人际意义概念和理论框架.doc

精品文档2.2 Overview of Interpersonal Meaning SFL, based on a view of how language functions as a system of human communication (Thompson, 1996/2000:1), is construed by Halliday under the influence of some scholars from different domains, such as Malinowski, Whorf, Firth and Hjemslev, whose essences are assimilated and integrated into his insights. He embraced the view from Malinowski that meaning is function in context and language is multifunctional. Malinowski identified three major functions of language in Polynesian Society: pragmatic, magical and narrative. Halliday glossed from some facets of Malinowskian language function into his three metafunctions: ideational meaning (encompassing experiential meaning and logical meaning), interpersonal-meaning and textual meaning (Halliday, 1976; 1994/2000; 2004).2.2.1 Concept of Interpersonal Meaning As is known to all, one of the primary purposes of communicating is to interact with other people. We use language to tell other people things and also to exchange meanings. For instance, we may want to influence their attitudes or behavior, or to provide information that we know they do not have, or to explain our own attitudes or behavior, or to get them to provide us with information, and so on. All these goings-on process belong primarily to interpersonal meaning. Following Thompson (1996/2000:28), interpersonal meaning refers to we use language to interact with other people, to establish and maintain relations with them, to influence their behaviour, to erpress our own viewpoints on things in the world, and to elicit or change theirs.Thus, it is obvious that, interpersonal meaning is considered from the point of view of its function in the process of social interaction (Halliday, 1985:20).2.2.2 Framework of Interpersonal Meaning In SFL, function is a kind of meaning potential. Halliday (1985) proposes that, function will be interpreted not just as the use of language but as a fundamental property of language itself, something that is basic to the evolution of the semantic system. Thompson(1996/2000) also has emphasized that, a functional approach to investigating language is based on the assumption that the language system has evolved and is constantly evolving to serve the functions that we need it for. Therefore, the fact that interaction, having a purpose for expressing things to other people, is an inherent part of language use, signals that there must be facets of the grammar, which can be discerned as enabling us to interact through language, which is characterized as a tri-stra(a) semiotic system, provided by Eggins(1994), involving a strata of meaning, a strata of wordings, and a strata of sounds/orthography. That is meanings are encoded as wordings, which are in turn encoded by sounds or letters. The resources for the framework of interpersonal function encompass three under the headings of Mood, Modality and Appraisal. According to Halliday(1994/2000:68), the principal grammatical system that can realize interpersonal meaning is that of MOOD. Eggins(1994:193) demonstrates that, by looking at how people use the system of Mood in the clauses they exchange with each other, we can see speakers or writers making meanings about such interpersonal dimensions as: the power or solidarity of their relationship, the extent of their intimacy, their level of familiarity with each other, and their attitudes and judgments. In the systemic model, Mood is recognized as consisting of two parts in English, namely the Subject and the Finite. The Subject is usually a nominal group that is repeated in pronoun from the tag, and the Finite is the first functional element of the verbal group, which is most easily recognized in yes-no questions, since it is the auxiliary which comes in front of the Subject. In fact, the terminology subject is a familiar term from traditional grammar, but it should be engraved that, in SFL it is being reinterpreted in functional terms. Hence, we use capital letter S in the Subject for the differentiation from the formal category. Before coming to Modality, we should make clear a concept-Polarity. Interpreted as if it were absolute, it is the choice either positive or negative in English. However, the choices are not definitely limited between positive and negative. Semantically, there are intermediate stages between these two poles, which are collectively known as MODALITY. Thus, in a simple definition, Modality is the space between yes and no, the modal space referred by Halliday(1994/2000) between yes and no. Hence, what the Modality system does is to construe the region of uncertainty that lies between positive and negative. It can be further divided into two parts, one is modalization, and the other ismodulation (Halliday, 1994/2000), which will be presented in chapter 4 in details. As far as the term Appraisal is concerned, used by Martin et al. it is a cover-all term to encompass all evaluative uses of language, including those by which speakers or writers adopt particular value positions or stances and by which they negotiate these stances with either actual or potential respondents. Thompson(1996/2000:65) asserted that, it is a central part of the meaning of any text and that any analysis of the interpersonal meaning of a text must take it into account. And the choice of evaluation reflects and reinforces the ideological values of the culture. Martin et al, for the enormous effort done in this research field, founded Appraisal theory, which greatly enlarges the researching scope for interpersonal meaning. Appraisal is germane to the kinds of attitudes that are negotiated in a text, the strength of the feelings involved and the ways wherein valeurs are sourced and readers aligned. According to Martin (2000:142), there are three Appraisal sub-systems: Attitude, Engagement and Graduation. Eggins&Slade (1997) and White (1998) also explore it, what they are concerned are: Solidarity, Appreciation, Affect, Judgment and Amplification. Hunston&Thompson (2000) illustrated three functions and four parameters in Appraisal. At once, large numbers oflinguists in China have been devoting to the development of interpersonal meaning and also its application, which encode many new perspectives in the research of the metafunction. For example, the interpretation of Qing Mingby Huang Guowen (2002a), which extends the genre analysis to poem; Li Zhanzi (2002) published her works Interpersonal Meaning in Discourse，in which she expands, outside of the clause, the exploration of interpersonal meaning to the whole text, strongly widening the framework of interpersonal function and thus increa