（英语语言文学专业论文）语篇衔接手段的实证研究.pdf

abstract this research is concerned with my empirical survey of cohesive devices in texts within the framework of text linguistics, it investigates various facets of cohesive devices and aims to promote the effective learning of cohesive devices. first, a close examination of coherence, cohesion and cohesive devices is done. it is observed that coherence is a design feature of text, a prerequisite for text comprehension. there are many conditions contributing to coherence, and cohesion is one. the paper argues that cohesion is a vital contributor to coherence, and a means for the realization of some other coherence factors. based on the above opinions and the marked theory, the paper defines unmarked coherence and marked coherence in terms of the presence and absence of cohesion respectively. this study mainly deals with unmarked coherence, leaving the marked out of the present scope. second, inspired by the input hypothesis, coherent comprehensible input is essential to language learning. for language learning, input is in the form of text ( written or oral ), and high-quality texts need coherence with cohesive devices. the pervasiveness of cohesive devices is manifest in the texts in the intensive reading textbook for junior english majors (simplified as advanced english). in this study, 126 junior english majors from xiangtan university were chosen as subjects, and their output in writing was analyzed. this analysis also indicates the pervasiveness of cohesive devices. and the correlation of the two kinds of pervasiveness proves the effectiveness of advanced english in developing competence and performance in cohesive devices. from the above study, an assumption is made about the possibility of an empirical survey of cohesive devices in texts 1 提提 要要 研究语言结构的理论一般可分为两大类：语法学和篇章语言学。前 者通常是研究单个的、孤立的句子，而后者则是研究用于交际 （communication）中的语篇。语法学研究词的形式、用法和句子各个组 成部分及其安排的规律，在语法研究中，句子是最高一层的结构。篇章 语言学研究比句子更大的语言单位， 如语篇中句子排列与衔接(cohesion) 和连贯(coherence)，是一个超句法分析。 越来越多的语言学家认识到，语言研究不应该局限于句子平面，不 应只研究句子结构，而应超越句子的范围，研究其在语篇中的作用，研 究用于交际中的语言。因此，越来越多的人对语篇分析产生了浓厚的兴 趣。 篇章语言学作为一门独立的学科也就应运而生了，到 70 年代有了 较快的发展。语篇分析通常指的是对比句子/话段（sentence/ utterance） 更大的语言单位所作的语言分析，包括书面语言和口头语言，语篇的结 构、句子的排列、句际关系、会话结构、语篇的指向性、信息度、句子 间的语句衔接和语义连贯等等，都是篇章语言学的研究内容。其目的在 于解释人们如何构造和理解各种连贯(coherent)的语篇。 语篇通常指一系列的话段或句子构成的语言整体。 无论它以何种形 式出现，都必须合乎语法，并且语义连贯，包括与外界在语义上和语用 上(semantically and pragmatically)的连贯， 也包括语篇内部在语言上的连 贯。语篇应有一个论题结构或逻辑结构，句子之间有一定的逻辑联系。 语篇中的话段或句子都是在这一结构基础上组合起来的。一般来说，语 篇由一个以上的话段或句子构成， 它具有句法上的组织性和交际上的独 立性。但是，语言上也存在着在交际上具有完整性的单句语篇（one sentence or utterance text） ，如揭示语 no smoking（禁止吸烟）就属于这 种语篇。 一个语义连贯的语篇必须具有语篇特征（texture） ，它所表达的是 整体意义。语篇中的各个成分是连贯的，而不是彼此无关的。语篇与非 语篇的最大区别是前者具有语篇特征，后者没有。语篇特征体现在很多 方面，如衔接就是它的一个主要内容。语篇中连句成篇的手段是多种多 样的。一个连贯的语篇必须具有衔接成分，而且必须符合语义、语用和 认知原则，句与句之间在概念上必须有联系，句与句的排列应该符合逻 辑。如果一个句子组合缺乏语篇特征，那该组合就不是语篇。实际上， 语篇和非语篇是两个相对的概念，非语篇在现实中是罕见的。 语篇是语言教学材料即输入（input）的主要形式，语言学习者只有 在大量接触可理解性输入的前提下， 才可能学习、 掌握和运用这门语言。 an empirical survey of cohesive devices in texts 2 因此，语篇的质量在很大程度上决定着语言学习的成功与否。语言教学 需要高质量的语篇输入。那么，如何去衡量语篇的质量呢？作者认为， 衔接与连贯这两个语篇特征有助于解决这个问题。 本课题是一个在篇章语言学理论框架下展开的对语篇中衔接手段 的实证研究。它对于语言学习者，教师以及教材编著者都有很大的启发 和帮助。 本论文首先阐释了连贯、衔接的定义以及衔接手段的种类，讨论了 衔接与连贯的关系，衔接手段的存在原因，区分了有标记连贯和无标记 连贯，这些理论的论述将有助于实证研究的开展。 近二十年来，国外语言学界对语篇连贯（textual coherence）的研究 越来越重视。halliday 和 hasan 等人从衔接手段（cohesive devices）的 研究入手， 探索语篇内部不同成分之间的各种语义联系， fries 和 danes 等人从主位推进(thematic progression)的角度来探索语义连贯的实现， brown、yule 和 widdowson 等人从语言交际者的共有知识（shared knowledge）等语言外因素来讨论话语的语义是否连贯，而 givon 等心 理语言学家们则从认知的角度判断语篇的连贯与否。在我们看来，无论 是语言内因素， 还是语言外因素， 对语篇的连贯都具有十分重要的作用。 虽然语言学家们至今还未能对连贯提供一致的定义， 然而已经取得 的研究成果却表明，如何界定连贯，是与语言学家采取的语言观和研究 角度紧密相关的。