1. Introduction

This article introduces two main ways of language classification in linguistics: phylogenetic classification and typological classification, as well as their classification methods in morphology and syntax. At the same time, it is pointed out that modern linguistic typology attempts to observe language from more perspectives, such as word order, geographic distribution, tense aspect categories, and phoneme systems. However, existing research has paid less attention to pragmatic issues, such as pragmatic markers. This study takes speech behavior markers as an example to explore their multilingual coding characteristics, cluster them, and provide typological analysis.

2. Verbal behavior markers

Detailed definition and classification of speech behavior markers, indicating that these markers contain semantic information of speech events, expressing the attitude or way of the speaker. The semantic orientation of speech behavior markers before different proposition sentences was demonstrated through examples, such as expressing the speaker's attitude in declarative and interrogative sentences. The study collectively refers to markers that express attitudes or ways of speech as speech behavior markers, whose semantic structure includes the speaker, speech behavior, speech attitude/way, speech object, and speech content. In addition, the chapter also discusses the diachronic and synchronic aspects of pragmatic marker research, as well as the semantic attributes of events contained within markers. By comparing the markers of English and Chinese languages, this study analyzes the ways in which different languages integrate semantic components of events, and points out that this is helpful for language comparative analysis and typological research.

3. Research Design

This paper introduces the research design of multilingual analysis of speech behavior markers, including comparing the semantic structure of basic events as the basis for cross linguistic comparison. 28 different language families, language families, morphological types, and geographic distributions are selected for examination. Quantitative typology methods are used to determine marker encoding classification based on multilingual empirical data. Cluster analysis is used to observe type characteristics, and the corpus is strictly processed and proofread. Pragmatic markers are classified into three encoding methods according to their surface form for description and analysis.

4. Cross linguistic differences in the encoding of speech behavior markers: a macro analysis

Analyzed the distribution characteristics of speech behavior marker encoding in different language families and languages from a macro perspective. Based on the data in Table 2 and Figure 2, it was found that Uralic and Indo European language families have the highest ratio of lexical markers, while South Asian and Sino Tibetan language families have the lowest. The degree of lexicalization of each language family is roughly as follows: Uralic language family u003e Indo European language family u003e Austronesian language family u003e Afro Asian language family u003e Altaic language family u003e Sino Tibetan language family/South Asian language family. The Altaic language family has an advantage in encoding small sentence structures, while other language families mainly use phrase based encoding. There is a correlation between the encoding tendency of speech behavior markers in different language families and the morphological characteristics of language (agglutinative language, inflectional language, isolated language).

5. Typological characteristics of speech behavior markers

From the perspective of event coding, a comprehensive analysis was conducted on the typological features of speech behavior markers in different languages. By analyzing and summarizing the typical encoding methods of 28 languages, it was found that there are 10 main encoding methods, including 1 type of lexical encoding, 6 types of phrase encoding, and 3 types of small sentence encoding. Among them, the lexical encoding L1-d mainly appears in languages with rich morphological means, the phrase encoding P1-dv is widely used in multiple languages, and the small sentence encoding is less used in European languages.

6. Conclusion

Summarized the encoding methods of speech behavior markers, pointed out the lexicalization tendencies and hierarchical differences of different language families, and emphasized the influence of language morphological features and geographical location on encoding methods. At the same time, the consistency and deviation between the clustering characteristics of pragmatic marker encoding and traditional language families and typology were analyzed. The study proposes a new perspective of pragmatic marker typology analysis based on encoding methods, providing basic data and results for in-depth research. In addition, the limitations of the study were pointed out, which only reflect cross linguistic commonalities and differences at the synchronic level, and further research is needed on more typological issues.