【作者】 杜世洪；

【导师】 陈嘉映；

【作者基本信息】 华东师范大学 ， 语言学及应用语言学， 2008， 博士

【摘要】 语言学界的连贯研究迄今为止已经有三十余年的历史。三十余年来,连贯作为热点问题在国内外虽然一直吸引着研究者的注意力,然而,有关连贯的两个基本问题却一直没有得到彻底的解决。连贯是什么?连贯何以可能?对这两个基本问题的不同回答,标志着连贯研究的不同认识。本研究的中心任务就是从既有的连贯研究出发,考察既有连贯研究所出现的问题的成因,重新确定连贯的概念性质,从话语互动的角度去考察连贯的形成机制,从而试图建立连贯研究的新方法——话语连贯的脉络辨析法,简称“脉辨法”。既有的连贯研究多倾向于把连贯确定为语篇特征,把连贯限定在篇章语言学的范畴。这样一来,对连贯的概念性质的认识就相应地出现了以语篇形式为中心的考察方法。韩礼德和哈桑的衔接研究堪称连贯研究的语言形式法的典型方法,这种方法的立足点是把连贯当成一个形式化的科学概念,试图通过对语言形式手段的考察来揭示连贯的本质。然而,正如恩克维斯特所发现的那样,语言形式手段齐备却并不能保证连贯的开显。恩克维斯特所关注的这一问题,本研究把它称之为“恩克维斯特问题”。本研究从思考“恩克维斯特问题”出发,结合考虑国内学者张德禄对连贯研究尚无系统理论出现而感到的困惑,着眼于对日常话语互动所显现的连贯现象的反思,打算把连贯研究置于话语互动中来考察“连贯何以可能”这一问题。既有的连贯研究存在的局限有:第一,对连贯的概念性质认识不够充分,甚至误把“衔接”同“连贯”当成地位等同的姊妹概念;第二,局限于语篇研究,把连贯当成语篇的固有特征(或称内在特征),企图通过对连贯的构建方式的考察而有意无意地努力寻找或建立语篇连贯的普遍模式;第三,认识到了连贯的语义性质,但由于对语义的流变特性缺乏确定的衡量标准,从而无法以某种具体的方法来统领连贯研究。基于以上认识,本研究认为,在概念性质上,连贯更多的是一个哲学概念,而不是一个形式化程度极高的科学概念:连贯反映的是话语双方的思维,关涉的是人的“在世问题”。在存在方式上,连贯具有开显和隐蔽的特性;连贯是话语互动的连贯,而不是固定语篇固有的连贯;连贯是话语双方在话语理解过程中共同创造的。在形成机制上,连贯表现为发话者和受话者双方话语的两两相接,而两两相接的基本单位就是双方连贯因子的两两相接;话语双方各自都有连贯因子,而连贯因子的集合就是个人的连贯因子库;个人连贯因子库的大小标志着个人话语累积的基本情况;话语双方在互动中需要进行立言、说事、表情和讲理等方面的交流,于是连贯的脉络可以分为语脉、意脉、情脉和理脉。在衡量方法上,对话语双方连贯的考察的核心就是双方在互动中的理解活动;话语理解就是双方在凸显的话语脉络层面上追求最大的共晓性;话语双方共晓性的达成反映了连贯与理性,连贯与知识,连贯与他心,连贯与纯粹经验,连贯与意向立场,连贯与交往理性等方面的关系。从连贯的脉络结构看,话语双方的不同脉络因子的贯通可以通过话语理解的合作原则来描述;话语双方对理解的合作原则的遵守与违背都是话语互动的正常现象,即无论是纯脉连贯的构建还是杂脉连贯的形成,都可在理解的合作原则下进行描述。本研究成文后分为七章。第一章导言,主要介绍本研究的选题缘由,研究的目标,研究的方法及观点预设。本章明确提出本研究的中心问题瞄准的是“连贯何以可能”。本章指出,连贯是话语互动的连贯,话语(包括口头和书面话语)之所以为话语就在于人的话语互动;话语并不是作为语言学的具体对象而存在,话语是生活形式、话语理解、以及话语共晓性的统一。话语互动赖以进行的基础就在于不同脉络层面的连贯构建。连贯研究就是对话语互动中不同脉络的贯通情况进行描述与分析,就是进行“脉”辨。连贯具有两两相接的机制,对连贯的考察就要采取断面分析。第二章连贯的语言学解释,是文本研究的文献综述。本章旨在理清既有连贯研究的现状,分析连贯研究现有问题的成因。本章梳理了语言学界连贯研究的既有成果,归纳了连贯研究的三类方法:语言形式法、语用推理法和认知心理法。本章指出,这三类方法基于一个共同认识就是连贯是给定的,连贯要么随语篇的存在而存在,要么存在于语境中,要么存在于大脑里;连贯研究的任务似乎就是挖掘语篇固有连贯的形成机制。在语言学的解释维度下,连贯是一个形式化的固有概念。本章明确指出连贯更多的是一个哲学概念,应该从哲学概念考察的维度去认识连贯。第三章连贯的哲学解释,是本研究的理论依据。本章从对连贯这一概念进行重新考察入手,从常识的角度、文章学的角度、心理学的角度和哲学的角度分析了连贯最基本的含义。本章强调,把连贯还原成最原初的关系的话,那么连贯的基本含义就是“两两相连”、“两两相接”或“两两相关”。连贯是人与人的连贯,而且这些领域本身关涉着人,关涉着人的在世。于是,本章指出,话语连贯是话语双方两个人的关系,而两个人的关系则可以进一步细分,即进行充分分析。在充分分析的视角下,话语互动的连贯直接关涉的是理性、交往理性、知识、纯粹经验、他心感知、意向立场等等。本章尝试性地考察了连贯与这些概念的关系。第四章话语连贯的规范性,是对本研究中心问题的仔细剖析。本章指出,连贯不是规则性问题,而是规范性问题。本章以规范作为尺度重点讨论了连贯的多样性及本质成因。连贯体现在话语片段上,而话语片段直接与语词、概念等直接相关。对语词与意义的不同理解正好反映的是话语连贯的多样性。话语累积的不同意味着话语双方连贯构建的不同。话语概念可分为原生概念和次生概念。次生概念的产生往往是以语词作为资源对原生概念的加工利用。在原生概念上我们可以谈论直接指称及指称物的存在,而在次生概念层面上,次生概念语词所指称的对象往往不在物理世界存在。连贯的基础是两两相接,而两两相接可能表现在话语片段或语词的对应上。所以,对话语片段、语词及其相应概念的考察实际上是对连贯的基本点进行考察。本章还讨论了不同的词义观,简略地评述了柏拉图、亚里士多德、洛克、贝克莱、莱布尼兹、穆勒、弗雷格、罗素和斯特劳森等人的观点。对这些观点的回顾与评述,目的是为本研究的话语累积论所涉及的原生概念和次生概念寻找相应的理论渊源。本章提出了话语累积论和连贯因子说。第五章话语连贯与理解。主要提出连贯研究的新观点和方法。本章把话语脉络贯通所形成的连贯细分为语脉连贯、情脉连贯、意脉连贯和理脉连贯,详细界定了语脉、情脉、意脉和理脉着四个核心概念,并分别进行了例证说明。以理解为核心,本章在格莱斯会话合作原则的启示下,探讨了话语双方的理解本性。本章对陈嘉映提出的“理解的合作原则”做了扩展,提出了理解的合作原则的总原则及相应的四个守则。第六章理解的合作原则与连贯的脉络结构,主要对本研究建立的连贯研究方法进行分析论证。本章指出,理解的合作原则及其四个守则为衡量话语互动的连贯机制提供了描述性原则。从理解的合作原则的总原则看,话语双方至少要在一个凸显的脉络层面上追求话语的最大共晓性。话语理解并不以语言形式关系的理解为终极目标,而是话语双方在语脉、意脉、情脉、理脉上达成生活形式的理解。本章还按照首要脉络凸显的种类不同,分析了四种脉贯实例:即语脉凸显的杂脉连贯、情脉凸显的杂脉连贯、意脉凸显的杂脉连贯和理脉凸显的杂脉连贯。第七章结论,总结了本研究的全新思想,归纳了本研究的创新观点,并指出了本研究的实际应用价值。更多还原

