英语政治演讲中的人际功能分析523.docx

1、英语政治演讲中的人际功能分析523Chapter 2 Literature ReviewSystemic-Functional Grammar regards discourse as language which is functional or metafunctional construct, which means speakers use language to describe various experiences of the real world and the interpersonal relationship are realized through consisten

2、t discourse during communication. Halliday identifies three metafunctions of language, which are at the same level and of the same importance. The first is the ideational function, using language to talk about our experience of the world. The second is the interpersonal function, using language to i

3、nteract with other people. The third is the textual function, using language to organize our messages. This thesis will make use of Hallidays Systemic-Functional Grammar as a theoretical framework to explore the general realization of the interpersonal function in the English Political Speeches. Thi

4、s chapter mainly intends to give a general account of the influential theories on the interpersonal function based on different linguists models as well as some influential theories related to English Political Speeches.2.1 An Overview of Interpersonal FunctionFunctional linguists take the main resp

5、onsibility to define the interpersonal function of language. From their viewpoints, interpersonal function refers to people use language to interact with other people to establish and maintain social and personal relations, to influence their attitudes and behaviors, to show personal opersonal on th

6、ings in the world. Interpersonal function of language can also be termed as interpersonal meaning. However, as Li Zhanzi (2002) proposed, interpersonal function is not merely confined to the framework of functional grammar. It actually has been studied for a long time from different perspectives by

7、various linguists. As early as 1929, Bakhtin (1984) pointed out that meaning neither lies in the word or the soul of the speaker nor the listener, but the effect of interaction between speaker and listener produced via the material of a particular sound complex. Those words have realized the languag

8、e function of both conveying meaning and interacting. It shows the elementary cognition of the interpersonal function.Discourse analysts take much interest in interpersonal function and study it from a quite special perspective. They regard the discourse as dynamic rather than static and take accoun

9、t of all factors that may influence the organization of the discourse. They take notice of not only the purposes and functions of the discourses but also how the discourses are processed. The process includes both the way the receiver takes in the potential meaning of the producer and the way the pr

10、oducer organizes the message in consideration of the receiver on certain occasion. Discourse analysts put emphasis on this process and discuss it. Brown & Yule (1983, p. 24) claims it is ;an approach that takes the interpersonal function of language as its primary area of investigation and consequen

11、tly seeks to describe a linguistic form, not as a static object, but as a dynamic means of expressing intended meaning. Discourse analysts put emphasis on the social and psychological aspects of the composition of a discourse, but it has the vital deficiency of neglecting the grammatical demonstrati

12、on which may result in the over subjective judgment of the receiver.Pragmatic linguists pay great attention on the social status, age and sex of the speaker and the hearer in the context of situation. Pragmatics is even regarded as the discipline studying linguistic interaction between I and you (Wi

13、erzbicka, 1999, p.5). Brown & Levinson (1978) put forward the politeness principle, which is inherently interpersonal-oriented. According to this theory, people are trying to save each other s face when they are engaged in speech acts, which is something that is emotionally invested, and that can be

14、 lost, maintained or enhanced, and must be constantly attended to in interaction(Brown & Levinson, 1978, p. 66). Though pragmatic linguists viewpoint on interpersonal function can enlighten the analysis on textual level, it has the deficiency of neglecting grammatical structure, either.Besides what

15、has been discussed above, there are still some other voices making researches on the interpersonal function of language. However. their deficiency is common, that is neglecting the grammatical structures of the text and lacking a standard to scale the different degrees of interpersonal function on d

16、ifferent occasions. Nevertheless. the Systemic-Functional Grammar is able to solve the problem by connecting the grammatical structures to the meaning or function of language, and it.will be mainly employed in the present study. Meanwhile, some merits of the mentioned study on interpersonal function

17、 can also be incorporated. The following section will review some other influential models of interpersonal function from the functional grammar perspective into particulars.2.2 Influential Models of Interpersonal FunctionThis part will present four influential modals of interpersonal function studi

