本文旨在討論「好了」於不同語境下所具備的言談功能，並深入分析子句間的關係，以理解其扮演的角色。 根據前人所述，「好了」帶有主觀性與正面評價，本文認同此觀點並視為基礎延伸探討「好了」的其他功能，例如：緩衝語、反諷等。
本文首先透過Halliday’s (1970, 2004) 理論來解析「好了」的言談表現，主要深入討論人際互動與篇章兩個層面。「好了」在人際互動層面中通常表達講者針對現況進行判斷後提出的正面評價，此正面意義保留了「好」的基本語意，此語意是根據某標準(功能、社會規範等)進行衡量(Shang 2011)，而非呈現事實，因此衡量標準代表講者具有某程度上的主觀表現。此類「好了」在言談中是最普遍的使用，「好了」當中的正面評價可以給予講者本身、聽者或是兩者，而給予聽者的正面評價可以延伸至另一種言談表現，也就是本文視「好了」為緩衝語的功能，多出現在命令式(命令、要求等)的言談行為中，講者要求聽者完成某項動作。考量到禮貌與潛在負面影響的發生，若講者希望減少此類的衝突時，緩衝語可達到弱化命令式言談行為的力道，而命令式言談行為仍然表示講者的意圖，僅是以較為緩和語氣的方式呈現。
接著，「好了」在篇章層面中也代表特定意義，通常落於第一子句末端，連接兩個子句之間，加強前後句關係，維持篇章的連貫性。此類「好了」通常有兩種表現。第一，當講者想要闡述一段故事或是經驗時所做的預告或鋪陳，以迎接接下來的闡述。第二，「好了」通常位於舉例說明、闡明論點的句子之間，多連接在「比如說、假如說」等使用之後，連接在一個例子或假設性情境前，形成「比如說+例子+好了，子句」的固定形式，此類使用通常被講者用來闡明或支持論點的語境。
最後，「好了」的正面意義可以被用來當作使用負面意圖，當講者想要嘲諷或是批評時會採用此表現，表示「反諷」的功能。聽者不會透過字面意義來獲得反諷的意涵，而是透過語境與字面意義的配對中偵測到顯而易見的不對稱，進而分析來獲得講者實際要表達的論點。
本文旨在探討「好了」在言談中可表達的功能，並深入瞭解分析句子之間、講者與聽者、整體語境等的關係，將前文尚未討論的觀點更加完整地延伸論述。

The thesis aims to explore the discourse functions of hao-le in different contexts and analyze the clausal relationships. According to previous research, hao-le carries subjectivity and positive evaluation. The thesis agrees with this viewpoint and employs it as the fundamental framework to investigate discourse functions of hao-le, such as mitigation and irony.
First, the thesis analyzes the discourse expression of hao-le based on Halliday’s (1970, 2004) theory and mainly discusses the interpersonal and textual levels. At the interpersonal level, hao-le typically conveys the addresser’s positive evaluation. The positivity is retained due to the basic meaning of hao ‘good.’ Goodness is measured by particular standards, such as function or social norms, etc. (Shang 2011). It is not an objective fact. Thus, the standard reflects degrees of subjectivity. This type of hao-le is frequently and prominently used. The positivity is expressed toward the addresser, the addressee, or both. When it is further toward the addressee, it is a mitigation used to soften the degree of illocutionary strength and reduce potential conflicts. The addresser tends to be polite in the conversation, especially with requests or commands.
Next, at the textual level, hao-le represents specific functions and typically occupies the end position of the first clause. It is used to connect two clauses and enhance discourse coherence. This textual function has two notable manifestations. First, hao-le serves as a prelude or an introduction to the subsequent narration. This typically occurs when the addresser intends to share a story or life experience. Second, hao-le generally attaches with exemplifying phrases, such as biru shuo ‘for example’ in the first clause. The second clause is a more specific restatement of the preceding clause. This forms a fixed structure as [for example + example or scenarios + hao-le, clause] to elaborate the addresser’s arguments.
Finally, the positivity of hao-le can be used ironically when the addresser intends to mock or criticize. The interlocutor discerns the ironic expression by an obvious mismatch between context and literal meaning.
The thesis aims to investigate the discourse expression of hao-le by clausal relations, contexts, and interlocutors’ relationships. It addresses gaps and undiscovered perspectives from previous research and provides a comprehensive discussion of hao-le.

Albelda, Marta & Arguedas, Maria-Estellés. 2021. Mitigation revisited. An operative and integrated definition of the pragmatic concept, its strategic values, and its linguistic expression. Journal of Pragmatics 183. 71–86.
Attardo, Salvatore. 2000. Irony as relevant inappropriateness. Journal of Pragmatics 32(6). 793–826.
Beeching, Kate & Wang, Yu-Fang. 2014. Motivations for meaning shift at the left and right periphery: well, bon and hao. Boston: Brill. In K. Beeching & U. Detges (Eds.), Discourse functions at the left and right periphery (pp. 47–71). Boston: Brill.
