cohesionandcoherence語篇分析銜接手段

1、銜接與連貫(cohesion and coherence )1銜接語篇的有形網(wǎng)絡(luò)連貫語篇的無形網(wǎng)絡(luò)2 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)3 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 altoge

3、ther fitting and proper that we should do this.4 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. 5 It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us that from t

5、hese 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, fo

6、r the people, shall not perish from the earth.6 語篇的銜接手段眾所周知，大樹是通過許許多多的樹叉把大大小小的枝條同樹干連接起來形成一個完美的整體。其實語篇就好比是一棵大樹一個條理清晰，上下連貫（語篇特征）的整體，那么語篇是靠什么形成的呢？回答是靠銜接手段。7 銜接 “銜接”這一概念是Halliday于1962年首次提出的。后來在他與Hasan合著的Cohesion in English一書中把銜接定義為“存在于篇章內(nèi)部，使之成為語篇的意義關(guān)系”（Halliday& Hasan, 1976:4）。他們認(rèn)為，銜接是產(chǎn)生語篇的必要（盡管不足）的條件（1

7、976：298-299）。在他們看來，有了銜接不一定產(chǎn)生語篇，但是如果沒有銜接則一定不會產(chǎn)生語篇。 8他們系統(tǒng)地將銜接分為五大類：照應(yīng)（reference）、替代（substitution）、省略（ellipsis）、連接（conjunction）及詞匯銜接（lexical cohesion）。其中前三類屬于語法手段，第四類屬于邏輯手段，最后一類屬于詞匯銜接手段。9照應(yīng)是一些起信號作用的詞項。它們不能像大多數(shù)詞項那樣本身可作出語義理解，而只能通過照應(yīng)別的詞項來說明信息（Halliday & Hasan, 1976:31）。照應(yīng)分為外照應(yīng)（exophora）和內(nèi)照應(yīng)（endophora）。內(nèi)照應(yīng)

8、又可分為下照應(yīng)（或稱后照應(yīng)）（anaphora）和上照應(yīng)（或稱前照應(yīng)）（cataphora）。10外照應(yīng)指獨立于上下文之外的詞項。內(nèi)照應(yīng)指意義依賴于上下文的詞項。下照應(yīng)（后照應(yīng)）指意義依賴于前述詞項的詞項、上照應(yīng)（前照應(yīng)）指意義依賴于后述詞項的詞項。 11 ReferenceThe snail is considered a great delicacy.As the child grows, he learns to be independent.It never should have happened. She went out and left the door open.12替代指用

9、一個詞項去代替另一個或幾個詞項，是詞項之間的一種代替關(guān)系。英語中常用的替代詞one(s), do, same。Halliday和Hasan將其分為名詞性替代、動詞性替代和從句性替代。由于前述句子或上下文使得意義明確而省去句子的一部分稱作為省略。它可以視為“零替代”（Halliday & Hasan, 1976:142），省去一些上下文可使之意義明確的成分。 13 SubstitutionCompare the new dictionary with the old one(s).We rent a house, but they own one.A: Black coffee, please.

10、B: The same for me.They do not buy drinks at the supermarket, but we do.I think so.14 EllipsisHe prefers Dutch cheese and I prefer Danish.-Do you understand?-I tried to.-You havent told him yet.-Not yet.15連接是句際間意義相互聯(lián)系的一種銜接手段，常用的有遞進、轉(zhuǎn)折、因果、時間。詞義銜接是實現(xiàn)銜接的又一手段。它是通過詞義的選擇來實現(xiàn)的。16 ConjunctionI told him years

11、 ago, but he wont listen. He was drowned because he fell off the pier.With the following conjunctions in sentences or passages:17 英語邏輯關(guān)系表示法1. 先后或列舉：first, second; in the second place; nest/then; for one thingfor another; furthermore/moreover/in addition/ besides;finally/last; and等。2. 因果：consequently

12、/ as a result/ hence/ accordingly/ thus/so/therefore; because/since/for等。3.特例或舉例：in particular; specifically; for instance/ for example; that is /namely等。184.轉(zhuǎn)折： But/however/yet/nevertheless; on the contrary; on the other hand; neithernor等。5.引出結(jié)論：in conclusion/finally/all in all/ to sum up；evidently

