英语语篇分析

英语系 庞中兰

目录

  • 1 Introduction to Discourse Analysis
    • 1.1 Introduction of English Discourse Analysis
    • 1.2 Introduction of H.G. Widdowson'sTextbook
    • 1.3 Language in Use
      • 1.3.1 A Text
      • 1.3.2 Spoken and Written text
      • 1.3.3 Multimodal Discourse Analysis
      • 1.3.4 Analysis of Five Models
      • 1.3.5 MDA in Visual Grammatical Perspective
      • 1.3.6 Videos of Teacher's and Students'Presentation of Class One-Six
      • 1.3.7 Videos of Teacher’s and Students‘ Presentations of Class Five &Six
      • 1.3.8 Videos of Teacher’s and Students‘ Presentations of Class Three &Four
      • 1.3.9 Videos of Teacher’s and Students‘ Presentations of Class One &Two
      • 1.3.10 Videos about Conferring The Awards
      • 1.3.11 Semantic Features
      • 1.3.12 Conclusion
    • 1.4 A Test 1 for Overview of the Course
    • 1.5 A Test 2 for Langauge in Use
    • 1.6 A Test 3 for Multimodal Discourse Analysis
    • 1.7 A Test 4 for Analysis of Five Models
    • 1.8 A Test 5 for Semantic Features
    • 1.9 A Test 6 for Unit 1
    • 1.10 Unit 1 Teaching Plan
  • 2 Communication
    • 2.1 Grammar and Communication
      • 2.1.1 A Test for 2.1
    • 2.2 Grammar
      • 2.2.1 Traditional Grammar
      • 2.2.2 Universal Grammar
      • 2.2.3 SF Grammar
      • 2.2.4 M.A.K. Halliday
      • 2.2.5 A Test for SF Grammar and M.A.K.Halliday
      • 2.2.6 Structural Grammar
      • 2.2.7 Transformational-Generative Grammar
      • 2.2.8 Noam Chomsky
      • 2.2.9 A Test for Noam Chomsky
      • 2.2.10 Case Grammar
      • 2.2.11 Cognitive Grammar
      • 2.2.12 Langacker's Cognitive Grammar
      • 2.2.13 Cognitive Linguistics
      • 2.2.14 A Test for Cognitive Grammar
      • 2.2.15 Development and Schools of Linguistics
      • 2.2.16 A Test 1 for 2.2
    • 2.3 Three Kinds of Pragmatic Meaning
    • 2.4 Analysis of Examples Based on Speech Act Theory
    • 2.5 Pragmatics
    • 2.6 John Austin
    • 2.7 Communicative Competence
    • 2.8 Communicative Competence and Language Teaching
    • 2.9 A Test for Pragmatic Meaning
    • 2.10 A Test for Pragmatics and John Austin
    • 2.11 A Test for 2.6 and 2.7
    • 2.12 Unit 2 Teaching Plan
  • 3 Context
    • 3.1 Context
    • 3.2 Context and Shared Knowledge
      • 3.2.1 A Test for Context
    • 3.3 Text-activated Context
    • 3.4 Unshared Contexts
    • 3.5 Context and Shared Values
    • 3.6 A Test for 3.3, 3.4 and 3.5
    • 3.7 The Prague School
    • 3.8 A Test for The Prague School
    • 3.9 Roman Jakobson
    • 3.10 The London School
    • 3.11 A Test for The London School
    • 3.12 Unit 3 Teaching Plan
  • 4 Schematic Conventions
    • 4.1 Context And Situation
    • 4.2 Schema
      • 4.2.1 A Test for Schema
    • 4.3 Frames of Reference
    • 4.4 Frames and Cultural Assumptions
    • 4.5 Interpersonal Routines
      • 4.5.1 George Bernard Shaw
      • 4.5.2 A Test for 4.5
    • 4.6 Adjacency Pairs
    • 4.7 Genres and Conclusion
      • 4.7.1 A Bird Came Down the Walk
      • 4.7.2 An Ecological Analysis of A Bird
      • 4.7.3 A Test for 4.7
    • 4.8 A Test for Unit 4
    • 4.9 Unit 4 Teaching Plan
  • 5 Cotextual Relations
    • 5.1 Information Structure
      • 5.1.1 A Test for Information Structure
      • 5.1.2 Application of Patterns of Thematic Progression