Bian, Wei. 2023. The Relationship Between the Emphatic Meaning and the Adversative Meaning from the Perspective of Linguistic Typology: The Cases of Chinese Kˇe and Jiùshì. In: Su, Q., Xu, G., Yang, X. (Eds) Chinese Lexical Semantics. CLSW 2022. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (pp. 169-185), vol 13495. Springer, Cham.
Biq, Yung-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.
Bisang, Walter. & Soniaya, Remi. 1997. Perfect and beyond, from pragmatic relevance to Perfect: The Chinese sentence final particle le and Yoruba ti. STUF - Language Typology and Universals 50(2). 143–158.
Blum-Kulka, Shoshana. 1985. Modifiers as indicating devices: The case of requests. Theoretical Linguistics 12(1). 213–230.
Brown, Penelope & Stephen, Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Caffi, Claudia. 1999. On mitigation. Journal of Pragmatics 31. 881–909.
Caffi, Claudia. 2007. Mitigation. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Chang, Li-Hsiang, 2009. Stance uses of the Mandarin LE constructions in conversational discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 41(11). 2240–2256.
Chang, Li-li. 2011. The Historical Development and Performance of the Adversative Adverbs Fan, Que and Dao. Chinese Studies, 29(4). 253-288.
Chang, Li-li. 2016. A Comprehensive Discussion on the Formation of the Adversatives “Ke” and “Keshi.” Journal of Chinese Literature of National Cheng Kung University 54. 167-206.
Chang, Li-li. 2017. The Formation of the Emphatic Adverb Ke in Mandarin. Tsing Hua Journal of Chinese Studies (47)1. 1-44.
Chappell, Hilary, 2023. Episode-Bounding in The Mandarin Narrative Genre: The Discourse Funciton of Sentence-Final le. ⟨hal-03931538⟩.
Chen, Jyun-Gwang & Liu, Hsin-Yi. 2009. A Multi-level Analysis of "Hao" in Chinese with Pedagogical Applications. Journal of Chinese Language Teaching 6(2). 45–98.
Clark, Herbert H. & Gerrig, Richard J. 1984. On the pretense theory of irony. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 113(1). 121–126.
Diessel, Holger. 1999. Demonstratives: Form, function and grammaticalization. John Benjamins Publishing.
Fraser, Bruce. 1980. Conversational mitigation. Journal of Pragmatics 4(4). 341–350.
Fraser, Bruce. 2010. Pragmatic competence: The case of hedging. New approaches to hedging, 15–34.
Garmendia, Joana. 2014. The clash: humor and critical attitude in verbal irony. Humor 27(4). 641–659.
Grice, H. Paul, 1975. Logic and conversation. In: P. Cole and J.L. Morgan, (Eds.), Speech acts, vol. 3, 41–58. New York: Academic Press.
Grice, H. Paul, 1978. Further notes on logic and conversation. In: P. Cole, (Eds.), Pragmatics, vol. 9, 113–127. New York: Academic Press.
Halliday, M.A.K. & Hasan, Ruqaiya. 1976. Cohesion in English. Longman.
Halliday, M.A.K. & Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 2004. Halliday’s Introduction to Functional Grammar (4th ed.). Oxon: Routledge.
Halliday, M.A.K. 1970. Language structure and language function. In J. Lyon (Ed). New horizons in linguistics (pp. 140–165), Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
Haverkate, Henk. 1990. A speech act analysis of irony. Journal of Pragmatics 14(1). 77–109.
Hirsch, Galia. 2011. Between irony and humor: A pragmatic model. Pragmatics & Cognition (19)3. 530–561.
Holmes, Janet. 1984. Modifying illocutionary force. Journal of Pragmatics 8. 345-365.
Huang, Lillian Mei-jin & Davis, Phillip W. 1989. An aspectual system in Mandarin Chinese. Journal of Chinese Linguistics (17)1. 128–65.
Ibáñez, Cristin-Villalba. 2020. Recognising mitigation: Three tests for its identification. Journal of Pragmatics 167. 68–79.
Jing-Schmidt, Zhuo. 2010. From positivity to possibility, propriety and necessity: Semantic change in culture. Chinese Language and Discourse 1(1). 66–92.
Kroon, Caroline. 1998. A framework for the description of Latin discourse markers. Journal of Pragmatics (30)2. 205–223.
Lakoff, George. 1972. Hedges: A study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts. Journal of Philosophical Logic 2(4). 458–508.
Lee, Yu-Hui. 2020. Indexicality and Discourse Functions of Manner Demonstratives Zheyang and Nayang in Spoken Mandarin. Ph.D. diss., University of California, Los Angeles.
Li, Charles N. & Thompson, Sandra A. & Thompson, R. McMillan. 1982. The Discourse Motivation for the Perfect Aspect: The Mandarin Particle LE. In P. Hopper (Ed.), Tense and Aspects: Between semantics & pragmatics (pp. 19–44), John Benjamin Publishing Company.
Li, Charles N. & Thompson, Sandra A. 1989. Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference Grammar. Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.
Li, Yen-Hui Audrey. 2006. Chinese ba. The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, ed. by Martin Everaert and Henk van Riemsdik, vol.1, 374-468. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell.