13、/ clearly/ actually; of course等。6. 表示頻率：frequently/often; occasionally/ now and then; day after day; again and again等。197. 表示階段：during; briefly; for a long time; for many years等。8. 表某一時刻：then/ at that time/ in those days; last Sunday; next Christmas; in 2005; at the beginning go Sep; at six oclock;

14、two months ago等。209. 表示開端：at first/ in the beginning; before then; in the preceding weeks等。10. 表示其間：in the meantime/ while this was going on/ meanwhile/ as it was happening/ at the same time/ simultaneously等。11. 表示結(jié)束：eventually/ finally/ at last/ in the end 等。21詞義銜接主要可劃分為重復(fù)、同義詞、反義詞、局部詞、上座標(biāo)詞、下義詞和搭配。2

15、2 Lexical cohesionThere 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, kidneys and livers, for the shortage of organs.23 Organ Retrieval Methods Spark Debate Doctor

16、s try to expand donor pool by preserving body parts patients whose hearts and lungs fail.24 Exercise Why Historians Disagree25Why Historians Disagree1 Most students are usually introduced to the study of history by way of a fat textbook and become quickly immersed in a vast sea of names, dates, even

17、ts 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. 26From this experience a number of conclusions seem obvious; the study of history is the study of “facts” about the past;

18、 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 discovering that historians disagree sharply even when they are dealing with the same event.2

19、72 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 case, however. historians usually argue reasonably and persuasively. And the facts- the

20、 names, dates, events, statistics- usually turns out to be correct. 28Moreover, they often find that contending historians more or less agree on the facts; that is, they use the same data. They come to different conclusions because they view the past from a different perspective. History, which seem

21、ed 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.293 This position is hardly satisfying. They cannot help but feel that two diametrically opposed points of view about an event

22、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 what history really is.305 In its broad sense, history denotes the whole of the human pa

23、st. 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 defined as that which historians write about the past. Of course the three meanings are

24、 related. 31Historians 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 the historians can only approximate history at best. No one can ever claim to hav

25、e concluded the past.326 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 those records they deem most significantly. Moreover, they also re-create parts

26、of the past. Like detectives, they piece together evidence to fill in the gaps in the available records. 337 Historians are able to select and create evidence by using some theory of human motivations and behavior. Sometimes this appears easy, requiring very little sophistication and subtlety. Thus,

27、 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 dissatisfied with a new hat he bought during the first months of 1917. 34The cho

28、ice 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 influenced by belligerent acts against their countries than by their unhappiness with

29、 their haberdashers.358 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 to German submarine warfare a whole series of other facts that could be relev

30、ant 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 that American bankers had made large loans to the British , loans that would no

31、t be paid in the event of a British defeat. 36They 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 between German and Mexico whereby Mexico, with German support, could win back

32、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 disadvantage-if the Germans were able to defeat the French and the British

33、and thereby emerge as the sole major power in Europe.379 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 their list are the main reasons, while those they do not list are not so

34、 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 generally pro-British views of Woodrow Wilson views that stemmed from the pre

35、sidents background and education the result will be a disagreement among the historians . 38Moreover, because the second group raise the question of Wilsons views , they will find a number of relevant facts that the first group would ignore. They will concern themselves with Wilson education, the in

36、fluence 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 point of view. The facts selected , and those ignored , will depend not

37、on the problem studied but on the points of view of the historians.3910 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 , say, bankers loans, was most important. The theory here would be that ec

38、onomic matters are the key to human motivation, and that a small number of wealthy bankers have a disproportionate ability to influence the government.4011 In the examples given, historians disagree because they begin from different premises. But there is still another realm of disagreement which st

39、ems 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 late for class this morning?” “I was late for class,” you explained “bec

40、ause I overslept.”41Or 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 that it is inaccurate ; at the same time , however, neither is suffic

41、ient 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? In other words, we have to go beyond the proximate cause and probe fu

42、rther and further. 42But 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 goes too far back to be meaningful. That you were born is of cour

43、se 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 but not a sufficient cause. 43The point at which causes are both ne

44、cessary 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 “l(fā)et the facts speak for themselves” has no real meaning. The facts do not speak for themselves; historians use the facts in a particular way and therefore they, and not the facts are doing the speaking.4412 Historians not only disagree with others. They often disagree with themselves. Indeed they are often revis