大体来说，对连贯性质的看法可以分为两大类：一是 把它看作社会现象，一是把它视为心理现象。 坚持前一种看法的语言学家有 halliday 和 van djik 等人。 他们把语 言看作是一种社会符号，把语言的使用看作是一种社会行为。他们对连 贯所做的研究基本上都是以语篇为基础的（text-based） 。halliday 和 hasan 等人为研究社会因素与语言使用的相互关系作出了很大的贡献， 其中最突出的是他们对衔接方式及其作用的研究， 以及语类结构与社会 行为模式相互关系的研究，引起了广泛的注意。van djik 则注重语言的 宏观结构研究，以及语言与意识形态之间关系的研究。 主张后一种观点的主要是以心理学理论为指导进行语言研究的语 言学家，如 givon、gernsbacher 和 coates 等人，其中最具代表性的是 givon。 他在 1995 年发表的题为 “语篇连贯与心理连贯 （coherence in text vs coherence in mind） ”的文章中明确指出： “我们真正研究的连贯不是 外在语篇（external text）的连贯，而是能生成、能储存、能提取内在语 篇（mental text）的心理连贯。 ” 在我们看来，把连贯看作是语言现象，就是把连贯看作是一种看得 an empirical survey of cohesive devices in texts 3 见、摸得着、以具体的语言形式为判断依据的客观现象；把连贯看作心 理现象， 就是把它看作是一种靠受话者或交际双方在交际过程中不断协 调（negotiation）从而达到彼此理解的主观行为。 看一个语篇是否连贯， 离开逻辑推理和世界知识的记忆和调取等心 理活动是不可能的。但是，我们也必须看到语言形式本身所发挥的引发 作用。因为，受话者毕竟是以对方已经说出来的话或可能会说出来的话 作为思维的基础和依据的。从这个意义上讲，衡量一个语篇是否连贯， 也离不开对语言形式的分析。最理想的做法是既把连贯看作是语言现 象，同时又把它看作是一种心理行为。 halliday 和 hasan 是为了探讨语篇如何连贯而对衔接概念和衔接手 段进行研究的。在 halliday 和 hasan 看来，语篇是一个语义单位，而不 是一个大于句子的语法单位。一个语段能否称得上语篇，主要看它是否 算得上一个有意义的连贯的整体。而这种整体性（unity）在语言中必然 有所体现，必然有经得起检验的客观标准。 halliday 和 hasan 认为，标准有两条：一是看语段是否具有语篇特 征（texture） ，二是语段在语域方面是否前后一致。语篇特征包括两个方 面的内容：一是结构性的，另一种是非结构性的。结构性的语篇特征指 的是句子本身的结构（如主位结构和信息结构） ，非结构性的语篇特征 指的则是在不同的句子中出现的不同成分之间的衔接关系。 什么叫衔接？halliday 和 hasan（1976：4）把它界定为“存在于语 篇内部的，能使全文成为语篇的各种意义关系” 。在他们看来，衔接和 连贯都是语义概念。两者之间的关系是：连贯的语篇必须衔接，衔接促 进语篇的连贯。 如何才能知道语篇中的两个不同部分之间在语义上有所联系呢？ halliday 和 hasan（1976）明确指出： “当话语中某一成分的解释取决于 另一个成分的解释时，便会出现衔接。 ” halliday 和 hasan 对英语中的衔接手段作了全面的描写。他们把这 些手段分为两大类：一类是语法手段，另一类是词汇手段，每一类又包 含若干具体的体现形式。 本文对他们定义的指代、替代、省略、连接和词汇衔接五种衔接类 型进行探讨。 指代是衔接手段中最明显的一种，表示某个项目自己不能解释自 己，而是必须到其他地方寻求其解释的现象。如果需要在语篇内部来解 释，就称为“内部指代” （endophoric reference） ，如果需要到情景中去 解释，就称为“外部指代” （exophoric reference） 。从内部指代的角度讲， an empirical survey of cohesive devices in texts 4 既可以在上下文中得到解释，称为“回指” （anaphoric reference） ，也可 以在下文中得到解释，称为“下指” （cataphoric reference） 。大多数指代 都属于回指，可以说是无标记指代，下指比较少见。halliday 和 hasan 认为，外部指代没有衔接功能。 在词汇语法层次上， 指代主要由语法项目来体现， 主要分为三大类： 人称指代、指示指代和比较指代。人称指代表示话语角色，主要由人称 代词体现。指示指代表示一种语言指示现象，其区别在于远近、地点时 间、单数复数等，主要由指示代词和指示副词体现。比较指代是通过两 个项目之间相同或相似关系来得到解释的指代。比较指代分为两类：普 通比较和特殊比较，两者都由比较形容词或比较副词体现。普通比较用 于区分相同、相近或相反的意义关系，而特殊比较则用于作比较细致的 区分，如数量和性质等。 替代表达的不是对等关系， 而是同类关系， 主要由语法手段来体现， 可以分为三类：名词性替代、动词性替代和小句替代。名词性替代表示 某个同类事物出现时由相应的语法项目（如 one,ones）来替代的现象； 动词性替代表示某个同类动作、行为或状态出现时由相应的语法项目 （如 do） 替代的现象。 小句替代则表示一个同类小句出现由相应的语法 项目（如 so）所替代的现象。 省略与替代表达的衔接类型基本相同，只是每个同类项目出现时， 不是被替代，而是被省略。因此，应该注意对指代和替代及省略进行比 较，了解两组概念间的区别，特别是前者一般是对等关系，后者是同类 关系。 连接表示两个语段之间的联系，所以它不是表示直接的衔接关系， 而是间接的衔接关系。 它通过表示两个语段之间的关系来预示另一个语 段的存在， 从而建立起衔接关系。 连接关系十分复杂， halliday 和 hasan 把它们归纳为四个类型：附加、相反、原因和时间。连接关系在语法层 次上主要由连词、连接副词和介词短语体现。 我们注意到，语篇中的连接关系可以由连接成分联系，也可以通过 意义之间的自然顺序关系来表示，所以就没有连接成分。这种连接可以 视为“隐性连接” （implicit conjunction） 。 最后一种衔接关系是词汇衔接。 词汇衔接表达一种具体且复杂的意 义关系，包括相同、相似、相近和相反关系。halliday 和 hasan 把它们 归纳为两大类：复现和词汇搭配。复现表示衔接纽带一端出现一个项目 后，另一端由相同、更概括、同义等词汇占据的现象。具体到词汇项目 上可以是一个项目的重复、同义词、上义词、反义词等。而词汇搭配表 an empirical survey of cohesive devices in texts 5 示通常出现在同一个语义场的项目同现的现象。 指代和词汇衔接，特别是词汇重复，通常具有相同的功能，可以组 成衔接链(cohesive chains)：当一个项目多次出现时，有时以代词形式， 有时以词汇形式，从而形成一个由多个链环形成的衔接链，在语篇分析 中具有很强的解释力。 halliday 和 hasan（1976，1985）始终把衔接方式的研究与语篇连 贯紧密联系起来，强调语篇的连贯性势必通过语言本身得到反映。而反 映的一个重要途径便是语言的衔接。他们坚持认为，衔接是连贯必不可 少的条件。widdowson (1979)和 enkvist(1978) 对 halliday 的观点提出 质疑。他们的观点概括起来就是：语义上连贯的语篇可以没有形式上的 衔接纽带；即使一篇文章中有大量明显的衔接标记，也不能把它们看作 是语义连贯的保证。 根据衔接手段的存在与否，我们区分了有标记连贯和无标记连贯， 本文中分析的主要是形式上有明显的衔接标记的篇章。 随着篇章语言学的发展，语言教学的重点不再局限于字、词、句范 围，而是越来越重视连句成篇的篇章能力。要写出意义统一，前后连贯 的文章，恰当地使用一些衔接手段是必要的。大量实验结果表明：大部 分语言中级学习者的篇章能力是比较薄弱的。那么，怎么样去培养他们 的衔接和连贯意识，从而提高其篇章能力呢？ 作者作为一名高校教师，担任英语专业高年级精读课教学，对这个 问题产生了浓厚的兴趣， 这也是本文的中心任务如何有效地促进衔 接机制的学习和运用。 