论文部分内容阅读
《韩礼德的语篇连贯标准--外界的误解和自身的不足》是朱永生于1997年发表在在《外语教学与研究》上的一篇文章。语篇的连贯以及如何连贯一直以来都是话语分析的重大课题,该文试从语篇功能的角度来分析韩礼德的语篇连贯标准,对韩礼德的语篇连贯标准进行了研究。连贯标准的讨论和确立以及它与语篇的识别和解释之间的关系,一直是话语分析的重要课题之一。韩礼德和哈桑提出的语篇连贯的标准,受到Widdowson、Enkvist和严世清等学者的批。实际上,Widdowson和Enkvist混淆了衔接和衔接手段这两个不同的概念,严世清等将语域的一致性单纯地理解为话题的延续。因此,他们的批评是不能被接受的。语言学界对于如何研究语篇连贯有两种观点:一是研究语言本身,即语篇所包含的各种衔接手段对连贯所起的作用;二是既注意语言形式本身的使用和变化,又注意情景因素,文化背景和认知能力等非语言因素对语篇连贯的影响与制约。本文首先简要介绍了韩礼德的连贯标准,然后指出外界的对其的误解和韩礼德观点自身的不足,最后对他的语篇连贯提出几点修改建议。
“Halliday’s discourse coherence standards - the outside world misunderstood and their own deficiencies” is Zhu Yongsheng published in 1997 in “Foreign Language Teaching and Research” in an article. Discourse coherence and coherence has always been a major topic in discourse analysis. This article attempts to analyze Halliday’s discourse coherence standards from the perspective of discourse function, and studies Halliday’s discourse coherence standards. The discussion and establishment of coherent standards and its relationship with the recognition and interpretation of texts have always been one of the important topics in discourse analysis. The standards of discourse coherence proposed by Halliday and Hassan were approved by scholars such as Widdowson, Enkvist and Yan Shiqing. In fact, Widdowson and Enkvist confused the two different concepts of cohesion and cohesion, and Yan Shiqing and others simply understood coherence of the domain as the continuation of the topic. Therefore, their criticism can not be accepted. The linguistics community has two kinds of views on how to study discourse coherence: one is to study the language itself, that is, the role of cohesive means contained in discourse on coherence; the other is to pay attention not only to the use and change of language form itself The influence and restriction of nonverbal factors such as situational factors, cultural backgrounds and cognitive abilities on the coherence of texts. This article begins with a brief introduction of Halliday’s coherence standards, then points out the misunderstanding of the outside world and the deficiencies of Halliday’s point of view, and finally puts forward some suggestions for the revision of his discourse coherence.