【作者】 苏一凡；

【导师】 杨炳钧；

【作者基本信息】 西南大学 ， 英语语言文学， 2007， 硕士

【摘要】 语篇分析自五十多年前出现以来，已经发展成为涉及多种学科的语言学分支。它的多学科性质决定了它将涉及社会语言学、心理语言学、哲学语言学等多种学科。在分析过程中，本文重点讨论系统功能语法和认知语法在语篇分析上的观点，两种路向的异同是本文的重中之重。一般认为，系统功能语法就是为分析语篇而服务的，它和语篇之间存在紧密的联系，它分析和诠释语篇的能力非常强。认知语法的倡导者Langacker提出认知语法与语篇有内在和自然的联系(Langacker，2001：185)。二者虽然来自不同的学派，但同属于功能主义，并且注重语言的社会功能和语义功能；只是系统功能语法更注重自然语言，而认知语法以认知为重。因此，近距离观察两种有相似点的语法，进行系统地对比研究将会很有价值，很有意义。此前的研究大多将重点放在诸如句子和篇章结构、篇章发展、语言功能和语义阐释等切入点上，而且几乎没有系统地对比过这两种语法。本文将详细分析和比较两种语法在语篇分析上的观点，并找出二者在理论思想和实际应用中的异同。对比分析之前，第一章将简要陈述本文的背景、目的、以及重要性。在下一章中，除了对此前文献的综述，还有对一些概念的澄清，比如话语和语篇、话语分析和语篇分析、语法和语言学、以及功能主义和认知主义等等。本文将用“discourse”一词来表示语篇，一是作为书面语篇和口头语篇的统称，二是为了区别开系统功能语法中的“语篇功能”，以便阐述。第三章做了详尽的对比分析，是本文的主体部分。对比分析从两种语法的理论基础和发展轨迹开始，接着讨论语言单位和分析方法，然后文章对二者的理论框架和基本原则做了分析比较。由于语篇是系统功能研究的一大重点，系统功能语法已经足够成熟，可以分析各类语篇；目前该语法在评价系统方面在做进一步的研究。相对于系统功能语法在语篇分析方面的清晰层次和详尽分析，认知语法缺少清晰的概念定义，仅停留在泛泛的模糊的定义上，所以仍需对语篇进行详尽、具体的研究。在认知语法中，句子层面及以下的研究相对发展得比较成熟，而语篇分析在近几年才引起注意。本文着重选取连贯和比喻两个方面将两种语法做了比较。以下的章节摘录了一些例子，分别从两种路向的观点出发做出分析，以期得到二者分析语篇的直观感受。之后本文还探讨了两种路向的优劣之处、实际应用、以及未来发展的趋势。第四章探讨两种语法的兼容性和互补性。系统功能语法有认知方面的考虑，认知语法也有功能方面的倾向，二者相互渗透、相互融合，为各自的进一步发展和完善提供帮助。最后一章是对全文的概述，两种语法都强调“人”的作用，人们在社会中扮演的角色使两种语法联系在一起，二者的不同在于，系统功能语法强调参与者作为社会人的角色扮演，而认知语法的研究重点是参与者的心智方面。可以说前者更注重机体间的行为，而后者则侧重机体内的活动。尽管有不同之处，两种语法还是趋向于相互取长补短，互为补充，不断完善，也会促进其它语言学分支的发展。另外，这样的对比分析也为功能主义学者和认知主义学者提供了更多值得深入研究的新视角。更多还原

【Abstract】 Since its emergence over 50 years ago, discourse analysis has developed into a new branch of linguistics and an interdisciplinary subject. Its multidisciplinary feature decides it to be an interdisciplinary activity involving sociolinguistics, psycholinguistics, philosophical linguistics and so on. This thesis focuses on systemic-functional and cognitive approaches towards this subject. During the analyzing process, similarities and differences between the two approaches will be explored. Systemic Functional Grammar (SFG henceforth) is supposed to be born to analyze discourse, with a close relationship with discourse and the nature of elucidating it. Cognitive Grammar (CG henceforth) is set forth by Langacker and proposed to have an intrinsic and natural relationship with discourse (Langacker, 2001: 185). Though coming from different schools, SFG and CG both belong to functionalism and put emphasis on social and semantic functions, except that SFG focuses on natural language while CG on cognition. Therefore there is valuable space for examining them by making a comparative study. This thesis will make a detailed analysis and comparison of SFG and CG in respect of discourse and try to draw out the major similarities and discrepancies between them either on theoretical ideas or on practical applications. Before the comparison, a brief introduction is presented in the first chapter, involving background, purpose, and significance of the thesis. In the succeeding chapter, besides an overview of the previous studies, clarifications of such concepts as discourse and text, discourse analysis and textlinguistics, grammar and linguistics, and functionalism and cognitivism are made. Here in this thesis discourse serves as a general term for the coverage of both written and spoken language resources and for clarification of textual function in SFG only for the sake of convenience.In Chapter Three, which is the main body, detailed comparisons are presented. First, two grammars are compared according to orientation from theoretical bases to developing tracks. Second, linguistic units and methods of analysis are discussed in detail. Then comes the main comparison between them from the aspects of theoretical frameworks and basic principles. Since discourse is a major concern of systemic functional study, SFG is mature enough for analyzing any type of discourses, and until now the evaluation system has been further explored. In contrast to the clear stratification and elaborateness of SFG towards discourse analysis, CG does not have so clear definitions and conceptualizations, which are rather extensive and therefore further detailed jobs need to be carried out on specific layers of discourse. Researches on and below the sentential level in CG are relatively highly developed while discourse analysis has been focused on only in recent years. In the following part, coherence and metaphors are especially picked out. The next part makes specific analyses on excerpt examples from views of both approaches, which may provide an intuitionistic eyesight towards them. After the sample analysis, the advantages and practical applications as well as the inadequacies and new trends of the two approaches are further explored.Chapter Four is concerned with compatibility and counterbalance of the two approaches. There are cognitive considerations in SFG and functional orientations in CG, which bring about infiltration and confluence between these two approaches.In the last chapter, an overview of this study with its findings and inadequacies that calls for further studies will be given. Generally speaking, both grammars emphasize the role played by human beings. Man in the society acts as a tie connecting both grammars, which differs in that SFG emphasizes participants’ role as a social man and CG focuses on the psychological aspects of the participants. We can say that the former puts more value on interorganism while the latter on intraorganism. Despite the discrepancies, there is a tendency for both grammars to be enriched and perfected from absorbing nutrition from each other, as well as help other trends of linguistics come into being. Moreover, such comparative study provides both functionalists and cognitivists with new views to be investigated into.更多还原