受到 krashan(1985)的输入假设理论的启发，大量连贯的可理解输 入是语言学习的关键因素。它主要以语篇的形式存在（书面的或口头 的） ，富有衔接手段的连贯的语篇才是高质量的教学材料。作者对英语 专业高年级精读教程（以下简称为高级英语 ）语篇中的各种衔接手 段作了定性及定量分析，研究了各种衔接手段的大量实例，统计了数目 及其在五种衔接手段中占的比例，结果表明， 高级英语中的语篇富 含各种衔接手段，意义统一，前后连贯，是高质量的输入材料，为语言 学习者提供了大量连贯的可理解的输入。作者在教学过程中，有意识地 引导学生去注意、理解这些衔接手段，并鼓励他们去运用，并且设计了 一些巩固练习来进一步培养其衔接意识、语篇能力。半年的学习以后， 作者选取了 126 名学习该教程并且接受了大量相关训练的学生的作文， 对其中运用的衔接手段作了同样的定性及定量分析，结果表明，学生在 作文中运用了各种衔接手段， 而且每种衔接手段在五种衔接手段中占的 an empirical survey of cohesive devices in texts 7 synopsis text came into text linguists attention when they recognized the necessity to approach language beyond sentences. understanding about language seems to lie in the study of texts. coherence is a design feature of text, and to understand coherence, one has first to be informed of text and text linguistics, which serves as a foundation for the following study. text is a unit of language system. a string of sentences can be called a text if it is a cohesive unit of language for a purpose in a certain context. otherwise, it is non-text. in fact, text and non-text are two relative terms. “text” is not absolute, and the so-called non-text is rare in reality. in my opinion, it is not necessary to specify text and non-text, but it is helpful to distinguish good texts from bad ones. text is a fabric of vocabulary and grammar in a comprehensible way. it is the main form of teaching materials. the vast number of texts can provide linguistic input for language learners. being exposed to a language in text form, learners learn the language. i cannot imagine a person who can learn a language without the presence of its texts. therefore, language teaching and learning calls for high-quality language teaching materials. such being the case, the study of text mechanism especially, coherence and cohesion become increasingly important. the study will be carried out within the framework of text linguistics. in the late sixties of the 20th century, the concept of text was introduced into linguistics in an attempt to go beyond sentences in the study of syntax and semantics. text linguistics is not a revolution in the sense of being in any way a negation of previous linguistic theory; on the contrary, it is firmly based on all that has been done in what we call sentence linguistics (allerton, 1969). text linguistics is extending our attention to cover the more generalized domain of text, to allow us to enlarge the possibilities of explaining and comprehending the linguistic phenomenon (dressler, 1978). text linguistics has come a long way since its beginning. there are many objectives: 1) to define the minimal linguistic unit of study; 2) to study the connection between interiors; 3) to distinguish between acceptable coherent texts and non-text; 4) to study the generation and production of text (and others) (van dijk, 1972; brown giora, 1985; garnham, 1991). the first problem includes problems of syntactic and pragmatic approaches to the description of the grammaticality of terms, especially, that of text coherence and cohesion. the second is the processing of the linguistic presentation. linguists used to attach importance to the former with the second ignored. as a matter of fact, the study of the connection between interior units has a preferential place among the tasks of text linguistics. the fundamental problem of text linguistics is to show how one sentence follows another in a rational, rule-governed manner, in other words, how we interpret text as coherent. so coherence is a muchresearched area in text linguistics. text analysis approaches coherence from different perspectives, trying to