      • 5.1.3 Meanings of "Meaning"
    • 5.2 Text Linkage; Anaphora and Pro-forms
    • 5.3 Sense Relations
    • 5.4 Cohesion
    • 5.5 Cohesion and  the least effort principle
    • 5.6 Coherence & Cohesion
    • 5.7 A Test for 5.2
    • 5.8 A Test for 5.4, 5.5 and 5.6
    • 5.9 A Test for Unit 5
    • 5.10 Unit 5 Teaching Plan
  • 6 The Negotiation of Meaning
    • 6.1 Systemic and Schematic Knowledge
    • 6.2 Communicative Convergence; Negotiating Convergence
    • 6.3 The Co-operative Principle
      • 6.3.1 A Test for CP
      • 6.3.2 Analysis of Examples Based on CP
    • 6.4 Conversational Implicature
      • 6.4.1 Characteristics of Implicature-1 and 2
      • 6.4.2 Characteristics of Implicature-3 and 4
      • 6.4.3 Language and Cognition
      • 6.4.4 Post-Gricean Developments
    • 6.5 The Maxims of Quality, Relation, and Manner
    • 6.6 The Interpersonal Grammatical Metaphor in Literary Works
    • 6.7 A Test for 6.6
    • 6.8 The Analysis of Auto Slogans
    • 6.9 A Test for 6.8
    • 6.10 Analysis of Cooperative principle in Internet Buzzwords
    • 6.11 Co-operative and Territorial Imperatives
    • 6.12 The Third Functional Linguistics Fusion, Creativity and Development Forum
    • 6.13 A Test for Unit 6
    • 6.14 Teaching Plan
  • 7 Critical Analysis
    • 7.1 Positioning; Terms of Reference
    • 7.2 Alternative Wordings and Persuasive Purpose;Critical Discourse Analysis
    • 7.3 Theories & Methods of CDA
    • 7.4 A Test for 7.2 and 7.3
    • 7.5 The Implicatures of Textual Choice, Lexical Choice
    • 7.6 Implicatures and Grammatical Choice
    • 7.7 A Test for 7.5 and 7.6
    • 7.8 A Test for Unit 7
    • 7.9 Unit 7 Teaching Plan
  • 8 Text Analysis
    • 8.1 Actually Attested Language; Norms of Usage
    • 8.2 Patterns of Collocation
    • 8.3 Semantic Prosodies
    • 8.4 The Theory and Methods of Semantic Prosody
    • 8.5 A Test for 8.3 and 8.4
    • 8.6 Conclusion
    • 8.7 A Test for Unit 8
    • 8.8 Unit 8 Teacing Plan
Semantic Prosodies


Semantic prosodies

Semantic prosody--Meaning that extends from one word in a collocation to another, e.g. the word cause usually collocates with words denoting unpleasant things like difficulty, distress, trouble,and so on, and is therefore said to have a negative semantic prosody. Conversely, bring about, which collocates frequently with words like improvement, solution, success, and so on, is said to have a positive semantic prosody.

In some cases we might suggest that if there is any motivation at all, it is only to signal membership of a particular community by conforming to its customary idiom.

In other cases, a collocation may be explained by reference to general semantic principles.

These semantic prosodies can be said to be part of systemic knowledge. There are other collocational patterns that, like certain word frequencies as mentioned earlier, can be related to schematic knowledge in that they can be said to represent the way reality is conceptually constructed by a community of language users.

A comparison of concordances from the corpora of different newspapers, or of different domains of use altogether, might indicate degrees of schematic generality --- the extent to which the collocations reflect a particular or more general set of cultural assumptions.