chinese Ancestry1, and Imagining America: Multicultural Stories from the Promised Land2; Sau-Ling Cynthia Wong has Reading Asian American Literature—From Necessity to Extravagance3; Elaine H. Kim published Asian American Literature—An Introduction to the Writings and Their Social Context4; and King—Kok Cheung has Articulate Silences: Hisaye Yamamoto, Maxine Hong Kingston, Joy Kogawa5. Besides, a lot of papers on Chinese American literatures have appeared in some important journals. For example, there were more 13 articles on the topic of Chinese American literature on Times Weekly, and New York Times Book Review in America, and London book Review, TLS and Literary Criticism in Britain from January to October in 19916. It is self-evident that Chinese American Literature has become one of the most heated discussions in the literary critic circle in both the States and other western countries.

RESEARCH SITUATION IN CHINA

Compared with the spirited discussions abroad, the research achievements in Mainland China are quite limited. No institutions have been setup for research on Chinese American literature, not to say on Maxine Hong Kingston. Up to now, there are only one book7 and 70 articles or so on the topic of Chinese American literature, including 16 contributed to Maxine Hong Kingston, and 7 to Amy Tan; the others are 1

2 New York: Pergamon Press Inc., 1990. Brown, Wesley and Amy Ling, eds.. New York: Persea Books, 1991 3 Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993 4 Temple: Temple University, 1982 5 Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1993

6邹海仑。《崛起的华裔作家群》，《外国文学动态》，1993，03，p3

mainly some brief introductions. The first articles, which appeared in the early 80s in the last century, are all short articles introducing the plots and themes of Kingston‘s the Woman Warrior and China Men. The studies of Chinese American literature and Maxine Hong Kingston didn‘t emerge until the early 90s, with Professor Zhang Ziqing‘s article ―A Look into Chinese American Novels‖ being published in 1992. From 1992 to 1995, research articles were mostly some introductions on Chinese American literature. In the latter half of the 90‘s, criticisms began to focus on certain topics, such as generation gap in Chinese American families, cultural conflicts and reconciliation, and female protagonists and female writings. The beginning of the 21st century was another turning point. Studies on Kingston, as well as on Chinese American literature, went into depths. On one hand, critics began to employ various critical theories such as deconstruction, post-modernism writing style, mythical transformation, female criticism, etc. to approach this field. On the other, focuses were no longer on Kingston and The Woman Warrior only, but included Amy Tan, Gish Jen, and Frank Chin. Generally speaking, studies on Chinese American literature in China are still under development, with a trend of being more and more heated discussed. This is the very point from which my paper begins, hoping to contribute to this promising development.

Although critics of Mainland China have begun to study Chinese American literature through different theoretical approaches, they still focus on the mode of cultural clashes between Chinese parents and American-born offspring, usually with the conclusion that such clashes will lead to reconciliation because of the intimacy between them. The psychological change, as well as the psychological search for self-identity, however, is rarely discussed. As far as Kingston is concerned, the quest for self is a very important topic. What‘s more, besides The Woman Warrior, her other two books—China Men and Tripmaster Monkey are seldom studied. This paper attempts to examine her odyssey of discovering self-identity by studying her three books as a whole.

Research Project

This paper includes four parts, with the first and the four parts as introduction and conclusion, and the second and third as the main body. The first part is a survey on the definition and the developing situation of Chinese American literature as well as the literary status Kingston enjoys in this critical circle. In this part, it is also important to define the term ―identity‖, which has been frequently discussed but not yet clearly defined. ―Identity‖ is a term that has been studied for more than 100 years in the West, with at least 300 definitions. But a simple and most commonly accepted definition may be a self-image of a person, a community, or a nationality, compared with that of the other person, the other community, or the other nationality8. Evidently, identity is a term coined under comparison with the ―other‖, which is also an unavoidable topic when discussing Kingston‘s works. How does Kingston understand her identity? How is she searching for it? These two questions are what my paper is trying to answer.

