当前位置:文档之家› 西方语言学流派--系统功能语法

西方语言学流派--系统功能语法


The differences between traditional grammar and SFG
(Gerot & Wignell, 1994)
Traditional
Systemic-functional
Researching method
prescriptive grammar
descriptive grammar
Thank you for your attention !!!
Views on the nature of language
• TG Grammar views language as “a form of knowing”, rather than “a form of doing” by SF Grammar’s point of view.
• Chomsky makes a distinction between “competence” and “performance”, while Halliday distinguishes “linguistic behavior potential” and “actual linguistic behavior”.
• While Halliday focuses on the following two questions : • a) What are the social functions of language ? • b) How are these functions reflected in the linguistic system ?
Research features • The abstract rules are the prominent features of TG Grammar, while the concepts of language function and language structure are greatly emphasized in SF Grammar.
Research methods
• Since SF Grammar views that language is inseparable from social activities of man, it takes actual uses of language as the object of study, in opposition to Chomsky’s TG Grammar which takes the ideal speaker’s linguistic competence as the object of study. • So the research method of SF Grammar follows the experimental way , while the TG Grammar takes the rational way.
Definitions of grammar
mainly concerned with syntax (+ some morphology)
'lexicogrammar' – no distinction between lexis and grammar.
Both are meaning-creating.
Studying the structures of language and how they are produced is to study how the mind works to produce and process language Emphasis on form and structure Looks at the well-formedness of language produced by nativespeakers; grammar is about rules governing form
parole.
*Their theories both undergo several stages.
TGG Mentalist view of language, i.e. language exists in the mind
SFG Social view of language, i.e. language exists in society as it is used by people in different social contexts Studying language is to study how language serves to communicate different types of meanings and purposes in different contexts Emphasis on function and meaning Looks at how meaning varies with context; grammar is a resource for communication
1928年12月7日-
Similarities
*They are both schools of modern linguistics.
*They both treasure synchronic description. *They both made similar concepts like langue and
Areas covered
text > sentence > clause > phrase > word > morpheme
the whole communicative event: ideational, interpersonal and textual functions.
Lexicogrammar
王力 罗常培
The differences between TGG and SFG
Research perspectives:
• Psychological vs Sociological Chomsky’s theory initiates from his three main questions set for linguistics : • a) What constitutes knowledge of language ? • b) How is such knowledge acquired ? • c) How is such knowledge put to use ?
Systemic-functional grammar VS Traditionalhe main content of SFG
1. Systemic functional linguistics views language as a system of choices. 2. Language and context are closely interrelated. 3. Context of situation (Register) consists of three parameters: Field, Tenor and Mode, which reflects three metafunctions of language: ideational, interpersonal and textual. 4. Context of culture (Genre) has three dimensions: the register configuration, the text’s staged or schematic structure, the realization patterns in the text.
Views static dynamic
Systemic-functional grammar VS Transformational-generative grammar
Michael Alexander Kirkwood Halliday
1925年4月13日-
Avram Noam Chomsky
Theoretical origin TGG
Aristotle Grammaire Gé né rale et Raisonné e Wilhelm von Humboldt Zellig Sabbettai Harris
SFG
Protagoras Plato European functional linguistics Edward Spair Benjamin Lee Whorf Sydney Lamb Kenneth L.Pike
References
1.Routledge Gerot,L.& Wignell,P.1994. Making sense of functional grammar[M]. Sydney:Antipodean Educational Enterprises. 2.Liu Runqing & Feng Zongxin, Schools and Theories of Linguistics[M], Nanjing Normal University Press,2004. 3. Liu Xin & Lu Yaozhong,2008, The comparision between transformational- generative grammar and systemic-functional grammar[J]. Language:33-41. 4. 崔冬梅,2009,《转换生成语法与系统功能语法对比研究》[J],《成都大学学报》。 5.侯万春,1999,语言学中的形式主义与功能主义[J],《重庆师院学报》(2):59-63。 6.苗兴伟,1998,系统功能语法与转换生成语法对比刍议[J],《外语研究》(3):21-22。 7.林六辰,韩秀珍,1996,转换生成语法与系统功能语法对比[J],《湖南师范大学学报》 (5):47-61. 8.刘润清,2002,西方语言学流派[M]。外语教学与研究出版社。 9.徐烈炯,2002,功能主义与形式主义[J], 《外国语》(2):14-17。 10.王志军,肖建安,2001,形式主义与功能主义研究的相容性[J],《山东外语教学》 (1):37-39。 11. 朱永生,严世清,2001,《系统功能语言学多维思考》[M]。上海外语教育出版社。
相关主题