【作者】 陈海庆；

【导师】 张绍杰；

【作者基本信息】 东北师范大学 ， 英语语言文学， 2005， 博士

【摘要】 语篇连贯是语篇分析中的一个重要概念,也是语言学研究的热门课题。由于连贯概念本身的复杂性,目前语言学界对连贯阐释与理解尚无形成系统的标准和方法。自从二十世纪七、八十年代 Halliday 和 Hasan 提出语篇的衔接理论以来,不少语言学家和学者对他们的连贯是在衔接的基础上形成的观点提出了质疑和批评。其中,有的认为衔接既不是实现连贯的必要条件,也不是实现连贯的充分条件;语篇的连贯不依赖语篇的标记形式,而是依赖于一种假设,即听者或读者假设语篇是连贯的。有的认为衔接指的是语篇命题之间的发展关系,连贯则指的是言外行为之间的关系。还有的认为连贯不在于外在语篇的连贯,而是内在语篇的心理连贯,也就是说是一个交际双方心理互动或协调的过程。在我们看来,这些不同观点有其合理性的一面,但又带有一定的片面性。其实,连贯是一个多层次性的概念。它既可以体现于语义层面,以有形的衔接手段或命题之间的发展关系为连贯表现形式;又可以体现于语用层面,以隐形的言外之义或会话含义的联系为连贯的表现形式;还可以体现于交际双方的心理互动层面,以无形的心理互动形式为语篇的产生和接受的过程和手段为连贯的表现形式。可以说,连贯是指交际双方所实施的一定言语行为的话语在语篇中体现出来的有形、隐形和无形的意义关系。因此,这三个层面上的连贯形式完全可以纳入言语行为理论的框架内进行分析和研究。第一章提出了目前有关语篇连贯的不同理论和观点、本文研究的目的及其方法。第二章首先对 Austin 言语行为理论的起源、意义以及 Searle 等人对该理论的修正和发展作了重点阐述。它包括:(1)言语行为理论的基本观点,即语言研究的对象不应该是词和句子,而是通过词和句子所完成的行为;任何一个言语行为都是由三个次行为构成的,它们分别是言内行为、言外行为和言后行为。(2)言语行为理论的基本概念。如:合适条件、意向和间接言语行为。(3)言语行为理论在语篇分析中的应用。其次,本文阐释了有关语篇的重要概念,它包括语篇的定义、语篇的功能、语篇的性质以及语境在语言交际中的作用和意义。最后viii介绍并讨论了西方语言学家和有关学者对语篇连贯的概念、性质及其特点提出的不同理论和观点。通过对言语行为理论、语篇连贯的不同理论与观点的全面概述和讨论,本文在第三章提出了语篇连贯的言语行为理论模式。该模式首先把语篇视为一个完整的言语行为,然后从其三个次行为,即言内行为、言外行为和言后行为的层面上界定并分析了连贯的特点、机制、认知关系及其它们之间的逻辑关系。本文认为,在语篇的言内行为、言外行为和言后行为层面上其连贯特点是不一样的,分别表现为“有形”、“隐形”和“无形”。这些特点的形成主要是由语篇内部与外部的不同连贯机制所决定的。其次从认知角度来看,该理论模式中的语篇连贯具有整体性、互依性和有效性的理解过程。连贯的整体性指的是这三个层面上的连贯是一个不可分割的整体,因为它们都属于同一个言语行为中的不同方面;互依性指的是听者或读者对连贯的推导一般是从言内行为的有形连贯到言外行为的隐形连贯再到言后行为的无形连贯;有效性是指听者或读者可根据一定的情景语境、社会文化规约等因素可直接发现语篇某一层面上的连贯,而不需要按照其顺序逐步加以解释。在这三个层面上,它们之间的逻辑关系是互为条件的蕴涵关系,也就是说它们的关系是双向内含而非单向内含的。为了对言内行为、言外行为和言后行为层面上的连贯进行深入细致的解释和描述,本文从第四章到第六章分别讨论了这三个层面上的连贯机制和特征。在言内行为层面上,连贯主要是由语言语境内的非结构关系、结构关系和语音衔接等有形标记所形成的。所谓非结构关系指的是指代、省略、替代、连接、词汇衔接以及时间衔接手段的语义和语法关系;结构关系强调的是对话中的话题的衔接与展开,书面语篇中的主题推进。语音衔接手段主要指的是语调衔接和音位衔接。在言外行为层面上,连贯是通过非语言语境,即情景语境、社会文化语境、共同背景知识和语言接受者的知识结构在语用推理过程中形成的。这一过程主要是一个补全语篇的缺失信息和推导言外之义的过程。在言后语言行为层面上,语篇的连贯是在一定的语言语境和非语言语境中通过话语产生者和接受者双方的心理互动来实现的,即语言产生者(或语篇)的意向或劝说与语言接受者的理解、接受或反应来实现的。根据言语行为理论的解释,言后行为是话语在接受者身上所产生的某种效果或影响。如果说言内行为和言外行为所解释的是语篇与理解之间更多还原

