英语“wh-继续分句”的功能分析

A Functional Analysis of the “wh-continuing clause" in English

本文从系统功能语法的角度讨论英语中的“句子性关系从句”的归属问题。传统语法认为含有这类从句的句子是主从复合句；系统功能语法的创始人ＭＡＫＨａｌｉｄａｙ持有相似的观点。本文根据Ｈａｌｉｄａｙ关于主从关系和并列关系的论述和区分标准，对含有“句子性关系从句”的句子进行检验。结果表明，这类句子并不是主从关系句，而是并列关系句。作者还对这类分句的特点作了初步的分析，同时还用“加的夫语法”

This paper studies the 'sentential relative clause' in traditional grammar from a Systemic Functional perspective In the literature to date, it is generally accepted that the wh-clause in sentences such as (1) below is a (sentential) relative clause (or an adverbial clause), which has a qualifying function in terms of its syntactic relationship with its matrix (or main / dominant) clause (1) John ran away, which surprised everyone Although his approach is Systemic-Functional, Halliday (e g 1985, 1994), in his discussion of the types of relationships between clauses in the clause complex, regards (1) above as an example of Hypotaxis, which is the relation between a dependent clause and its dominant clause This view is not different from that of traditional grammarians because the 'subordination' belief is clearly maintained This paper attempts to challenge the analyses of sentences such as (1) provided by Halliday It first reviews Halliday's (1985, 1994) ideas about the types of interdependency (i e Hypotaxis and Parataxis) and the two major logico-semantic relations (i e Expansion and Projection) in the clause complex in English By applying the criteria suggested by Halliday, the paper indicates that the which-clause in sentences such as (1) is not a dependent clause for two major reasons First, unlike the two hypotaxisized clauses in (2) below, the order of the two clauses in (1) above is not reversible; compare: (1a) *Which surprised everyone, John ran away (2) John ran away, whereas Fred stayed behind (2a) Whereas Fred stayed behind, John ran away Second, while the dependent clause in (2) cannot stand alone as a free clause, there is no problem for the which-clause in (1) to do so It is mainly because of these two important differences that the author argues that the two clauses in (1) are not in a hypotactic relationship, which is contrary to what is suggested by Halliday (1985, 1994) The author also points out that the logico-semantic relation between the two clauses in (1) is not one of 'elaboration', but 'extension' because they show the 'and' relationship rather than the 'i e ' relationship Based on these arguments, the author suggests that the two clauses in examples such as (1) ar+e in a paratactic (i e 'coordination' in traditional grammar) relationship and that the which-clause is a 'continuing clause' in terms of discourse functions In order to distinguish between the 'wh-clause' in (1) above and the 'and-clause' in sentences such as (3) below, the author coins the term 'wh-continuing clause' to represent the which clause in (1) (2) John ran away, and Fred stayed behind This paper also analyzes examples which contain 'wh-continuing clauses' within the Systemic Functional tradition by using the Cardiff Grammar