应用语言学论文

1、Critical Review 姓名：常首鸣 班级：08级外应2班 学号：2008142 专业：翻译理论及实践Article: Cohesion Is Not Coherence Author: Patricia L. Carrell1. Introduction:The author of the article is Patricia L. Carrell, a professor of linguistics at Southern Illinois University at Carbondale where she teaches in the M.A. in EFL/ESL pro

2、gram, and she is currently visiting Professor of ESL at the University of Hawaii. Her article, Cohesion Is Not Coherence, is published in 1982 when a tremendous attention has been paid to the field of studying text as a unit of language beyond the sentence level, and almost at the same time many res

3、earchers of first language as well as applied and second language researchers have been proposed a variety of approaches and theoretical accounts in the field, trying to explain the fundamental properties of text. These approaches are called text grammars, among which Michael Halliday and Rugaiya Ha

4、sans cohesion theory has been the most influential one.The purpose of the article is to criticise cohesion theory as a criterion of textual coherence from the perspective of schema-theoretical view which has taken the reader into caaount, and which has viewed both reading and writing as an interacti

5、ve process involving the writer and the reader, as well as the text.Personally the article is worth writing for it has not only challenged the cohesion theroy which has been regarded as a measure of textual coherence, pointing out the weakness of the theory, but provided some penetrating points whic

6、h, I think, is a insightful contribution to the ESL research, especially on writing and reading.The article is a well-origanized writing, especially the first paragraph which functions as an abstract. In terms of the elements a complete abstract should have, this paragraph could be a model writing o

7、n the level of both structure and logic.2. Body2.1 On the Introduction Part of This Articlethe writer clearly and concisely reviews the background information that Halliday and Hasan proposed the concept of cohesion, and shows the organization of her article: the first part reviews Halliday and Hasa

8、ns cohesion theory as a criterion of textual coherence; the scond part criticizes the cohesive view of coherence both theoretically and empirically; the third and final part relates this criticism of cohesion as a measure of coherence to the applied fieldthe teaching of writing and reading in a seco

9、nd language, especially ESL.2.2 On Reviewing Cohesion TheoryCarrell objectively and fairly describes cohesion theory and categorise it as the traditional text grammar. The theory treats text in the field of linguistics. After pointing out that register and cohesion, the letter of which is Halliday a

10、nd Hasans main concern, are the combination of coherence, or texture which establishes what is the properities of texts in English, and what it is that distinguishes a text from a disconnected sequence of sentence, the author stating that cohesion concerns semantic relations rather than content of p

11、asseges or textual meaning; and then she briefly summarizes the four cohesive ties or relationsreference, substituation, conjunction and lexical cohesionwhich Halliday and Hasan believe to be the resources for creating texture, or coherence.Finally Carrell concludes that Halliday and Hasans mian poi

12、nt appears to be that coherence of content alone is not enough to produce a coherent text, and there must be some additional device, such as ochesive ties, to make a text coherent.2.3 On The Criticism Of The Cohesive View Of Coherence From the Theoretical ConsiderationsCarrell has briefly reviewed t

13、he criticism towards the cohesion view of textual coherence from different perspectives, such as that of Karen Feathers which argues that cohesion theory operates on the superfical surface structure of a text in establishing the cohesive ties.However the criticism of this article is in line with sch

14、ema-theoretical views of text processing. The theoretical criticism emanates from Morgan and Sellners opinion. They sharply state that text grammars, including cohesion theory, talk about text analisis just for the sake of linguistic analysis for these approaches ignore a crucial and indispensable e

15、lement in the text processingreader. Language is the reflection of the real world, and text is produced for reader.From the point of schems-theory, Morgan and sellner argue that Halliday and Hasan mistakingly take certain aspects of linguistic forms, namely cohesive ties as the cause, not the effect

16、, of coherence. To convince the suggestion, they examine the first and simplest example in Halliday and Hasans book, Cohesion in English published in 1975. And then they state that Halliday and Hasan provide no reason in their notion. In the end, Carrell maintains the idea that text coheres not beca

17、use the existence ofo lexical cohesive ties, but because readers have access to interpreting the schems in text. Without such a schems text will fail to cohere. From Empirical StudiesOn the empirical criticism part, Carrell uses three separate empirical studies to support Morgan and Sellners theoret

18、ical criticism of Halliday and Hasans notion. The first study carried out by Tierney and Mosenthal is to examine the extent to which Halliday and Hasans cohesion concept correlated with coherence. They find that toic or content appears to affect the writers choice in using cohesive ties. The study i

19、ndicates that a cohesion index is causally unrelated to a texts coherence. The second experiment by Freebody and Anderson shows the effects of three different levels of cohesion on reaers understanding of written texts. The experiment also indicates that vocablary difficulty had a dramatic effect on

20、 understanding, but the amount of cohesion did not. The last empirical study by Steffensen who studied the interactive effects of both cohesive ties and cultural background knowledge on readers comprehension of short prose texts. Steffensen found that causal and adversaitve cohesive elements were re

21、called better by readers from the text of their own culture than the text of foreign culture. It suggests that cultural elements will cause the loss the textual cohesion. In other words, without the background schema underlying the text the cohesive ties will not produce a coherent text on the part

22、of readers.2.4 Implications For Second Language/ESL The critical of the paper on cohesiontheory in the light of schema-theory is to caytion those in second language teaching, especially in ESL, not to think that cohesion theory will be a panacea to solve reading and writing problem at the level of t

23、ext. A coferent text will likely be coheisve, not of necessary, that is only an effect of the coherent content.Cohesion theory is worth studing. However it is not an measure of coherence of a text.2.5 EvaluationAfter reading the article, we could gain a clear idea from the well-organized structure.