give a sound definition and to find out factors that may affect textual coherence (beaugrand van dijk gemsbacher halliday, 1964:303; halliday van dijk, 1977:106; xu shenghuan, 1982:19; danes, 1974), the structure of given and new information (vachek, 1966) were also proposed to influence textual coherence. with so many factors taken into consideration, text analysts began to doubt the established status of cohesion in the construction of textual coherence. some (halliday reinhart, 1980; ehrlich, 1990) assert that cohesion is a necessary though not a sufficient condition for the creation of coherent text while others (enkvist, 1978) object to this. it is true that textual coherence is a comprehensive concept, with many an empirical survey of cohesive devices in texts 9 factors contributing to it. yet one cannot deny the importance of cohesion. as confusion remains, a thorough examination is necessary for the relationship between coherence and cohesion. on the other hand, the study of coherence and cohesion becomes important with the development of text linguistics. a distinction was made between linguistic competence, which allows the formulation of wellformed sentences, and textual competence, which allows their connection to form a text (discourse). it is the task of text linguistics to study textual competence. it is argued that cohesion has to do with the way propositions are linked together by a variety of structure operations to form texts (hobbs, j.r., 1977). the learning of language, especially, at the intermediate level, partly means acquiring the ability to handle text (discourse), receptively or productively. difficulties and breakdowns in written communication largely result from incompetence in this regard. many learners complain that they can cope with the demanding memorization of vocabulary, but at a loss for the fabrication of composition, feel frustrated when unable to handle text (discourse) in a macro scope, even though they can perceive coherent text intuitively. since cohesion of coherence is considered to be an essential and difficult component in language learning, it is of both research and pedagogical interest to study various facets of learning cohesive devices. during the last three decades since the emergence of study in coherence and cohesion. halliday 6. to define the relationship between cohesion and coherence (unmarked coherence and marked coherence); 7. to demonstrate the pervasiveness of unmarked coherence in the intensive reading textbook for junior english majorsadvanced english. the analysis of the output in writing from the course users also reveals the pervasiveness of cohesive devices, and confirms the merits of advanced english in developing students competence and performance in cohesive devices; 8. some suggestions were given to improve the teaching and learning of cohesive devices. cohesive devices are associated with language input, high- quality teaching materials should be rich in this aspect. many course compilers and language teachers have reached an agreement on the importance of cohesive devices, and have begun to take it into consideration when they evaluate a course book. advanced english is regarded as a series of course books rich in cohesive devices, and effective in developing the learning of cohesive an empirical survey of cohesive devices in texts 11 devices. yet, some people have different opinions. therefore, some empirical data of assessment are necessary to clarify such a situation. the pervasiveness of cohesive devices in advanced english will be studied through