语言学英文毕业论文

,商务英语语篇,衔接,连贯discourse,business English discourse, cohesion, and coherence.语篇(text／discourse)在不同学者的著述中，有不同的含义，有些语言学家认为，语篇既指书面语言，又指口头语言。有些语言学家认为语篇(text)只指书面语，而用“话语”(discourse)指口语。有些语言学家用“话语”指书面语和口语。威多森用“话语”指书面语。所以，很多人在讲到书面语时用text这一术语，在谈到口语时则用discourse。斯塔布斯认为，话语常常有“口头交流(interactive)”的含义，而语篇则有“非口头交流的独白(noninteractivemonologue)”含义。斯塔布斯还认为，话语有一定的长度，而语篇则可以很短。所以，像Exit(山口处)，No smoking!(禁止吸烟)这样的语言单位是语篇，而不是话语。埃德门德森认为，语篇指不出现在使用场合的语言，而话语则指出现在使用场合的语言。本文采用韩礼德，夸克等人的观点，用discourse／text这一术语既指口语又指书面语。实际上，discourse和text只具有地域色彩差别。美国学者喜欢用discourse，与之相对应的是discourses analysis：欧洲学者喜欢用text这个词与之相对应的是text linguistics，它们指同一内容。 众所周知，语篇(discourse)是语篇分析(discourse analysis)的研究对象。语篇分析作为一门学科是20世纪50年代以后才发展起来的。语篇分析通常指的是对比句子更大的语言单位，如句群、段落等语言单位所作的语言分析，目的在于解释人们如何构造和理解各种连贯的语篇(coherent discourse)。研究语言结构的理论一般分为两大类：语法和语篇分析。前者通常研究单个的、孤立的句子；而后者则研究用于交际(communication)的语篇。语法学研究词的形式、用法和句子各个组成部分及其安排的规律：在语法研究中，句子是最高一层的结构。语篇分析研究比句子更大的语言单位，研究语篇中句子的排列、衔接(cohesion)和连贯(coherence)，是一种超句法分析。 历史悠久的传统语法，本世纪风靡一时的结构语法和近三十年来在语言学理论领域中最引入注目的转换生成语法，对语言的研究都只局限于句子本身及其组成部分，这些学派很少研究句子与句子的关系，也极少讨论句子在比其更人的语言单位中的地位和作用。然而，正如一个单词在不同的句子中可以有不同的意义和不同的句法功能一样，一个句子、句群和段落在不同的语篇和语境中也会有不同的表意作用和交际功能。如果不把句子、句群或段落放到一定的语言环境中去考察，那就无法确定其真正的意义。离开了语言的使用场合、离开了 特定的语言环境，那就很难确定语言单位的交际功能，治言单位也无法充分起到交际的作川。 越来越多的语言学家认识到，语言研究不应局限于句子平面，不应只研究句子结构，而应超 越句子的范围，研究句子、句群和段落在语篇中的作用，研究现实生活中活生生的语言。 衔接（cohesion）和连贯（coherence）是语篇分折（discourse analysis）中的两个重要术语。由 于语言学家们研究语篇的角度不同，他们对这一术语的定义也就不一样。对于衔接与连贯的 关系，目前人们既有一致的看法，也有许多分歧。如何把握衔接与连贯的实质以及二者之间 的关系是语篇分折中一个不容回避的重要问题。以连贯为例，克瑞斯多尔从语篇本身的特征 出发，把连贯定义为一段话语“潜在的功能性联系”（he undetlying functional COnnectedness．）。 而彼多非在对语篇进行形式分析时认为，语篇连贯是语言外的联体在头脑中的映像，如果读 者能够重新构造山一个联系着的、完整的世界映像，那么这段话对读者来说，就是连贯的。 国内的学者一股认为，衔接是词汇和语法方面的手段，是形式的；连贯是用这些手段得到的 效果。在衔接与连贯的关系方面，语言学家们的看法也不一致。例如，韩礼德和哈桑认为， 衔按是创造语篇性的必要但不充分条件，而威多森则认为，衔接既不是连贯的必要条件，也 不是充分条件。 本文从宏观和微观两方面，以会话分拆理论和衔接连贯理论为基础，在对其分析的前 提下，探讨商务英语语篇中的衔接与连贯问题并以此推动语篇分析的研究发展。In different scholars" works, text/discourse has different meanings. Some linguists believe that it refers to both spoken language and written language. Some linguists take text as the written form of language but discourse as the spoken form of it. Other linguists regard discourse as both the spoken and the written forms of language and H. Widdowson takes discourse as written language. So many people want to use text to refer to written language and discourse to spoken language. In 1983, Stubbs thought that discourse always has an oral interactive sense, while text often has non-interactive monologue meaning; discourse has a kind of length while text might be very short.W. Edmondson regards text as a kind of language unit which did not appear on a use occasion, however, discourse as a kind of language unit appearing on a use occasion. In this paper, discourse is to be used to refer to both the spoken and the written forms of English. In fact, the differences between discourse and text are territorial. They are the same in essence. American linguists prefer to use discourse and discourse analysis while European linguists use text and text linguistics.It is well known that discourse is the object of study of discourse analysis. Since 1 950s of the 20th century, discourse analysis has become one of independent subjects. It means analyzing a kind of language unit that is much bigger than a sentence, e.g. sentence groups, paragraphs, etc. It aims at helping