1、Session One 1. Branches of linguistics and schools of linguisticsl Branches of linguistics are divided by reference to object of study, i.e. the subject matter of language as a phenomenon, seen as composed of many aspects or facets.l Schools of linguistics are divided by perspectives and methodology

2、.2. Formalism and functionalism of Post-Saussurean Western linguisticsl Logico-philosophical vs. rhetorical-ethnographic orientations of linguistic studies in Western countries-language as rule or language as resourcel Differences in perspectives between formalism and functionalismStarting-pointView

3、 of object of studyLinguistic production asUnit of analysisLinguisticsclose toFormalismGoing-inThrough formLanguage as an abstract systemAutomation (rules like machine)sentenceLogic, psychology, philosophyFunction-alismGoing-in Through meaningLanguage in useChoice (system network, meaning potential)

4、Clause, textAnthropology, sociology3. Functionalism as a stream of linguisticsl Functionalism in Europe The Prague School: Major achievement phonemic analysisRepresentatives V. Mathesius （馬西/泰修斯）N.S. Trubetzky（特魯別茨科依）Russian A. Martinet （馬丁內(nèi)）FrenchThe Copenhagen School: Major achievement text/ disco

5、urse analysisRepresentative L. Hjelmslev (1899 -1965) 葉爾姆斯列夫The London School: Major achievement theory of contextSystemic-functional grammarMajor representatives J. R. Firth (1890-1960) 弗斯 (British)M.A.K. Halliday（1925-）l Functionalism in the U. S. A.Major achievementlinguistic relativity; Conitive

6、 grammar; Cognitive semantcs; Conceptual metaphorRepresentatives F.Boas (1858-1942)E.Sapir (1884-1939)B.L.Whorf (1897-1941)FillmoreLangackerLakoffTalmyl Functionalism in China11 annual conferences held(7th held in NENU); China Association of Functional Linguistics 4. The meaning of the term function

7、l Organic/ constitutive functionl Role functionl Speech functions (as purpose or intention)l Metafunctions (as broad categories of meanings)The theory of metafunctions is the cornerstone of systemic-functional linguistics5. Tenets of functional approach to language(as generalised by Butler, C.S. 200

8、3. Sturcture and Function: A Guide to Three Major Structural-functional Theories. Amsterdam/Philodelphia: John Benjamins)(1) An emphasis on language as as means of human communication in social and psychological contexts;(2) Rejection of the claim that the language system(the grammar) is arbitrary a

9、nd self-contained, in favour of functional explanation in terms of cognition, socio-cultural, physiological and diachraonic factors;(3) Rejection of the claim that syntax is a self-contained system, in favour of an approach where semantic and pragmatic patterning is regarded as central;(4) Recogniti

10、on of the importance of non-discreteness in linguistic description and, more generally, of the importance of the cognitive dimensions;(5) A consern for the analysis of texts and their contexts of use;(6) A strong interest in typological matters;(7) The adoption of a constructionist rather than an ad

11、aptionist view of language acquisition.Session Two 1. What is system?l Definition “A group of related parts that work together as a whole for a particular purpose” ( Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English)“同類事物按一定的關(guān)系組成的整體”(現(xiàn)代漢語詞典) -Traffic lights as system of symbols： Stopping - red Slowing down

12、 - amber Going - green ( Now at main crossroads there are also arrows for right and left turns, so the system is changed )-Chess as a system-The difference between chess and languagel Features-Elements-Wholeness1) The idea of system as a concept in linguistics is first expounded in Course in General

13、 Linguistics, where system refers to langue, understood as the syntagmatic relation(linear).“What is language?“Language, is a self-contained whole and a principle of classification”（Saussure1959:9）But the meaning of system is different in Hallidays theory of grammar.2) The conception of system appea

14、red in Hallidays early publications:Halliday, M.A.K(1956 )Grammatical Categories in Modern Chinese. Transitions of the Philological Society, 1956. pp. 177-224. Reprinted in Kress(ed.)( 1976).Halliday, M.A.K, 1961 Categories of the Theory of Grammar. In Word, vol. 17, 3: 241-292.Halliday, M.A.K, 1963