24、Excellence of the article lies in the methodology used in it, that is, the theoretical criticism supported by the the empirical work which is carried out upon the same theoretical framework. However the limitations of the article are also its strengths. On the theoretical part, the critical opinion

25、mainly comes from other researchers rather than Carrell herself; and on the empirical part, the three separate empirical studies are not finished by Carrell. 3. ConclusionThe article criticises the concept of cohesion as a measure of the coherence, pointing out that the notion hold by Halliday and H

26、asan is in line with the linguistic analysis. With the orientation of schema-theory, the auhtor strongly criticises cohesion theory which fails to take the contribution of readers into consideration in text processing, and objectively sates that cohesion theory hold by many researchers, especially i

27、n second language teaching/ESL, will not be a ultimate solution to writing and reading problem. The article has drawn some critical insight towards the second language teaching and learning, which has been supported theoretically and empirically. The article is thought provoking.REFERENCES：Bobrow, D

28、. G., and D. A. Norman. 1975. Some principles of memory schemata. In D. G. Bobrow and A. M. Collins ( Eds. ), Representation and understanding: Studies in cognitive science. New York: Academic Press.Carpenter, C., and J. Hunter. 1982. Functional exercises: Improving overall coherence in ESL writing.

29、 TESOL Quarterly 15, 4:425-434.Feathers, K. 1981. Text unity: A semantic perspective on mapping cohesion and coherence. Unpublished paper, Indiana University.Freebody, P., and R. C. Anderson. 1981. Effects of vocabulary difficulty, text cohesion, and schema availability on reading comprehension. Tec

30、hnical Report No. 225, Center for the Study of Reading. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois.Fries, C. 1952. The structure of English. New York: Harcourt.Goodin, G., and K. Perkins. 1982. Discourse analysis and the art of coherence. College English 44: 57-63.Hagerup-Neilsen, A. R. 1977. Role of mac

31、rostructures and linguistic connective incomprehending familiar and unfamiliar written discourse. Unpublished doctoraldissertation, University of Minnesota.Halliday, M. A. K., and R. Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Harris, Z. 1970. Papers in structural and transformational linguist

32、ics. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Hasan, R. 1978. On the notion of a text. In J. S. Petöfi (Ed.), Text vs. sentence. Hamburg: H. Buske.Kintsch, W. 1974. The representation of meaning in memory. Hillsdale, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum Associates.Levy, D. M. 1979. Communicative goals and strategies: Between disco

33、urse and syntax.In T. Givon (Ed.), Syntax and semantics, Vol. 12: Discourse and syntax. New York: Academic Press.Longacre, R. 1972. Hierarchy and universality of discourse constituents in NewGuinea languages. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Longacre, R. 1968. Discourse, paragraph and sen

34、tence structure in selected Philippine languages. Santa Ana, CA: Summer Institute of Linguistics.Mandler, J. M., and N. S. Johnson. 1977. Remembrance of things parsed: Storystructure and recall. Cognitive Psychology 9: 111-151.Menke, S. A. 1981. The noun phrase as a cohesive force in English text gr

35、ammar.Unpublished paper presented at the First Midwest Regional TESOL Conference.Morgan, J. L., and M. B. Sellner. 1980. Discourse and linguistic theory. In R. J. Spiro,B. C. Bertram, and W. F. Brewer ( Eds. ), Theoretical issues in reading comprehension. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.P

36、ike, K. 1967. Language in relation to a unified theory of the structure of human behavior. The Hague: Mounton.Rumelhart, D. L. 1975. Notes on a schema for stories. In D. G. Bobrow and A. M.Collins ( Eds. ), Representation and understanding: Studies in cognitive science.New York: Academic Press.Steff

37、ensen, M. S. 1981. Register, cohesion, and cross-cultural reading comprehension. Technical Report No. 220, Center for the Study of Reading. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois.Stein, N. L., and C. G. Glenn. 1979. An analysis of story comprehension in elementary school children. In R. O. Freedle (E

38、d.), Discourse processing: New directions. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Thorndyke, P. W. 1977. Cognitive structures in comprehension and memory of narrative discourse. Cognitive Psychology 9: 77-110.Tierney, R. J., and J. H,. Mosenthal. 1980. Discourse comprehension and production:Analyzing text structure and

