2.3 Summary of the Previous Researches into CMs
Previous studies of CMs are conducted from various perspectives and hence reflect different definitions and interpretations of this concept.
From the perspective of traditional grammar,the CMs in this dissertation are usually termed as conjunctions(e.g.,Fries,1957;Gunter,1984)or adverbials(e.g.,Quirk et al.,1979).Theorists of traditional grammar analyze those conjunctive resources by starting either from forms or from relations.
In formal semantics,the term logical conjunction is used to refer to the CMs in the current research.The studies of conjunctions in the area of semantics mainly focus on the truth value.For example,Davies(1979)divides conjunctions into different types but only focuses on the truth logic function of these conjunctions and ignores the influence of context.Little attention is paid to the interpersonal function of the conjunctions.For example,van Wijk(2006)points out that logical connectives are not communicatively useful and do not fit mental logic.
In pragmatics,the terms referring to the CMs in this dissertation are more various such as discourse markers(Schiffrin,1987;Lewis,2006),conjunctions(Sweester,1990)and pragmatic markers(Fraser,2006).The scholars of pragmatics take notice of the role of the context.When they analyze those conjunctive devices,they pay much attention to the interaction between speaker and listener,i.e.the illocutionary function.
Cognitive scholars generally use connectors(Langacker,1991)and conjunctions(Verstraete,1998;Schilperoord & Verhagen,1998;McGregor,1999)to refer to the CMs in the dissertation.Langacker’s(1991)term grounding and instantiated type are used to analyze conjunctions.Cognitive linguists such as Verstraete(1998)mainly focus on causal conjunction and separate it into epistemic conjunction and speechact conjunction.Based on Verstraete(1998)’s classification,McGregor(1999)adds another type:attitudinal conjunction,which is of great help in this dissertation.
The term CMs are generally called conjunctions(Martin,1992;Halliday,1994;Halliday & Matthiessen,2004)and conjunctive adjuncts(Halliday & Hasan,1976)in SFL.Conjunctions themselves could manifest all of the three metafunctions.Halliday & Hasan(1976),Martin(1992)and Halliday & Matthiessen(2004)outline three types of conjunctive adjuncts by analyzing their textual function in making the text cohesive.Apart from foregrounding the real-world connections and structuring the whole text,Thompson(2001)points out that conjunctions can function to align the reader’s reactions.
This chapter is about the literature review on authorial stance and CMs.Primarily it focuses on the different perspectives from which authorial stance and CMs have been researched.These previous researches make a great contribution to the understanding of authorial stance,the identification of CMs,the functions of CMs,etc.At the same time,this review points out the characteristics and limitations of previous researches into these two concepts,which demonstrate the necessity of this current research.
All in all,the previous researches mainly lay emphasis on the textual function and logical function of the conjunctive resources.The common deficiency of the previous studies is that there is no systemic research of CMs which could realize authorial stance.
In Chapter 3,all these problems will be involved and resolved.Chapter 3 will present the theoretical framework which could explain how CMs could realize authorial stance in the interaction between the authors and the readers.
【注释】
[1]Davies abbreviates it as Ov.
[2]In this dissertation,when the examples are selected from the chosen data,the specific source will be labeled according to the disciplinary nature of the paper and the linguistic background of the author.For example,Example(28)is selected from a paper in the discipline of humanities and by authors from English-speaking countries.Example(29)is chosen from a paper in the discipline of social science and by authors from non-English speaking countries.