15、. Class in relation to the axes of chain and choice in language.Linguistics.No.2 In these articles, Halliday put forward four fundamental categories of grammar: unit（單位）, class(類別), structure （結(jié)構(gòu)）and system（系統(tǒng)）. In addition, there are three scales（階）: rank（級）, exponence（標示）, delicacy(精密度). “韓禮德對語法的兩

16、大部分范疇和階做了比過去全面成熟的歸納和闡述，對語言學界產(chǎn)生深遠的影響，被公認為階與范疇（scale and category grammar）語法的發(fā)端。兩年后，韓禮德又發(fā)表了類與語言中的連接軸和選擇軸的關(guān)系一文，進一步闡述階和范疇的關(guān)系。 （胡壯麟，朱永生，張德祿，李戰(zhàn)子，系統(tǒng)功能語言學概論，2005。）(階與范疇有什么區(qū)別？)UnitsTextClause Scale of rankGroup/phraseWordMorpheme Scale of delicacy Least delicate most delicate Primary structure secondary stru

17、ctureScale of exponencePrimary class secondary classExample：All the three top students are accepted.Allthe threetopstudentsAre accepted.SpNGVGDMHDpreDmidDpost3) “System is a set of options”. Grammar is a system network. System is primary, structure is secondary. Structure is the realization of choic

18、e relations. 4) Why is system primary? -Language as a resource is a system of systems; categories are hierarchical.-Choices out of certain purposes/intensions2. What are the fundamental differences in formalism and functionalism in grammatical description?Formalism vs Functionalism l Perspectives: i

19、ntraorganism vs interorganisml Focus:chain relations vs choice relationsl Goal:Both are explanatory & descriptive; to describe and explain: How does one speak? Vs How do people talk?3. The fundamental difference between function and metafunction Level of abstraction in description and explanation.4.

20、 Semiological interpretation of the three metafunctions1) Different theories of metafunction proposed byB. Malinowski(馬林諾夫斯基), K. Buhler（比勒） and M.A.K. Halliday.B. Malinowski（1923）（Anthropological）K. Buhler（1923）(psychological)M.A.K. Halliday（1972，1985，1994）（Linguistic）Pragmatic 實用功能Representational

21、 表達功能Ideational 概念功能Phatic function寒暄功能Expressive 表情功能Interpersonal 人際功能Conative 意欲功能Magical function 巫術(shù)功能Referential 所指功能Textual 語篇功能2) Ideational and interpersonal functions are more essential functions( see Halliday 1994: xiii)All language are organized around the main kinds of meaning, the ideat

22、ional or reflective, and the interpersonal or active. These components are the manifestations in the linguistic system of the two very general purposes which underlie all uses of language: (i) to understand the environment and (ii) to act on the others in it. Combined with this is the third metafunc

23、tion. Session Three: Discussion of Chapter Four1. The fundamental argument for a functional analysis l Communication as interaction or exchange of meanings.l Communication is not just unidirectional, not just passing information.Please consider the connotation of talk and speak.2. The general framew

24、ork for exchange of meanings/functions Giving Information (statement) Goods & services (offer) Demanding Information (question) Goods & services (command)3. The definition of Mood(語氣成分)l The subject and finite make up a component of the clause that is called Mood.a structural definitionl The compone

25、nt of a clause that realizes the interactive function.Eg.- The president has turned down the proposal, hasnt he? -(a)Yes, he has. (b)No, he hasnt.(c) Oh, has he?(d）No，he hasnt. But he will. (e) He hasnt, and he wont.4. The structure of Mood in different types of English Clauses: (1) SummaryTypes of

26、clauseMood StructureDeclarativeI am leaving.S FInterrogativesYes-noAre you leaving?F SWh-Wh- as SWho is leaving?S FWh- not as SWhy are you leaving?F SImperativesunmarkedLeave here!Dont leave here!(F)markedYou leave here!Dont you leave here!(F) S(2) More about the finite in imperatives (pp.48-49)l Wh

27、y generally there is no finite in imperatives?Not open to negotiation. The finite is used for negation or emphasis once it appears.l If negotiative in meaning, a question tag is added. In this case, the finite is not normal finite in its range of functions.e.g. Dont tell anyone, will you? ( not do y

28、ou?)l Lets and let us may take different tags.e.g.: Let us call you Lao Wang, will you? Lets start now, shall we?5. The meanings of Subject and Finite“Subject is something by reference to which the proposition can be affirmed or denied.” (Halliday and Mathiessen, 2004: 117)“The subject is often desc