【Abstract】 Coherence is a key concept of discourse analysis and a research subject ofgeneral interest as well. So far, there has been no systematic and generally acceptedcriterion by which discoursal coherence is explained due to the complexity of theconcept itself. Many linguists and scholars have made some inquiries and criticisms ofthe validity of the view that cohesion is a basic or a necessary condition for coherencein discourse since Halliday & Hasan put forward their theories on discourse cohesionin the 70s and 80s of the 20th century. Some of them hold that the cohesion is not thenecessary condition, nor is it a sufficient condition of discoursal coherence.Coherence in discourse does not rely on the formal signals or markers on the surfacestructure of discourse, rather, it is an assumption of the receiver. In other words, it isthe hearer (or reader) who presumes that a discourse is coherent. Some scholarsregard cohesion as a propositional development of discourse whereas coherence as anillocutionary development of discourse. And others argue that coherence does not liein the external text, but lies in the process of a mental interaction between thelanguage producer and the receiver. This means that coherence is a psychologicallyinteractive or negotiating process of the interlocutors. However, the present studypoints out that these different views on coherence in discourse are rational, but, tosome extent, they focus on one aspect of discoursal coherence. In fact, coherence is amulti-level notion. It is realized not only at the semantic level, that is, it is establishedthrough cohesive devices and propositional development, but also at the pragmaticlevel, which is often achieved through the illocutions or implicatures of discourse inlinguistic communication on certain occasions, and at the level of interlocutors’interaction at which coherence is considered as a process of mental interactionbetween the producer and the receiver. This study defines the notion of coherence asexplicit, implicit and interactive meaning relations realized through language users’utterances which perform certain speech acts in discourse. Therefore, coherence atthese three levels can be studied and analyzed within the framework of speech acts. Inorder to achieve a full understanding and offer a comprehensive interpretation ofdiscoursal coherence, the thesis is intended to formulate a speech act model ofdiscoursal coherence, which enables us to discuss and account for coherence withinthe framework of speech acts. In Chapter One the thesis presents the current different views on discoursalcoherence at issue, the objectives of the present study and its methodology. And inChapter Two, the part of literature review, it first makes an overview of speech acttheory proposed by J.L. Austin and its revision and development made by J.R. Searle.It includes: (1) the tenet of speech act theory, which assumes that words or sentencesare used to do thing rather than say thing; and a speech act as a whole can bedecomposed into three sub-cats, say, locutionary, illocutionary and perlocutionary; (2)the fundamental notions of speech act theory such as felicity conditions, intentionality,and indirect speech acts; (3) the application of speech act theory in discourse analysis.Then, it elaborates on some essential concepts and definitions of discourse analysis,namely, definitions of discourse, functions of discourse, properties of discourse, andtheir roles in linguistic communication. Finally, it introduces and discusses thedifferent theories or views on coherence in discourse concerning the notions and theproperties of coherence. Through an overview and elaboration on speech act theory as well as those viewsabout discoursal coherence, the thesis, in Chapter Three, proposes a speech act modelof coherence in discourse. This model in general treats a discourse as an integratedspeech act, and then presents, in brief, its features, mechanisms and cognitiverelations of coherence respectively at the levels of locutions, illocutions andperlocutions and the entailment更多还原