cohesion and coherence语篇分析 衔接手段

1、衔接与连贯(cohesion and coherence ),衔接 语篇的有形网络 连贯 语篇的无形网络,Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.,(1) Gettysburg Address (Abraham Lincoln),Now we are engaged in a great

2、 civil war, testing whether that nation or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of the field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altog

3、ether fitting and proper that we should do this.,But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate we can not consecrate we can not hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long

4、remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced.,It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us that from the

5、se honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom and that government of the people, by the people, for

6、the people, shall not perish from the earth.,语篇的衔接手段,众所周知，大树是通过许许多多的树叉把大大小小的枝条同树干连接起来形成一个完美的整体。其实语篇就好比是一棵大树一个条理清晰，上下连贯（语篇特征）的整体，那么语篇是靠什么形成的呢？回答是靠衔接手段。,衔接,“衔接”这一概念是Halliday于1962年首次提出的。后来在他与Hasan合著的Cohesion in English一书中把衔接定义为“存在于篇章内部，使之成为语篇的意义关系”（Halliday in the second place; nest/then; for one thing

7、for another; furthermore/moreover/in addition/ besides;finally/last; and等。 2. 因果：consequently/ as a result/ hence/ accordingly/ thus/so/therefore; because/since/for等。 3.特例或举例：in particular; specifically; for instance/ for example; that is /namely等。,4.转折： But/however/yet/nevertheless; on the contrary

8、; on the other hand; neithernor等。 5.引出结论：in conclusion/finally/all in all/ to sum up；evidently/ clearly/ actually; of course等。 6. 表示频率：frequently/often; occasionally/ now and then; day after day; again and again等。,7. 表示阶段：during; briefly; for a long time; for many years等。 8. 表某一时刻：then/ at that time

9、/ in those days; last Sunday; next Christmas; in 2005; at the beginning go Sep; at six oclock; two months ago等。,9. 表示开端：at first/ in the beginning; before then; in the preceding weeks等。 10. 表示其间：in the meantime/ while this was going on/ meanwhile/ as it was happening/ at the same time/ simultaneousl

10、y等。 11. 表示结束：eventually/ finally/ at last/ in the end 等。,词义衔接主要可划分为重复、同义词、反义词、局部词、上座标词、下义词和搭配。,Lexical cohesion,There are more than 26,000 patients on the national waiting list for transplants. About 2,000 patients are dying annually while waiting for transplants, mostly patients waiting for hearts,

11、 kidneys and livers, for the shortage of organs.,Organ Retrieval Methods Spark Debate Doctors try to expand donor pool by preserving body parts patients whose hearts and lungs fail.,Exercise,Why Historians Disagree,Why Historians Disagree,1 Most students are usually introduced to the study of histor

12、y by way of a fat textbook and become quickly immersed in a vast sea of names, dates, events and statistics. The students skills are then tested by examinations that require them to show how much the data they remember: the more they remember, the higher their grades.,From this experience a number o

13、f conclusions seem obvious; the study of history is the study of “facts” about the past; the more facts you know, the better you are as a student of history. The professional historian is simply one who brings together a very large number of facts. Therefore students often become confused upon disco

14、vering that historians disagree sharply even when they are dealing with the same event.,2 Their common sense reaction to this state of affairs is to conclude that one historian is right while the other is wrong. and presumably, historians are wrong, will have their “facts” wrong. This is seldom the

15、case, however. historians usually argue reasonably and persuasively. And the facts- the names, dates, events, statistics- usually turns out to be correct.,Moreover, they often find that contending historians more or less agree on the facts; that is, they use the same data. They come to different con

16、clusions because they view the past from a different perspective. History, which seemed a cutand-dried matter of memorizing facts now becomes a matter choosing one good interpretation from among many. Historical truth becomes a matter of personal preference.,3 This position is hardly satisfying. The

17、y cannot help but feel that two diametrically opposed points of view about an event cannot both be right; yet they lack the ability to decide between them. 4 To understand why historians disagree, students must consider a problem they have more or less taken for granted. They must ask themselves wha

18、t history really is.,5 In its broad sense, history denotes the whole of the human past. More restricted is the notion that history is the recorded past, that is, that part of human life which has left some sort of record such as folktales, artifacts, or written documents. Finally, history may be def

19、ined as that which historians write about the past. Of course the three meanings are related.,Historians must base on the remains of the past, left by people. Obviously they cannot know everything for the same reason that not every event, every happening, was fully and completely recorded. Therefore

20、 the historians can only approximate history at best. No one can ever claim to have concluded the past.,6 But this does not say enough. If historians cannot know everything because not every event, was recorded, neither do they use all the records that are available to them. Rather, they select only