29、ribed as the constituent defining the topic of the sentence- that which the sentence is about and which it presupposes as its point of departure.” (Quirk et al. 1985:79)“The division, (Subject, Predicate), however, has more to do with the statement as a logical category than with the structural fact

30、s of grammar.”Subject expresses the entity that the speaker wants to make responsible for the validity of the proposition.Proposition is“ the basic unit of logical analysis, characteristically stated by a declarative sentence and the bearer of truth-value true or false. Many theorists identify propo

31、sitions with statements. Both are distinguished from sentences, but some philosophers wish to eliminate propositions as abstract entities in favour of sentences. If both kinds of entity are accepted, all proposition are sentences or expressed by sentences. Only declarative sentences generally expres

32、s propositions, although sentences of interrogative, imperative and other forms have propositional content.”Finite makes it possible to negotiate about the validity of the proposition. The finite signals three kinds of claims about the validity of the proposition: (1) For what time in relation to th

33、at of speaking the proposition is valid. (tense)e.g. Is he the present? He was.(2) Whether the proposition is about positive or negative validity. ( polarity) e.g. You have been here, I think. No, I havent.(3) To what extent the proposition is valid. (Modality) e.g. He may come today. He has.6. Subj

34、ect of Chinese （一）主語定義“主語指出主體事物，指明誰或什么”?！霸谝话闱闆r下，一個小句需要有個主語，不然所述說的這種那種情況下不知道是針對誰或針對什么“(邢福義1997) (二)主語的語義類型（1）施事主語-所指事物施行謂語所表述的行為 “媽媽在切肉?！保?）受事主語-所指事物承受謂語所表述的行為 “盤子買來了。” “土豆燒好了” (3) 用事主語-所指事物具有提供使用的內(nèi)涵 “這把刀子切牛肉。” “這個盤子裝牛肉?！?（？）“刀子切鈍了?！保?）于事主語-所指事物表示行為發(fā)生的位置（？） “盤子邊爬著一只蟑螂。” “刀子上刻著幾個字。” “土豆里長了很多蟲子?！埃?）斷事主

35、語-所指事物是謂語所斷定的對象 “這個碗是我的。” “這塊地不屬于你們工廠。” “這位先生不象本地人。”（6）描事主語-所指事物是謂語所描寫的對象 “這個孩子很機靈。” “這塊土地平坦而又肥沃。”（這個類型劃分是基于“什么/誰”與“怎么”之間的意義關(guān)系）（三）若干問題（1）潛化主語有的主語潛入了前面的分句或前面的狀語。這是潛化主語。潛化主語是一種意會主語，即可以依賴上下文意會，不能再主語位置上直接補出?！叭绻悴贿@樣做，必將引起不良后果?！薄敖?jīng)過這次會議，統(tǒng)一了大家的認識?！?2) 話題和主語 話題也叫主題，是講語用問題時用的概念。這個概念跟語法系統(tǒng)中的主語有些糾纏。話題指的就是新情況所要述說

36、的對象。其主要特點：第一，占據(jù)一句話的開頭地位；一般重讀?！白蛱焱砩希M過這間屋子?！薄斑@個經(jīng)歷了無數(shù)磨難的老頭兒，他的承受力實在驚人。”“為了子孫后代的幸福，我們必須保護環(huán)境?！?Sesssion Four 1. Chinese interrogatives (1) Types of question in Chinese (a) Question- word questions - This type of question can be functionally characterized as a request for specific information. It is sim

37、ilar to wh- questions in English. - The question words are：shui誰“who”，shenme什么“what”，na哪“where”，zenme“怎么”how，duoshao多少“how much/howmany”，weishenme為什么“why”，etc. In addition, there are some question words which are formed by compounding question words with some nouns or adjectives, for example, shenme

38、n yang “ like what”, duojiu/duochang shijian “how long(time)”, heshi/shen me shihou “when/what time”. - Similarity and difference between Chinese question-word questions and English interrogative questions: functionally similar, structurally different. (b) Particle questions （corresponding to Englis

