М. В. Ломоносова Филологический факультет Кафедра английского языкознания Когезия и когеренция в философском дискурсе на материале эссе Бертрана Расселла "О природе знакомства". Курсовая
 Скачать 1 Mb.
|
Focus paradigms.Here we’ve come to the analysis of a major notion in the theory of information structure, namely focus paradigms as introduced by Knud Lambrecht (Lambrecht 1994) and further developed by his scholarly successors. K. Lambrecht distinguishes three types of focus paradigms: Predicate focus Sentence focus Narrow focus marked narrow focus unmarked narrow focus Predicate focus is a type of focus paradigm which can be found practically in any language; its structure provides ample evidence of how close comment and predicate are connected with each other. To clarify the point, let us adduce an example: What has happened to your car? (а) The car has broken. (b) It’s broken. Narrow focus can be expressed by only one constituent, which brings out its clear functional distinction from the paradigm above. Here the comment is not attached to any constituent of the predicate group: They say your motorbike has broken? (a) My car has broken down. (b) The car has broken down, not the motorbike. (c) It is not my motorbike that has broken down, but my car. The third type of focus paradigms is sentence focus, when the whole sentence introduces new information. Therefore it acts like a unified whole, and can be referred to only as to an inseparable unit within discourse. In case of pronominal reference to the sentence with sentence focus, the globality of the reference increases: it is the type of reference illustrated by Michael Halliday (Halliday, Hasan 1976) by an abstract from "Alice in the Wonderland", which runs as follows: “'Curtsey while you're thinking what to say. It saves time' – Alice wondered a little at this, but she was. Too much in awe of the Queen to disbelieve it” To clarify the point yet more, let us adduce an example: What has happened to you? The car has broken down. Bridging.Very briefly and generally, bridging (following the terminology of Clark, 1975) is a relation between non-referential nominal expressions that influence text coherence (Zikanova et al.). There is a number of approaches to defining bridging relations (with the help of a number of different terms as well, including bridging anaphora, indirect anaphora, associative anaphora, and other such terms varying from one branch of linguistics to another), which tend to widen or reduce the scope of bridging. For instance, Asher and Lascarides (1998) adopt a relatively strict approach (which corresponds to their aim — to offer a formal model of bridging) and define bridging as a relation between “two objects or events that are introduced in a text and are related in a particular way that isn’t explicitly stated and yet the relation is an essential part of the content of the text in the sense that without this information, the lack of connection between the sentences would make the text incoherent”. Clark (1977) defines bridging from the perspective of the recipient, as an obligatory part of the process of identifying the intended referents for all referring expressions in text. We follow a wider approach which has formed during the last several decades, as there has appeared a need to analyse cohesion in corpora fully and exhaustively (see for example Gardent 2013: Bridging appears when "the referent of a definite description is implicitely related (through world or lexical knowledge) to some previously mentioned entity"; Nědolužko 2011; Ogrodniczuk and Zawisławska 2016). In other words, we come from the premise that bridging can have a “reduced” contribution to cohesion and that in some cases it can be omitted without making the text incoherent An early example given by M. Halliday in his work on cohesion (see 2.1) is a typical case of a bridging relation, i. e. the relation between the beech-tree and its leaf. However, the scholar does not provide us with any further specification of such a relation, partially intruding the ‘realm’ of bridging relations in his classification of the so-called ‘lexical cohesion’. Another example of bridging relations is: We have inherited an antique cupboard from our grandmother. The doors don’t open properly and they squeak (Zikanova et al.). Both examples present an associative link between a whole and its part. The presupposition that this particular part refers to the whole that is given in the pretext forms the essense of cohesive function of bridging. Since the time the term ‘bridging’ was first introduced by Herbert Clark in 1975 there has been no unified classification of types of bridging. The most influential classifications has been introduced by Clark 1975, Poesio, Vieira and Teufel 1997, Gardent et al. 2003, Poesio and Artstein 2008, Irmer 2010. However, there is every reason to believe that such classification should be introduced and that it should consist of unequal elements, the core of the classification being formed by the most stereotypical forms of bridging, and the less stereotypical forms surrounding it in the way that is offered by the methodology of natural classifications (see Lakoff 1987). These forms are: The part-whole relation. Studio apartments are equipped with kitchens, so everyone can prepare their own food. The set-subset relation and co-hyponymic relation. Although conservative England criticized his actions, gum caught on here and Brit- ain became the gateway to Europe for gum. Another milestone worth mentioning is the birth of the bubble gum. When father went to war, the sisters had to move to the North. The relation between an entity and its singular function. The state will give about 1.8 percent of the gross domestic product to directly sup- port business this year. This fact is clearly stated by Economy Minister Karel Dyba in his analysis which he presented to the government. Metalinguistic references — references to an antecedent expression, not to an extralinguistic object. I know the term re-education only from Nazi and Communist vocabulary. As far as I know, the people who were sent for re-education, were considered to have an unacceptable origin according to these monstrous regimes. Anaphoric reference to the time (when the antecedent situation takes place). The disintegration of the Warsaw Pact was like cutting limbs off from the body. Since that time, there was not much that was done. Anaphoric reference to an object — the source of the anaphoric link is a nominal group which is usually followed by the complements such, similar, the same, other (see reference by comparison). There is no indication that the parliamentary building could serve other purposes than parliamentary ones. However, one sometimes hears such opinions. Situational relations: situation — role, situation — reason, situation — cause, situation — consequence etc. At the same time the list of bridging types should not be closed. For the purposes of text analysis it would be useful to mark off every instance of bridging even if one does not correspond to the subtypes listed above and indicate bridging per se (as in How, Markert, and Strube 2013 and Korzen and Buch-Kromann 2011). Thus, it will be maintained that an exhaustive classification of bridging does not exist and that there are subtypes to be added to the list as we proceed in empirical research. |