【Abstract】 Coherence analysis has undergone in linguistics an academic history of more than 30 years, during which coherence remains not fully understood and a matter of continuing debate, arresting the globe-wide attention of analysts,who remain committed to striving for a generally accepted answer to two questions essential to the study of coherence:What is coherence? How is coherence possible? Centering upon the two questions,our commitment to coherence analysis is geared to the central objective of diagnosing the cause of problems which are haunting coherence analysts,defining anew the concept of coherence which is plausibly categorized and unfortunately limited into textual linguistics,discovering the mechanism of coherence-achieving that is realized in verbal interaction,and developing a new approach to coherence analysis that is supposed to identify the expression lines in verbal interaction.Thus, the new approach proposed in this research is termed Line Identification for Coherence Analysis-LICA,in initials.Before the new approach is proposed in this research,most approaches primarily treats coherence as a text-inherent property.Ever since the publication of Halliday and Hasan’s book Cohesion in English in 1976,coherence analysis has witnessed a trend in the field of text study which tends to reduce coherence to a product of formally-represented cohesion and/or semantically-established connectivity.Coherence is regarded as a formalized scientific concept, the essence of which presumably can be revealed through investigating the formal cohesive means of expression.However,as Enkvist puts it,there is a problem awaiting solution that a text with ample cohesive means may well be quite incoherent.This problem is called "Enkvist’s problem".The present research is intended for providing insights into Enkvist’s problem and is fixated on responding to Zhang Deln’s quest for a systematically-adequate theory of coherence. Based upon our observations and reflections on the coherence achieved in ordinary verbal interaction,this research is conducted in concern with the question-How is coherence possible? This research has found that three views can be found defective in the past study of coherence.Firstly,the concept of coherence in its complexity is not fully understood.In practice, more or less,coherence is interpreted in an identical way that cohesion is measured.Secondly, there’s a tendency to confine coherence within a text.When coherence is presumed as an intrinsic defining property of a text,efforts have been made in vain to search for a universal coherence model or mechanism.Thirdly,when coherence finds its right way into semantic consideration,analysts have still to agree on a certain measure of meanings in flux. Consequently,the quest for a universal theory of coherence is still fruitlessly ideal.On the basis of the above findings,this research claims as follows:For the part of concept,coherence is a philosophical concept more than a formalized scientific concept.Coherence mirrors the thinking activity of discourse participants.The matter of coherence tells little less than the matter of sanity,and the matter of being-in-the-world.For the matter of being-in-the-world,coherence is concerned with creation and concealment. Coherence is not a state but a process of verbal interaction.It is a cooperative achievement made by both of the discourse producer and receiver in actual verbal interaction.In light of the mechanism for coherence creation,it takes the producer and the receiver to cohere.The fundamental points of cohering between the two are assumed to be