The body of this paper will be divided into two parts—part two and part three. In part two, the themes of Kingston‘s three books will be discussed from two approaches----her search for cultural identity and female identity. What does it mean to be a Chinese American? Kingston has once stated that the term ―Chinese American‖ is first of all, American. American is the center noun, and Chinese is used as a modifier. Being born and being educated in America, a Chinese American girl Maxine (protagonist in The woman Warrior) finds her childhood full of ―ghosts‖, American ghosts, because she cannot get rid of the label ―the other‖ from her appearance. But on the other hand, she wants to be recognized as an American. This clash always troubles her and makes her angry. Another ―ghost‖ that chases her is the Chinese culture, represented by her mother‘s ―ghost story‖. Maxine is the rebel in her family, not conforming with anything her mother gives to her. This generation gap is actually a cultural gap between the east (mother), and the west (Maxine). How to deal with these two conflicting cultures? Kingston seems to choose an ―exile‖ attitude in her second book China Men. This book rewrites the history of the Chinese Grandfathers, claiming the contributions that the early Chinese immigrants have done to the American exploitation. Kingston seems to have found what it means to be Chinese American in this writing. In this part, racism and cultural study theories will be employed.

What does it mean to be a Chinese American woman? The latter half of part two will focus on Kingston‘s searching for a female identity. The open chapter in The Woman Warrior—―No Name Woman‖ is an obvious attack on sexism. Maxine‘s aunt was not only deprived of the right to give birth to her child, but the right to be remembered, or even the right to be mentioned. If we say that Kingston‘s first book is a more obvious feminist protest against Chinese traditional prejudice on woman, then China Men is subversion on the gender bias on the male Chinese American constructed by American mainstream culture. Chinese male seems to be more feminine while his female counterpart appears to gain masculinity. Kingston depicts this situation in an interesting story in China Men—―On Discovery‖, where a male is turned into a female on his way to discover the Gold Mountain. In this part, gender study and feminist criticism will be applied to follow Kingston‘s building of a female identity.

In part three, discussion will turn into Kingston‘s writing style. Kingston not only deconstruct, but also through this deconstruction trying to rebuild her self-identity. One of the most frequently writing techniques under discussion is Kingston‘s transformation of Chinese myths and legends into Western context, and vice versa. This writing technique has been severely attacked by Frank Chin and some other Chinese American male writers. Kingston employs a large number of Chinese cultural codes in her writing, and few of them have not been revised. Whether these revisions or subversions are done consciously or unconsciously is the key to understanding Kingston‘s writings. This part is gonging to investigate her writing significance and

her how she try to achieve her cultural identity by looking at the effect such subversion of cultural codes has brought about. In terms of Kingston‘s writing of female identity, this paper is to look into the way Kingston deconstructs the traditional gender imprisonment by speaking out the ―unspeakable‖. When narrative is concerned, all of her three books are worth discussing: The Woman Warrior is a co-writing of both Kingston and her mother; China Men‘s narrative structure is similar to that of a type of traditional Chinese novel with each chapter headed by a couplet giving the gist of its content; Tripmaster Monkey is a post-modernism novel describing a hippy Chinese American‘s searching for self-identity. Chronologically looking at Kingston‘s change in writing technique may also be useful to study her quest for identity.

Conclusion:

The searching for self-identity is throughout Kingston‘s three books. Research on this subject not only is a new project, but most important of all, will form a mirror to look at us Chinese and to better understand our identity.

三．文献综述范例

Literature Review

In this thesis, I will study the characteristics of the conversational mechanism of repair in Chinese conversational discourse. To that end, it is necessary to conduct a review of the relevant literature on conversational repair. I shall start with an elaboration of the notion of ―repair‖, going on to researches into the organization of conversational repair and conclude with the interdisciplinary and multi-linguistic application of ―repair‖ research.