people to make up and understand all kinds of coherent discourses.There are two kinds of theories that dwell upon language structure. One is grammar, the other discourse analysis. The former always deals with single, isolated sentences, while the latter studies discourse in communications. In grammar, a sentence is the largest unit of grammatical structure, while discourse analysis is a super-sentential analysis. It studies sentences" arrangement, cohesion and coherence.What the traditional grammar and the structural grammar together with the transfermational generative grammar study is limited to the level of sentence and its components. Those grammarians do not adequately take the relations between sentences and their positions and functions in a larger language unit into consideration. However, like individual English words possessing different meanings and functions in different sentences: sentences sentence groups and paragraphs have different connotations and communicative functions in different linguistic contexts. If sentences and sentence groups or paragraphs were not placed in a certain context, then there is no way to identify their real sense. It is difficult to define language units" communicative functions if there were no concrete contexts and occasions. More and more linguists have come to realize thativlanguage study should not be confined at the sentence level. It must go beyond the sentence bounds and study the functions of sentence groups and paragraphs in discourse as well as the vividness of language in real life.Cohesion and coherence are two important terms in discourse analysis. Linguists study discourse from different angles. Accordingly they define these two terms in different ways. When speaking of the relations between cohesion and coherence, linguists hold identical and divergent views on them. How to understand the crux of cohesion and coherence is an important question that we cannot evade. By using coherence as an example, Crystal defines it as a piece of discourse with the underlying functional connectedness on the basis of discourse features; Petofi regards it as an image of relatuni in human brains, If readers can match a discourse with a sense so that they can rebuild a connected, completed image, then it is a coherent discourse to them. Scholars in China always take cohesion as lexical and grammatical devices a matter of form. Coherence is an effect of a discourse consisting of these cohesive devices. As for the relations between cohesion and coherence, scholars hold different views on this point【目录】： Acknowledgements3-4 Abstract in Chinese4-6 Abstract in English6-8 PartⅠ Introduction8-11 1．1 Historical Backgrounds8-9 1．2 The Main Contents of Discourse Analysis9-11 Part Ⅱ Discourse and Business English Discourse11-26 2．1 Discourse and Business English Discourse11-13 2．2 Macrostructure of Business English Discourse13-15 2．3 Microstructure of Spoken Business English Discourse15-19 2．4 Micro-structure of Written Business English Discourse19-26 Part Ⅲ Cohesion and Coherence26-38 3．1 The Origins and Development of Cohesion and Coherence26 3．2 Definitions of Cohesion and Coherence26-28 3．3 The Relationship Between Cohesion and Coherence28-34 3．4 Cohesion and Coherence in Business English Discourses34-38 Part Ⅳ Conclusion38-39 Bibliography39-40