18、ed by functional linguists.2.2.1Hallidays Model of Interpersonal FunctionAccording to Hallidays conceptual framework of Systemic-Functional Grammar, language is viewed as a semiotic system. This system is sustained by a network of interrelated and mufii-layered systems of options in meaning. In this

19、 sense, text is a semantic entity, which is a functional configuration of choice of meaning. Thus a discourse grammar indeed should be functional and semantic in its orientation, with the grammatical structures explained as the realization of semantic patterns. In Systemic-Functional Grammar, functi

20、on equals meaning (Halliday, 2000).Halliday puts forward three metafunctions of language including the ideational metafunction, the interpersonal metafunction, and the textual metafunction by observing childrens acquisition of language. He points out the three metafunctions are at the same level and

21、 of the same importance. Halliday (1994) interprets the three metafunctions as followed: ideational metafunction means using language to describe our experience of the world; the interpersonal metafunction enables people to interact with other people; and the textual metafunction refers to use langu

22、age to organize our messages. In daily life, people communicate with each other by using language to talk about the world around them, along with which they are interacting with each other, and thus establish and maintain certain social relationships between them. People describe the world in their

23、own eyes and in a very personal way which cannot be the a hundred percent reflection of the real world. Thus the speakers viewpoints on things inevitably make subjective attitudes and judgments but they are trying to influence.and change others viewpoints about certain things. Such is the interperso

24、nal function. Therefore, interpersonal function represents the speakers meaning potential as an intruder, carrying a heavy semantic load. It encompasses the dynamics of the relationship between the speaker and the hearer, and the use of language to express ones attitude and to influence the attitude

25、s or behavior of the hearer (Halliday, 1985).According to Halliday, the clause is organized as an interactive event involving speaker or writer, and audience. Halliday (1985) proposes that the interpersonal function carries a heavy semantic load and he focuses on mood and modality as the main lexico

26、-grammatical systems to realize the interpersonal function. He mentions the existence of other means of interpersonal function, namely, in the person system, in the attitudinal type of epithet, in the connotative meanings of lexical items, in prosodic features such as swearing words and voice qualit

27、y (Halliday, 1994, p. 191). Halliday does realize the other resources of the interpersonal function, but he does not mention them in a detailed way. The model of Hallidays interpersonal function shows that mood and modality are in a parallel position, but the evaluation system is mentioned only marg

28、inally as realized by comment adjuncts. The following figure is the summary of Hallidays model of interpersonal function.Modalization Figure 2.1 Hallidays Model of Interpersonal SystemThough Halliday pays great attention on meaning, he does not neglect the form of language. A1l three functions are l

29、ocated both at the level of semantics and grammar. He proposes that these three kinds of functions can be realized by linguistic units of all kinds: word, word group, prepositional phrase, clause, clause complex and text, which are related both before the contextual variables and after lexico-gramma

30、r (Halliday, 2003, p. 110).The lexico-granunatical resources to realize interpersonal function are those of mood and modality, intensification and other evaluation devices realized prosodic ally throughout the text. Besides these three main factors, Halliday also mentioned that interpersonal functio

31、n can also be realized by the person system, the attitudinal type of epithet, the connotative meanings of lexical items functioning in the group and in prosodic features such as swear-words and voice quality (Halliday, 2000, p. 191). This thesis mainly adopts Hallidays model of interpersonal functio

32、n on Iexico-grammatical level in Systemic-Functional Grammar as the framework from perspectives of mood and modality systems to analyze the realization of interpersonal function in the English Political Speeches.2.2.2 Thompsons Model of Interpersonal FunctionAs one of Hallidays supporters, Thompson

33、also did research on the interpersonal function and furthered Hallidays study and made some achievements. Since mood concerns the social role the speaker has taken and assigns roles to reader and writer, while modality which involves the writers own judgments and attitudes and its relation with the interpersonal element see