1. From Correction to Repair

As a relatively new field in conversation analysis (CA), the proper study of the conversational phenomenon of repair didn‘t start until the publication of Schegloff et al‘s seminal paper in 1977. Before that, there were only some sporadic discussions of the phenomenon under such generic headings as tongue slips (Laver 1973, see Schegloff 1977) and error correction (Jefferson 1975, see Schegloff 1977). As a still often-used term, ―correction‖, ―commonly understood to refer to the replacement of an ?error‘ or ?mistake‘ by what is ?correct‘‖ (Schegloff 1977: 363), not only limits research to a minority of the natural occurrences of repair but also misleads

researchers about the nature of the trouble-sources.

The shift of focus was led by Schegloff et al (1977), whose study was an empirically based effort to examine the organization of repair as a set of ordered, but not equal possibilities. The phenomenon of correction was therefore proven part of a much wider picture, i.e. repair and the scope of discussion was greatly expanded from the mere correcting of some ―hearable [usually linguistic] errors‖ (1977: 363) to all possible ―practices for dealing with problems or troubles in speaking, hearing, and understanding the talk in conversation‖ (2000: 207), a definition given by Schegloff himself some 20 years later. In deed, potential trouble-sources in conversation include not only correction of information, but also and more importantly replacement of inappropriate items or ambiguous anaphors, word search and clarification of the pragmatic function/understanding of a previous turn. These and many other occurrences may only be subsumed under the more general scope of repair. Incidentally, correction may not always be categorized under repair either, as is exemplified by the disagreement over the so-called ―embedded correction‖ (Jefferson 1987) – basically a covert form of other-correction – which Schegloff (2000) ruled out as not constituting a kind of repair. Equally important as the expansion in the scope of research was the change in the view of the trouble-sources that directly occasion the repair. According to Schegloff et al (1977), trouble-sources are not self-evident but determined interactively by participants. In other words, all the segments in an utterance is, in theory, potential trouble-sources and often the existence of a trouble-source can only be evidenced by the actual mobilization of the practice of repair on the part of either the hearer or the speaker (and sometimes both). It is worth noting that just as the status of a trouble-source is an uncertainty to be interactively determined, the actual need and proper protocol of its repair is not any more certain. This dynamic and interactive view of repair has proven rewarding in terms of revealing not only its own mechanism but also other cognitive, social and psychological aspects of conversational discourse, as may be interestingly explained by such everyday wisdom: you don‘t know something‘s at work until it goes wrong.

2. The organization of repair

Many studies have been carried out with regard to the various dimensions of conversational repair itself, e.g. its classification, sites, forms and causes.

Schegloff et al (1977) classified four interactional types of repair according to the subject(s) of initiation/repair, namely self/other-initiated self/other repair. This classification has been adopted by many researchers later, making it easier to tackle conversational data. Yet Geluykens (1994: 56) suggests, rightly I think, that this classification is in need of refinement as it is not always possible to draw a sharp boundary between self and other initiation. He found a sort of other-prompted self-initiation, which underlines the interactive aspect of conversational discourse.

Along with the interactional four-type classification, Schegloff et al (1977) proposed the unequal distribution of the four types. To be more exact, self-repair is preferred to other-repair and self-initiation to other-initiation. It follows that the most favored type is self-initiated self-repair. Their claim was put forward with no statistical evidence so later researchers have discussed their empirical findings with reference to either or both of the two preferences. Many studies, including some based on data in languages other than English, are in support of the observation that self-repair is preferred, e.g. Geluykens (1994) and Ma (2007). Yet some remain doubtful as to the preference of self-initiation over other-initiation, e.g. Gaskell (1980), Schwartz (1980) and Gass & Varonis (1985) (see Wang 2007).