39、 cohesion. Technical Report No. 152, Center for theStudy of Reading, Champaign, IL: University of Illinois.Tierney, R. J., and J. H. Mosenthal. 1981. The cohesion concepts relationship to thecoherence of text. Technical Report No. 221, Center for the Study of Reading.Champaign, IL: University of Ill

40、inois.van Dijk, T. A. 1972. Semantic macro-structures and knowledge frames in discoursecomprehension. In M. A. Just and P. A. Carpenter ( Eds. ), Cognitive processes in comprehension. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.van Dijk, T. A. 1977. Text and context. London: Longman.Entry 1 Analyzing

41、 Legal Texts Within the Framework of Interpersonal Metafunction in the Context of TranslationIt is a thesis attempting to discuss translation methods pertaining to power preservation in the English to Chinese translation of legislative text. As a matter of fact, people mainly adopt a linguistic appr

42、oach to the English to Chinese translation of legislative text with other external factors neglected. As one of the most important external factors, the role of power in legal text translation is stressed by the author in this thesis. The theoretical framework of this thesis is one of Hallidays meta

43、functions, the interpersonal function.When I first came across this thesis, I felt a little excited because it is where my own interest lies and the research question is attractive. But to my disappointment, it doesnt meet my expectation. First, the abstract part is not well organized and clearly st

44、ated. After finishing reading this part, I am almost lost. Although the subject matter of the thesis is clearly stated, it lacks research findings. Besides, in the last sentence “the result of the study may provide some implications for legal translation in general, the writer fails to give the conc

45、rete implications of the study. Thus, it leaves its readers in confusion. As for the literature review which is included in the introduction part, it is also not very satisfactory. The author just makes a list of relevant materials and fails to elaborate the basis and premises of the research.Apart

46、from the weakness that I have discussed above, it do does well in some aspect. Take its microstructure for example, it does not only logically arranged but clearly stated as well. Furthermore, this thesis brings a fresh air to legal language studies by adopting the top-down research methodology.The

47、author is suggested to rewrite the abstract part and amplify the literature review. Above all, she is also supposed to clarify her research findings and their implications.In conclusion, from a birds-eye view of the whole thesis, it is reasonably arranged and well structured. However, from a worms-e

48、ye, there are a lot of problems to be rectified.Entry 2 Measuring Textual Equivalence: A Functional Linguistic ApproachThis thesis seeks to explore the contribution of the cohesion theory to the building of textual equivalence in translation practice through resources of the relevant research findin

49、gs. The research topic of the thesis is the textual equivalence. Under the theoretical framework of the cohesion theory, it clearly states the five variables of cohesion: thematic progression, reference system, ellipsis conjunction, and lexical cohesion. These five variables can be used to evaluate

50、the adequacy of a translated text in terms of equivalence. Thus it provides insight into the evaluation of the translated works. This thesis has given me plenty of enlightenment and suggestions which will contribute a lot to my later study. From the reading of this thesis, I have a deep understandin

51、g of what a thesis is supposed be, what an abstract is supposed be, what an introduction is supposed be etc. It aids me to understand what I have learned in class.This thesis is so well written that I almost cannot find any problems in it. Its abstract is a quite standard one. In this part, the auth

52、or includes almost all the parts that an abstract desires. Its language is concise and clear. It helps its readers have a very clear panoramic view of the whole thesis and fulfill the function of an abstract. It helps me deepen my understanding of what an abstract is supposed to be and sets a good e

53、xample. Besides, the thesis itself has a sound theoretical framework. It does not only make an introduction of the cohesion theory but elaborate the relationship between the theory and the research topic and process as well. The outline of the thesis is based on the five variables that are used to e

54、valuate the adequacy of a translated text from the perspective of equivalence. Although it is so well structured, there still exists a problem, that is, it does not clearly state the implications of the theory after the case study. I suggest the author add them in her thesis.In a word, this thesis i

55、s a good one and we can learn a lot from reading it.Entry 3 The Unit of Translation Revisited: From the perspectives of Analysis and TransferenceIn the domain of translation studies, the study of the unit of translation (UT for short) has been a longstanding academic issue. The research of it is by

56、no means new to us. Additionally, it ranks among the most complicated problems of translation theory and draws great attention of overseas and domestic translation scholars. Thus, it is difficult to do such kind of research. In the history of translation studies, the issue of UT has been addressed f

57、rom different perspectives. In this thesis, the author makes arduous efforts to clarify the concept of UT and its function and do the research of it from the perspective of textlinguistics and systemic functional grammar which are the theoretical framework of this thesis.As I have mentioned in the i

58、ntroduction, this topic is an old one and a great amount of literature is desired to be made by the author. Actually the author himself is fully aware of it and does a good job. However, the literature review is not perfect because the author puts some parts, which is supposed to be included in the first chapter, in the second chapter. Therefore, it is better for the writer to make some adjustments. As far as the research question is concerned, the author states it clearly and gives a satisfactory solution to it. Although the question is old, its persp