coherence points.For coherence to be coherence,it takes two to cohere.Both the producer and the receiver of a discourse have their own pool of coherence points respectively.The capacity of a person’s pool of coherence points is the indicator of his/her accumulation of verbal expressions.During an actual interaction,the verbal contribution made by the producer and the receiver may well fall into four lines of communication:choosing diction,conveying meanings,expressing emotions and giving reasons.Correspondingly,there are four types of coherence lines:dictional line, intentional line,emotional line,and rational line.Understanding coherence requires for an understanding of the participants’ understanding in a verbal interaction.When the producer and the receiver endeavor to have a mutual understanding in an actual verbal interaction,they aim at the maximal common intelligibility on the salient line of verbal exchange.In the process of achieving the maximal common intelligibility,the relation of coherence to the producer’s and/or the receiver’s reason,knowledge, sense of other mind,pure experience,intentional stance,and communicative rationality plays a decisive role.In terms of the structure of coherence lines,the cooperative principle of understanding (CPU)is established to account for different coherence achievement on different coherence lines. As a descriptive principle,CPU can be exploited for measuring the coherence achievement in both cases of conforming to and breaching any maxim of CPU.This research has crystalized into a dissertation which consists of seven chapters.Chapter One,Introduction,offers a general account of what motivates and triggers our research and what objective we are going to reach.It is clearly stated that this dissertation makes an attempt to tackle the question-How is coherence possible? It is also claimed that coherence is the backbone of successful verbal interaction.The study of coherence should be geared to the purpose of identifying different coherence lines.Coherence can be reduced into the connection of one point to another point.Thus,a cross-section analysis is suggested in this chapter.Chapter Two,Coherence in Linguistics,serves as a general literature review of oppinions, approaches,and theories that we have found in coherence studies.One of the main tasks in this chapter is to diagnose the cause of problems encountered by analysts.Another task is to summarize the three perspectives in coherence analysis.It has been found that the linguistic-formal perspective,the pragmatic perspective and the cognitive perspective enjoy a same premise that coherence is given either in a text,or in a context,or in the mind of one person or another.This premise is based on one stereotyped idea that coherence is an intrinsic defining property of a text or text users.After a survey of coherence in linguistics,it is held that coherence is a philosophical concept and should be approached from the perspective of conceptual investigation in terms of the philosophy of language.Chapter Three,Coherence in Philosophy,is designed to discuss the general theoretical underpinnings of this research.This chapter firstly deals with the concept of coherence in ordinary use,coherence in literary works,coherence in philosophy and coherence in psychology. The purpose of the study