21、 those records they deem most significantly. Moreover, they also re-create parts of the past. Like detectives, they piece together evidence to fill in the gaps in the available records.,7 Historians are able to select and create evidence by using some theory of human motivations and behavior. Someti

22、mes this appears easy, requiring very little sophistication and subtlety. Thus, for example, historians investigating Americans entry into world war I would probably find that the sinking of the American merchant ships on the high seas by German submarines was relevant president Woodrow Wilson was d

23、issatisfied with a new hat he bought during the first months of 1917.,The choice as to which fact to use is based on a theory- admittedly, in this case, a rather crude theory, but a theory nonetheless. It would go something like this: national leaders contemplating war are more likely to be influenc

24、ed by belligerent acts against their countries than by their unhappiness with their haberdashers.,8 If the choices were as simple as this, the problem would be easily resolved. But the choices were not so easy to make. historians investigating Americans entry into world war I will find in addition t

25、o German submarine warfare a whole series of other facts that could be relevant to the event under study. For example, they will find that the British government had a propaganda machine at work in the United States that did it best to win public support for the British cause. They will discover tha

26、t American bankers had made large loans to the British , loans that would not be paid in the event of a British defeat.,They will read the interception of the “Zimmerman Note” , in which the German Foreign Secretary ordered the German minister in Mexico, in the event war, to suggest an alliance betw

27、een German and Mexico whereby Mexico, with German support, could win back territory taken from Mexico by the United States in the Mexican war. They will also find among many American political leaders a deep concern over the balance of power in Europe, a balance that would be destroyed-to Americas d

28、isadvantage-if the Germans were able to defeat the French and the British and thereby emerge as the sole major power in Europe.,9 What then are historians to make of these facts? One group could simply list them. By doing so, they would be making two important assumptions:(1) those facts they put on

29、 their list are the main reasons, while those they do not list are not so important; and (2) Those things they put on their list are of equal importance in explaining the U.S. role. but another group of historians might argue that the list is incomplete in that it does not take into account the gene

30、rally pro-British views of Woodrow Wilson views that stemmed from the presidents background and education the result will be a disagreement among the historians .,Moreover, because the second group raise the question of Wilsons views , they will find a number of relevant facts that the first group w

31、ould ignore. They will concern themselves with Wilson education, the influence of his teachers, the books he read, and the books he wrote. In short, although both groups of historians are dealing with the same subject they will come to different conclusions and use different facts to support their p

32、oint of view. The facts selected , and those ignored , will depend not on the problem studied but on the points of view of the historians.,10 Similarly a third group of historians might maintain that the various items on the list should not be given equal weight , that one of the reasons listed , sa

33、y, bankers loans, was most important. The theory here would be that economic matters are the key to human motivation, and that a small number of wealthy bankers have a disproportionate ability to influence the government.,11 In the examples given, historians disagree because they begin from differen

34、t premises. But there is still another realm of disagreement which stems from something rather different. Historians sometimes disagree because they are not talking about the same thing. Often they are considering different levels of cause and effect. Suppose the teacher asked you “ Why were you lat

35、e for class this morning?” “I was late for class,” you explained “because I overslept.”,Or to use a historical example, “The civil war began because South Carolina shore batteries opened fire on the federal garrison at Fort Sumter on April 12, 1861.” Neither statement can be faulted on the grounds t

36、hat it is inaccurate ; at the same time , however, neither is sufficient as an explanation of the event being considered. The next question is obvious: Why did you oversleep, or why did relations between a state and the Federal government reach the point where differences had to be settled by war? I

37、n other words, we have to go beyond the proximate cause and probe further and further.,But as we dig more deeply into the problem, the answer becomes more difficult and complex. In the end, you might argue that the ultimate cause of your being late was the fact that you were born, but obviously this

38、 goes too far back to be meaningful. That you were born is of course a necessary factor, but it is not sufficient factor; it does not tell really enough to explain your behavior today. Similarly you could trace the cause of the Civil War back to the discovery AMERICA, but again , that is necessary b

39、ut not a sufficient cause.,The point at which causes are both necessary and sufficient is not self-evident. Therefore historians may again disagree about where to begin the analysis. By now students should see that the well-used phrase “let the facts speak for themselves” has no real meaning. The fa

40、cts do not speak for themselves; historians use the facts in a particular way and therefore they, and not the facts are doing the speaking.,12 Historians not only disagree with others. They often disagree with themselves. Indeed they are often revising their ideas. They have to do so because they are constantly discovering new information, gaining new insights from other social scientists and maste