both quantitative and qualitative analysis. among all the texts from book, 11 texts were selected, the texts cover narration, description, exposition and argumentation in rhetoric organization. each text is analyzed in terms of the commonly recognized cohesive devicesreference, substitution and ellipsis, conjunction, and lexical devices. the analysis involves the frequency of each cohesive device in a text; the relationship between cohesive devices and other coherence contributors given-new information structure and thematic progression. to find out the effectiveness of advanced english in developing learners performance in cohesive devices, another study was conducted. 126 junior english majors in xiangtan university were chosen as my subjects. most of them had an english proficiency of tem band 4 the time they were chosen, and have been using the series of course book for half a year. this study is based on their outputcompositions of a simulating exam for tem band 8. students are supposed to write an argumentation on the attitudes towards interview for job-hunting. an intensive study was given to the devices that students used in the compositions by adopting halliday 2) introducing each device in a systematic way; 3) teaching each device in the proper context, rather than in isolation; 4) presenting each device with its function; 5) encouraging correct use of each device. language learning is a complex and gradual process, so is the learning of cohesive devices. it involves cognitive, semantic and contrastive study in related fields. the present study can only focus on a relatively small area cohesive device learning in conventional language learning. it is only a case study of advanced english; the suggestions for teacher are merely based on assumptions. due to time limit, the effectiveness of the activities designed is not tested, and the gradual process of the learning of cohesive devices is not looked into. furthermore, a more precise assessment of the effectiveness of the activities can be done by a comparison of learners competence in using cohesive devices at the beginning of their advanced english learning and that after using the designed exercises for cohesive devices for an academic an empirical survey of cohesive devices in texts 13 year or longer. it is firmly believed that further research in this field will be of theoretical and pedagogical significance. it can promote the understanding of cohesive devices and the learning of these devices, and help teachers come up with more constructive suggestions for effective learning of cohesive devices. to achieve clarity, i want to establish the technical vocabulary that is used throughout the paper and briefly explain those choices. as my focus is mainly on written language, i use the term text rather than discourse, with oral and electronic language out of my scope. 参考文献：略 an empirical survey of cohesive devices in texts 2 chapter one introduction 1.1 background of the research text came into text linguists attention when they recognized the necessity to approach language beyond sentences. understanding about language seems to lie in the study of texts. coherence is a design feature of text, and to understand coherence, one has first to be informed of text and text linguistics, which serves as a foundation for the following study. text is a unit of language system. a string of sentences can be called a text if it is a cohesive unit of language for a purpose in a certain context. otherwise, it is non-text. in fact, text and non-text are two relative terms. “text” is