Lu, Louis Wei-Lun. & Su, Lily I-Wen. 2009. Speech in Interaction: Mandarin Particle Le as a Marker of Intersubjectivity. Zeitschrift für Interkulturellen Fremdsprachenunterricht 14:1. 155–168.
Miracle, W. Carles. 1991. Discourse marker in Chinese. Columbus, Ohio: Unpublished Ohio State University Ph. D. dissertation.
Ramada, Gloria Uclés. 2020. Mitigation and boosting as face-protection functions. Journal of Pragmatics 169. 206–218.
Sbisà, Marina. 2001. Illocutionary force and degrees of strength in language use. Journal of Pragmatics 33. 1791–1814.
Schneider, Stefan. 2010. Mitigation. In M. Locher & S. Graham (Ed.), Interpersonal Pragmatics (pp. 253–270). Berlin, New York: De Gruyter Mouton.
Searle, John. R. & Vanderveken, Daniel. 1985. Foundations of illocutionary logic. Cambridge University Press.
Searle, John. R. 1969. Speech act: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge University Press.
Searle, John. R. 1976. A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society 5(1). 1–23.
Shang, Guowen. 2011. The Subjectivity of Adjectives in Spoken Mandarin. National University of Singapore.
Shi, Zi-Qiang. 1990. Decomposition of perfectivity and inchoativity and the meaning of the particle le in Mandarin Chinese. Journal of Chinese Linguistics (18)1. 95–123.
Soh, Hooi-Ling & Gao, Mei-Jia. 2006. Perfective Aspect and Transition in Mandarin Chinese: An Analysis of Double –le Sentences. In Proceedings of the 2004 Texas Linguistics Society Conference, ed. Pascal Denis et al., 107–122.
Soh, Hooi-Ling. 2009. Speaker Presupposition and Mandarin Chinese Sentence-Final -le: A Unified Analysis of the “Change of State” and the”Contrary to Expectation” Reading. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory (27)3. 623–657.
Sperber, Dan & Wilson, Deirdre. 1981. On Grice’s theory of conversation. In P. Werth (Ed.), Conversation and discourse (pp. 155–178). London: Croom Helm.
Thaler, Verena. 2012. Mitigation as modification of illocutionary force. Journal of Pragmatics 44. 907–919.
Thompson, Sandra A. & Tao, Hong-Yin. 2010. Conversation, grammar, and fixedness: adjectives in Mandarin revisited. Chinese Language and Discourse 1(1). 3–30.
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Dasher, B. Richard. 2002. Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2003. From subjectification to intersubjectification. In R. Hickey (Ed.), Motives for Language Change (pp. 124–140). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2007. (Inter)subjectification and unidirectionality. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 8. 295–309.
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2010. “Revisiting subjectification and intersubjectification”. In K. Davidse, L. Vandelanotte & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), Subjectification, Intersubjectification and Grammaticalization (pp. 29–70). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Tsai, Wan-Ling. 2013. The perfectness of the sentential particle le in Mandarin Chinese. USTWPL 7: 1–20.
Wang, Hsiao-Ling. 2005. The grammaticalization of Hao in Mandarin Chinese. Diss. MA thesis, National Tsinghua University, 2005.
Wang, Yu-Fang & Tsai, Pi-Hua & Goodman, David & Lin, Meng-Ying. 2010. Agreement, acknowledgment, and alignment: The discourse-pragmatic functions of hao and dui in Taiwan Mandarin conversation. Discourse Studies 12(2). 241-267.
Wang, Yu-Fang & Tsai, Pi-Hua. 2005. Hao in spoken Chinese discourse: Relevance and coherence. Language Sciences 27. 215-243.
Wilson, Deirdre & Sperber, Dan. 1992. On verbal irony. Lingua 87. 53-76.
Wilson, Deirdre & Sperber, Dan. 2012. Meaning and relevance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wilson, Deirdre, 2013. Irony comprehension: a developmental perspective. Journal of Pragmatics 59. 40–56.
Wilson, Deirdre, 2017. Irony, hyperbole, joke, and banter. In Blochowiak, J., Grisot, C., Durrleman, S., Laenzlinger, C. (eds.), Formal Models in the Study of Language (pp. 201-209). Springer, Cham.
Wu, Jiun-Shiung. 2005. The semantics of the perfective le and its context-dependency: an SDRT approach. Journal of East Asian Linguistics (14)4. 299-336.
Yap, Foong-Ha & Wang, Jiao & Lam, Carles Tsz-Kwan. 2010. Clausal integration and the emergence of mitigative and adhortative sentence-final particles in Chinese. Taiwan Journal of Linguistics 8(2). 63-86.
Yap, Foong-Ha & Yang, Ying & Wong, Tak-Sum. 2014. On the Development of Sentence Final Particles (and Utterance Tags) in Chinese. In K. Beeching & U. Detges (Ed.), Discourse functions at the left and right periphery (pp. 179-220). Boston: Brill.
呂梅 (Lu, Mei)。2021年。漢語「轉折」概念定義及分類的再探究——兼論意合型轉折的生成及判定機制。奇萊論衡：東華文哲研究集刊：第九期；頁83-113。