here is to define anew the concept of coherence.It is pointed out that coherence can be basically interpreted as a two-to-cohere relation.It is believed that it is not text itself but rather people to cohere.When the producer and the receiver are engaged in coherence creation,the relation of coherence to a person’s reason,knowledge,pure experience,sense of other mind,intentional stance,and communicative rationality is involved. Chapter Four,The Normativity of Coherence,is concerned with a detailed analysis of the central problem of this research.This chapter provides an idea that coherence is a normative concept rather than a regulative concept.In other words,coherence is a concept of norms rather than a concept of rules.In line with norms,coherence enjoys diversity in creation.In specifying the norms of coherence,discourse segments may well function as coherence points.Therefore,a pertinent discussion is made of the relation between each two of the three terms,namely, coherence point,discourse segment,and concept.It is stated that the diversity of coherence can be ascribed to the participant’s different accumulation of coherence points,or his/her different mastery of discourse segments,or his/her different acquisition of concepts.The participant’s system of concepts is composed of primary concepts and secondary concepts.The producer’s primary concept may be interpreted as a secondary concept by the receiver,and vice versa.This chapter also offers a general sketch of various views on words and meaning.Such philosophers as Plato,Aristotle,Locke,Berkeley,Leibniz,Mill,Frege,Russell,and Strawson have been incorporated into the discussion of meaning and words.Chapter Five,Coherence and Understanding,presents a new approach to coherence analysis.On the basis of an investigation into the aspects of understanding,this chapter proposes that coherence lines be classified into four types:dictional line,emotional line,semantic line, and rational line.The diversity of coherence is realized through dietional coherence,emotional coherence,semantic coherence,and rational coherence.In verbal interaction,the creation of coherence is grounded in the producer’s and the receiver’s mutual understanding.Their understanding may be reached on a salient line by which they have arrived at the maximal common intelligibility.For the sake of describing different coherence,this chapter expounds J. Chen’s CPU in accordance with Wittgenstein’s view of natural understanding.Chapter Six,The Cooperative Principle of Understanding and the Structure of Coherence Lines,demonstrates the four maxims of CPU and their application to the analysis of verbal interaction.While checking the accountability of CPU,Grice’s problem and G.Qian’s views and examples have been reviewed in their full potentials.It is claimed that the structure of coherence lines may be realized either through a salient pure line or a salient mixed line,under which there are for the most part more than two lines in operation in a particular verbal interaction.Chapter Seven,Conclusion,is a summary of the new ideas on coherence analysis.It is emphasized in this chapter that LICA may help to dissolve the questions that remain unanswered in the past studies of coherence.LICA may also have some significance to foreign language teaching and translation.更多还原