人际投射小句与主体间性的语篇建构

出版时间：2012-10  出版社：厦门大学出版社  作者：辛志英  页数：368  

内容概要

　　人际投射小句是系统功能语言学的一种重要概念，也是人们表达意义的一种重要资源，因此得到了许多学者的研究和探讨，但大多涉及投射小句的内部句法关系或其主体的情态评价。作者在书中回顾了不同学者对人际投射小句的研究，并进行分析归纳，指出以前研究的不足之处，在此基础上运用系统功能语言学的理论，提出人际投射小句的概念，把人际投射小句看作加强主体间性的有效资源。《人际投射小句与主体间性的语篇建构》强调投射小句的人际功能，区分出了四类人际投射小句。为了说明人际投射小句的语篇行为，《人际投射小句与主体间性的语篇建构》搜集英语语言学书评和语言学刊物编者按作为语料，考察了英语语言学书评中人际投射小句的运作机制，充分结合量化分析方法，详细统计和比较了人际投射小句的分布，说明各类人际投射小句的使用差异，讨论人际投射小句的主体间加强功能，指出人际投射小句的使用受制于语篇的语类属性和社会交际功能。

书籍目录

Chapter 1 Introduction1.1 Background of the Study and Definition of IPC1.2 Rationale for the Study1.3 Objectives of the StudyChapter 2 Literature Review2.1 Traditional Descriptive Approaches2.1.2 Quirk et al.（1972；1985）and Quirk & Greenbaum（1973）2.2.1 Hunston &Francis（1999）and Charles（2006a）2.3 Frequency-Driven Register-Oriented Approaches2.4 Cognitive Linguistic Approaches2.4.1 Langacker（1991/2004）2.4.2 Diessel & Tomasello（2001），Thompson（2002）and （2005Verhagen）2.5 Rhetoric and Stylistic Approaches2.5.1 Simpson （1993）2.5.2 Werth（1999b）and Gavins（2007）2.6 Pragmatic Approaches2.6.1 Ptince et al.（1982），Holmes（1984），Myers（1989） and Skelton（2007）2.6.2 Stubbs （1986），Meyers（1997），Namsaraev（1997）and Givon（1995）2.6.3 Vande Kopple（1985），Crismore et al.（1993）and Hyland （2005a） 2.7 Structural-Functional Linguistic Approaches2.7.1 Dik（1997）2.7.2 Nuyts（2000）2.8.1 Hudson（1972）2.8.2 Halliday & Matthiessen（2004）　2.9.1 Hyland（2000）and Tse &Hyland（2006）2.9.2 Belcher（1995）and Motta-Roth（1998）2.10 Comments on Previous Studies2.1l SummaryChapter 3 TheoreticaIFramework3.1 The Framework for IPC Analysis3.1.1 IPC as an Intersubjectivity Booster3.1.2 Categories of IPC and the Analysis Framework3.2 Metafunctions and Metafunctional Complementarity3.2.1 Metafunctions of Language3.2.2 Metafunctional Complementarity3.3 Projection Manifestation Across Metafunctions……Chapter 4 Genre of ELBRChapter 5 I-IPCs and we-IPCs in ELBRChapter 6 No-interactant and Non-interactant IPCs in ELBRChapter 7 ConclusionAppendix l Data sourcesAppendix 2 Data samplesAppendix 3 A list of some IPCs in ELBR and ELJEAppendix 4 Concordance ofIPCs（part）in ELBR and ELJE

章节摘录

　　First，like other traditional grammarians，Jespersen considers onlycontent meaning，or propositional meaning while neglecting interpersonalmeaning.In addition，he tends to take the dependent clause as aconstituent of the main clause，not treating the sentence as acombination of two clauses. However，his connribution lies in the factthat he notices the importance of the conjunction that and theintroductory /t.This hints at the fact that Jespersen notices the linkbetween IPC and its ensuing clause in the complex. Therefore，it is fairto say that Jespersen makes his contribution to the study of IPC， thoughindirectly and unconsciously.　　Quirk et a/. interpret IPC expressions and adverbials as equal inconveying the writer‘s comments or observations of the subordinateclause.This indicates that they have noticed that clauses can beemployed to express the writer’s modal assessment of the dependentclause.Unfortunately，they do not point out the difference between thetwo versions （i.e. clausal expressions and adverbials）. Quirk et a/.also rightly notice that IPC disjuncts are syntactically more detachedand “ super-ordinate” ， having a scope that extends over the rest of thesentence.However，they do not show much interest in this aspect.Consequently they do not put at the centre the reader-orientatingfunctions of IPC.　　Another demerit lies in the fact that Quirk et a/. do not distinguishbetween what is possible and what is typical.Their paraphrasing interpretation of adverbial disjuncts and clausal disjuncts blurs the distinctions between them.One of the distinctions is that，as Halliday &Matthiessen （2004） indicate，the adverbial is typical in expressing modal assessment，and the clausal construction is the marked since additional considerations are always involved，such as the need to expand meaning，to enhance negotiation between the writer and thereader.　Second，phraseologists‘ pattern analysis greatly improves the accuracy of IPC which are more established or formulaic linguistic resources.They contribute to the study of IPC by revealing systemic patterns at a “greater degree of delicacy than had been recognized hitherto”　（ Halliday，2008： 71）. The patterns are anchored at an intermediate point between the most generalized systemic options at thegrammatical end of the lexicogrammatical continuum and the collocational regularities that are associated with the lexis.However，it　should be pointed out that patterns， such as realizations of IPC，do not exist in isolation as constructions independent of grammar. As Halliday （2008： 72） points out，to understand how these patterns work，we need a general pattern of the grammar.　　Third，Biber et al.regard IPC as a grammatical stance marker.They touch on the syntactic and semantic features of IPC.Moreimportant，Biber et al.introduce the concept of register into the interpretation of IPC.They notice that the linearity of IPC and the ensuing clause makes it possible for the speaker to first foreground her.intended perspective，and then to identify the propositional informationwhich is，due to the linear order of the clauses，supposed to be interpreted with respect to the given perspective.It should be stressed，as later-on chapters will show as well，the paradigmatic feature is anecessary ingredient of IPC.　　……