A strong objection to the preference of self-correction was put forward by Norrick (1991, see Jiang & Li 2003), whose data was collected from conversation in parent-child, teacher-student and NS-NNS contexts. After examining the organization of corrective exchanges in these contexts, he contended that the party abler to perform the correction – not necessarily the speaker – does it. Further, he dismissed the alleged preference as a sub-case which is only possible between adult native speakers, whose ability of repair is approximately equal. In other words, the absence of such preference is the norm while the preference is a special case. Interestingly, Schegloff et al (1977) has also observed that other-correction ―seems to be not as infrequent‖

and ―appears to be one vehicle for socialization‖ in those contexts where someone not-yet-competent in a certain domain – be it language facility or background information – is involved (381). However, they further argued that this exception to the infrequency of other-correction is only a transitional stage and will be superseded by the preference of self-correction eventually. Joining in the heated discussion are Jiang & Li (2003), who also questioned the validity of Schegloff‘s claim about the preference for self-repair. They offered as proof the work of Norrick (1991) and Zhao (1996). The latter, on the basis of data obtained in academic seminars, of which other-repair takes up a remarkable proportion, suggested that the option of self- or other-repair should take into account of the context, including the content of conversation and the respective social status of the participants (Jiang & Li 2003: 42). In their own survey, Jiang & Li (2003) calculated the frequencies of repair in two categories and found the preference of self-repair only existent in the category that included clearing up misunderstandings, word search or self-editing while in the correction of real errors, other-repair enjoys a bigger percentage of 60%. Therefore they blamed the mystery of the preference on the overly broad definition of repair put forward by Schegloff et al.

Besides the interactional four-type classification, repair has been classified by other ways. In terms of the kind of trouble-spot being repaired, Levelt (1989, see Geluykens 1994:20) distinguishes between E[rror]-repair and A[ppropriateness]-repair. Considering the temporal aspect of repair, there are immediate repairs and delayed repairs (Geluykens 1994: 22).

There has also been in-depth discussion on the sites, or what is called the sequential environment for repair initiation and reparans (the repairing segment). A usual way of referring to the position of repair initiation is by reference to the turn where the trouble-source occurs. Schegloff et al (1977) found self-initiation mainly in three positions, namely the same turn as the trouble-source, the same turn‘s transition place and the third-turn to the trouble-source turn; other-initiation, on the other hand, was found mainly in the next turn (to the trouble-source turn). Levinson (1983, see Geluykens 1994) identified four similar opportunities, which are ordered with

decreasing preference and most often used by either self- or other-initiation.

In particular, Schegloff (2000) elaborated the locus of other-initiation (OI) that occurs in positions other than the turn following the trouble-source turn. He suggested several interactional constraints that may be accountable for these somewhat deviant OIs, constraints related to the organization of repair, of turns or of turn-taking. In addition, he observed occasional delays in OIs which implies the speaker‘s intention of ―setting aside the understanding problem‖ (233) or assessing it later. This observation was of great relevance to the study of Wong, who examined a form of ―delayed next turn repair initiation‖ in N-NN English conversation and proposed that it might be accounted by the differences between native and non-native participants in their ways of social interaction – more specifically, in the use of certain tokens and sequential organization in conversation.

From the comparison between Schegloff (2000) and Wong (2000), it seems that the instantaneity and complexity of conversation spell danger for hasty generalization and due attention should be paid to minute differentiation. A case in point may be found in Schegloff (1997)‘s distinction between ―third turn repair‖ and ―third position repair‖, both of which occupies as a rule the turn subsequent to the turn following the trouble-source turn, hence ―third‖. Yet a closer look with a focus on sequential relevance will clear up the confusion of the two. While ―third position repair‖ is usually self-repair in response to other-initiation in the second turn, ―third turn repair‖ is a kind of self-initiated self-repair separated from the trouble-source turn only by a not full-fledged turn of acknowledgement or irrelevant interpolation.

Another dimension of conversational repair, i.e. its forms, has also received considerable academic attention. Firstly, on the various forms of initiation, Schegloff (1979) distinguished between lexical and non-lexical initiation; Kuang (2001) specified five forms of repair initiation with decreasing extent of repetition of the trouble-source turn; Drew (1997) developed a sequential analysis of the use of ?open‘ initiators (such as ―pardon?‖, ―sorry?‖ and ―what?‖), in which specific forms of initiation are correlated with specific types of trouble sources.