39、h yes-no question） This type of question is marked by particles at the end, such as, ma, ba. 1 Ni hao ma? “you good/well particle” “How are you? 2 tamen lai ba? “they”“come” “particle” “Will they come?“ (c) A-not-A questions 3 Ta hui bu hui da lanqiu? he can not can play basketball “Can he play bask

40、etball?” (d) Tag question (A-not-A tag) 3 women kaishi shangke, hao bu hao? we begin class good not good “Lets begin our class, shall we? This type of question is functionally equivalent to English tag questions, but the tag is structurally different from English tags. The Chinese tags do not contai

41、n subject and finite. (e) Alternative questions (marked by haishi ) 4 Ni yao zhege haishi nage? you want this one or that one “Do you want this one or that one?” 5 ta lai haishi ni qu? he/she come or you go “Does he/she come(here) or do you go(there? (2) Differentiating type (b) and type (c) 6 Ni hu

42、i da wangqiu ma? you can play tennis particle “Can you play tennis?” 7 Ni hui bu hui da wangqiu？ you can not can play tennis “Can you play tennis?” 8 zuotian ni da mei da wangqiu？ yesterday you play not play tennis “Did you play tennis yesterday?” What is the difference between the two types of ques

43、tion? Li and Thompson(1981) Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference Grammar explains: “Particle questions and A-not-A questions differ in the types of contexts in which they can be used: in a neutral context, either the A-not- A form or the particle question may be used, while in a non-neutral cont

44、ext, only the particle question is possible. A neutral context is one in which the questioner has no assumptions concerning the proposition that is being questioned and wishes to know whether it is true. Whenever the questioner brings to the speech situation an assumption about either the truth or t

45、he falsity of the proposition s/he is asking about, then the context is non-neutral with respect to that question.” The difference can be explained in terms of information focus: A-not-A type focuses on polarity only, while in particle questions the focus may not be on polarity. 2. The components of

46、 the residue: P C A Predicator- expresses processTense Aspect voice (Finite operators: auxiliary verbs and modal verbs)3. The difference between complement and adjunctl Complement can be turned into subject. (Except attribute in relational process)l Adjuncts cannot be turned into subject.l Adjuncts

47、are realized by adverbial group or prepositional phrases.4. The classification of adjunctsThompson (1996)Quirk,et al(1985)Ideational(construing)(a) Circumstantial adjuncts: Contributing to experiential meaning, telling when, where, how, why the event happened (more related to the predicator).adjunct

48、sInterper-sonal(judging and evaluating)Modal adjunct(b) Mood adjuncts: expressing meaning associated with tense, polarity, modality (related to finite).(c) Comment adjuncts: expressing speakers attitude toward the propositional content of the clause (often separated by comma).disjunctsTextualconnect

49、ing(d) Conjunctive adjuncts: expressing textual meanings (discourse markers)conjunctsFrom (a) to (d), there is a degree of closeness to the predicator or finite. In other words, there is a cline from grammar to lexis.5. Polarity and modalities Polarity: yes or noModality: the space between yes and n

50、oModality means the speakers judgment of the probabilities, or the obligations, involved in what he is saying? (Halliday, 1994:75)6. Types of modality Modalization (information) Probability(概率) He might come. Usuality (頻率)He often comes.Modulation (goods-services) obligation(義務(wù)): You should go there

51、. Inclination（意愿）: I will help you.7. Modal commitment (degree of modality):High (must), Median (shall), Low (may)8. Modal responsibilityPlease rewrite the two clauses to change modal responsibility.Explicit subjective: I reckon that the U.S.A. will have withdrawn forces from Iraq by the end of this

52、 year. Implicit subjective: The U.S.A. will have withdrawn forces from Iraq by the end of this year. Explicit objective: It is likely that the U.S.A. will have withdrawn forces from Iraq by the end of this year.Implicit objective: The U.S.A. is likely to have withdrawn forces from Iraq by the end of

53、 this year.Explicit subjective: I advise you to have a health check before you leave.Implicit subjective: Implicit objective: You are supposed to have a health check before you leave.Explicit objective: Session Five(Chapter Four continued)1. Modality as a scalar system Martin, J. R. and White, P.R.R.(2005:16-17) The Language of Evolution: Appraisal in English interprets the modality system as scalar rather than categorical.“As far as appraisal sentences are concerned, , we have found it useful to