论认知语言学与系统功能语言学对语篇连贯解释的互补性被引量：10

Complementarity Between Cognitive Linguistics and Systemic Functional Linguistics on the Explanation of the Mechanism of Discursive Coherence

原文传递

导出

摘要通过比较认知语言学(CL)和系统功能语言学(SFL)的哲学基础、基本假定、研究视角和研究方法,指出CL与SFL属于不同的语言研究范式,它们之间不存在包含关系。由于它们具有共同研究的问题——语篇何以连贯,本文比较它们对该问题的研究进路,论证指出CL与SFL对于语篇连贯的解释在认识论和方法论上具有互补性。 By comparing the philosophical basis, basic assumptions and research methods, this paper argues that cognitive linguistics and systemic functional linguistics cannot be in inclusion relation because they belong to distinct paradigms of linguistic studies. Rather, with the common research question -- what makes discourses coherent, they are complementary in terms of epistemology and methodology.

作者周频

机构地区复旦大学武汉大学

出处《外语学刊》 CSSCI 北大核心 2009年第3期56-61,共6页 Foreign Language Research

关键词认知语言学系统功能语言学语篇连贯互补 cognitive linguistics systemic functional linguistics discursive coherence complementation

分类号 H0-05 [语言文字—语言学]

引文网络
相关文献

参考文献13

1甘阳.西方逻辑解释中国:生硬的纠缠[Z].二十一世纪经济报道,2005.http://www.nanfangdaily.com.cn/jo/20050620/pl/200506270120.asp
2王寅.语篇连贯的认知世界分析方法——体验哲学和认知语言学对语篇连贯性的解释[J].外语学刊,2005(4):16-23. 被引量：110
3叶浩生.第二次认知革命与社会建构论的产生[J].心理科学进展,2003,11(1):101-107. 被引量：59
4易中天.帝国的终结[M].上海:复旦大学出版社,2007.
5Halliday, M. A. K. Explorations in the Functions of Language [M]. New York: Elsevier, 1973.
6Halliday, M.A.K. New Ways of Meaning -- the Challenge to Applied Linguistics [ A ]. In Fill, A. & Muhlhausler, P. (eds.). The Ecolinguistics Reader: Language, Ecology and Environment[ C ]. London and New York: Continuum, 2001.
7Halliday, M. A. K. The Language of Science [ M ]. New York: Continuum, 2004.
8Halliday,M. A. K. & Hasan,R. Cohesion in English [M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2001.
9Kuhn, T. S. The Structure of Scientific Revolution [ M ]. Beijing: China Social Sciences Publishing House Chengcheng Books Ltd., 1999.
10Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. Metaphor We Live By [ M ]. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1980.

二级参考文献33

1陈平.汉语零形回指的话语分析[J].中国语文,1987,(5):363-378.
2马克思.1844年经济学哲学手稿[A]..马克思恩格斯全集:第42卷[M].北京:人民出版社,1979..
3朱永生.语言·语篇·语境[M].北京:清华大学出版社,1993..
4Brown, G. & Yule, G. 1983. Discourse Analysis[M]. CUP.
5Cook, Guy. 1994. Discourse and Literature[M]. OUP.
6Deane, P. 1992. Grammar in Mind and Brain: Explorations in Cognitive Syntax[M]. Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter.
7Emmott, C. 1999. Embodied in a Constructed World: Narrative Processing, Knowledge Representation, and Indirect Anaphora[ A]. In Hoek K. V., A. A. Kibrik & L. Noordman (eds.). Discourse Studies in Cognitive Linguistics[ C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
8Enkvist, N. E. 1978. Coherence, Pseudo- coherence, and Non- coherence[A]. In ? stman J.- O.(ed.) Cohesion and Semantics. ? bo, Finland:? bo Akademi Foundation.
9Halliday, M. A. K. & Hasan. R. 1976. Cohesion in English[M]. London: Longman.
10Hallidan, M. A. K. & Hasan. R. 1985. Language, Context and Text: Aspects of Language as a Social- semiotic Perspective[M].OUP.