Secondly, the forms of the reparans (the repairing utterance) prove a complex

issue, as researchers have found an undeniable relation between repair and syntax. For one thing, the four forms taken by same-turn reparans – recycling, replacing, inserting and restarting (Schegloff 1979) may change the syntactic structure of the trouble-source turn. As it is, repair ―can [drastically] change the syntactic form by subsuming, under another ?frame‘ sentence, the whole sentence being said or starting to be said‖ (Schegloff 1979: 280). This interaction between repair and syntax is partly responsible for the confusion of repair with other constructions, e.g. dislocations. In this interesting aspect, Geluykens (1994) explored intensively the mechanism of right dislocation (RD), which often overlaps with anaphoric repair because of their similarity in syntactic characteristics, semantic relations and functions. Ma (2006) categorized RDs with repairing function in Chinese discourse (including a drama script) into the four interactional types of repair. It is not easy to judge whether a RD is functioning as a repair and it is of great help to take into account the prosodic features, as Geluykens wisely and meticulously did.

As a kind of repair which has received the widest attention, anaphoric repairs are mobilized by the following general causes, trouble-sources being their specific causes. These general causes may be: (1) the online nature of naturally occurring conversation (Biber et al, see Ma 2007); (2) the ―discrepancy between the speaker‘s assessment and the hearer‘s actual state of knowledge‖ (Huang 1994: 213; also cf. Sacks & Schegloff ); (3) failure to satisfy concurrently two pragmatic principles, which are the Q[uantity]- and I[nformativeness]-principles according to Huang (1994) but which are the E[conomy]- and C[larity]-principles according to Geluykens (1994). It seems that the three causes are closely related rather conflicting. For one thing, a balanced satisfaction of two pragmatic principles requires above all the speaker‘s correct assessment of the hearer‘s actual state of knowledge. Moreover, these causes have general implications for the causes of other kinds of repair.

3. Towards a broader scope

Though the majority of empirical materials for the study of repair are drawn from English conversation, works have been done on talk-in-interaction in a broader range

of languages and communities. These efforts have proven fruitful to some extent. A comparative study by Rieger (2003) found that the structural difference between English and German may have resulted in the different preferences of the form of repetition as self-repair strategies among English and German native speakers. Similarly, Fox et al (see Shen 2005: 39-40) proposed that the difference in the forms of repair in Japanese and English is partly caused by the difference in the syntax of the two languages. Ma (2007) examined repair strategies employed by native speakers of Mandarin Chinese and found a similar skewed distribution of the four interactional types among both literate and illiterate groups. Other studies on repair in Mandarin Chinese include a brief discussion of anaphoric repair by Huang (2000) and an inspiring survey of the classification, positioning and forms of repair and repair initiation by Jiang (2001) and a detailed examination of the forms of repair aimed at problems of production or understanding by Luo (2004). Moerman (1977, see Geluykens 1994: 20)‘s findings in a Thai conversational corpus also reinforced the claim of the preference for self-initiated self-repair.

Meanwhile, long-due attention has been paid to the organization of repair in non-native discourse communities. The interest in repair strategies of non-native English speakers in English conversation has been given a boost by the need to explore ―the potential value of CA for the study of SLA through interaction‖ (Wong 244). Quantitative surveys were carried out by Wang (2007) and Chen & Pu (2007) among non-native English speakers in China. In both surveys, non-native speakers were found to favor the repair of errors in linguistic forms rather than improper expressions or inadequate information. The three researchers thus suggested that language teachers should place greater emphasis on communicative competence. Kasper‘s investigation in the ESL classroom is also an effort in this direction (see Shen 40). Hence it seems a justified effort for language learning and teaching to take a much closer look at non-native talk – how it may go wrong and then be repaired.

As conversation is a most common practice of interpersonal interaction and social communication, the organization of repair in conversation has also sparked interest in interdisciplinary research.

Schegloff rightly pointed out that ―at the organization of repair – thought not exclusively here – linguistics and sociology meet.‖ (Schegloff 1977: 381). Faerch& Kasper (see Yao 2005) proposed that problematic utterance is a face-threatening act and accordingly, self-repair is a face-saving act. Similarly, Wong (2000) interpreted the non-native speaker‘s ambiguous response (e.g. ―oh‖) to the native speaker as a ―face-saving acknowledgment token‖ (263), which does not signal an adequate understanding of the preceding turn and which is often followed by other-initiation from the non-native speaker. Here, a sense of ―nonnative-ness‖ seems to be at work. Surprisingly, even among native speakers themselves, the sense of ―nonnative-ness‖ may also arise and membership categorizing may be under way. By analyzing German conversation, Egbert (2004) showed just exactly how ―coparticipants engage in linguistic and regional membership categorizing in other-initiated repair sequences‖

(28). Both Wong and Egbert has shown the potential for CA methodology to be applied to research in intercultural and intra-cultural communications.

Researchers in psycholinguistics and computational linguistics have also been interested in the classification of self-repair and the perception of repair through sound signals and syntactic analysis (cf. Yao 2005 and Shen 2005).

Bibliography

Drew, P. 1997. ?Open‘ class repair initiators in response to sequential sources of

troubles in conversation [J]. Journal of Pragmatics 28: 69-101.

Egbert, M. 2004. Other-initiated repair and membership categorization – some

conversational events that trigger linguistic and regional membership categorization [J]. Journal of Pragmatics 36: 1467-1498.

Geluykens, R. 1994. The pragmatics of discourse anaphora in English: evidence from

conversational repair [M]. Berlin/ New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Huang, Yan. 1994. The syntax and pragmatics of anaphora: A study with special

reference to Chinese [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Jefferson, G. 1987. Exposed and embedded corrections [A]. In G. Button and

J.R.E.Lee(eds.): Talk and Social Organization [C]. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters Ltd. 86-100. Retrieved 25 June 2007, from the World Wide Web.

<http://www.liso.ucsb.edu/Jefferson/Embedded_Correction.pdf>

Rieger, C.L. 2003. Repetitions as self-repair strategies in English and German

conversations [J]. Journal of Pragmatics 35: 47-69.

Sacks, H. and E. A. Schegloff, 1979. Two Preferences in the Organization of

Reference to Persons in Conversation and Their Interaction [A]. In G. Psathas (eds.): Everyday Language Studies in Ethnomethodology [C]. New York: Irvington Publishers, 15-21.

Schegloff, E. A. 1979. The relevance of repair to syntax for conversation [A]. In D.

Sudnow (eds.): Discourse and Syntax [C]. New York: Academic Press, 261-286. Schegloff, E.A. 1997. Third Turn Repair [A]. In Guy, G.R., C. Feagin & J. Baugh

(eds.): Towards a Social Science of Language 2 [C]. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 31-40.

Schegloff, E. A. 2000. When ?Others‘ Initiate Repair [J]. Applied Linguistics 21:

205-243.

Schegloff, E.A., G. Jefferson & H. Sacks, 1977. The preference for self-correction in

the organization of repair in conversation [J]. Language 53: 361-382.

Wong, J. 2000. Delayed next turn repair initiation in native/non-native speaker

English conversation [J]. Applied Linguistics 21: 244-67.

陈立平、濮建忠. 2007. 基于语料库的大学生英语口语自我修正研究[J].《外语教

学》，28(2)：57-61.

姜望琪、李梅. 2003. 谈谈会话中的纠偏问题[J].《外国语》，(4)：39-45. 匡小荣. 2001. 汉语口语交谈过程的动态研究[D].上海：复旦大学.

罗维. 2004. 汉语会话修正研究[D].山东：山东大学.

马文. 2006. 广义右偏置结构及其修正功能[J].《四川外语学院学报》，22(3)：70-74.

沈蔚. 2005. 会话修正研究在国外 [J].《外语学刊》，(4)： 38-42.

王晓燕. 2007. 会话偏误修补模式与特征研究——以PETS口试为研究个案 [J].

《外语与外语教学》，(5)：42-46.

姚剑鹏. 2005. 会话修补的认知研究 [J].《外语教学》，26(3)：1-6.