1.1.1 Motivation of this study
1.1.1.1 Sterility of structuralist studies of language
1 . 1 . I .2 Limitations of Z. S. Harris ''s Discourse Analysis
1.1.2 Insufficiency of Halliday''s exploration of context and text
1.1.3 Significance of this current study
1.2Research Methodology
1 .3 Collection and selection of corpora
1 .3. 1 Data collection and selection
1.3.2 Justification for the adoption of spoken prose as corpora
1.3.3 Transcription of real-life spoken data
1.4 Theoretical framework of this study
1 .5 Structure of this research
Chapter 2 Literature Review on Context of and Text
2. I Introductory remarks 1
2.2.1 Context defined by different linguists
2.2.1. I Malinowski''s definition of context
2.2.1.2 J. R. Firth''s definition of context
2.2.1.3 Halliday and Hasan''s notion of context
2.2.1.4 Roman Jacobson''s definition of context
2.2.1.5 D. Hymes ''s definition of context
2.2.1.6 Elinor Ochs''s definition of context
2.2.1.7 CHEN Wangdao''s definition of context
2.2.2 Cognitive context 3
2.2.2.1 Philosophers'' statement of obj ective context andcognitive context
2.2.2.2 Context in cognitive linguistics
2.2.2.3 Problems with the theory of cognitive context
2.3 Text
2.3. 1 Text, discourse, conversation
2.3.1.1 van Dijk''s definition of text and discourse
2.3.1.2 Halliday and Hasan''s definition of text
2.3.1.3 Brown and Yule''s definition of discourse and text
2.3.1.4 Beaugrande and Dressler''s definition of text
2.3.1.5 Coulthard''s definition of discourse
2.3.1.6 Fowler''s notion of text and discourse
2.4 Text and Context in this research
2.4.1 Text in this research
2.4.1.1 Informativity
2.4. 1 .2 Semantic compatibility
2.4.1.3 Associability
2.4.1.4 Cognitivity
2.4.1.5 Length felicity
2.4.2 Context in this research
Chapter 3 Impact of Field upon Text
3.1 Introductory remarks
3.2 Field and its components
3.2.1 Suzanne Eggins''s description of field
3.2.2 Leckie-Tarry''s description of field
3.2.2.1 Arenaactivities 5
3.2.2.2 Participants
3.2.2.3 Semantic domain.
3.2.3 A brief summary
3.3 The impact of field upon text
3.3.1 The impact of subj ect matter upon text
3.3.2 The impact ofparticipants upon text
3.3.3 The impact of setting upon text
3.3.3.1 Conversation inside the classroom
3.3.3.2 Conversation outside the classroom
3.4 Summary
Chapter 4 Impact of Tenor upon Text
4. I Introductory remarks
4.2 Different definitions of tenor
4.2.1 Gregory''s definition of tenor
4.2.1.1 Personal tenor
4.2.1.2 Functional tenor
4.2.2 Poynton''s definition of tenor
4.2.2.1 Power
4.2.2.2 Contact
4.2.2.3 Affective involvement
4.2.3 Martin''s definition of tenor
4.2.3.1 Status
4.2.3.2 Contact
4.2.3.3 Affect
4.2.4 Leckie-Tarry''s definition of tenor
4.2.4.1 Formality
4.2.4.2 Role
4.2.4.3Focus
4.3 Impact of tenor upon text
4.3.1 Impact of power upon text
4.3.2 Impact of contact upon text 1
4.3.3 Impact of affective involvement upon text 1 1
Chapter 5 Impact of Mode upon Text
5. 1 Introductory remarks 1 1
5.2 Definitions of mode
5.2. 1 Halliday''s definition of mode
5.2.2 Leckie-Tarry''s definition of mode 11
5.2.2.3 Contextualization
5.2.3 Martin''s definition of mode
5.2.3.1 Spatialinterpersonal distance
5.2.3.2 Experiential distance
5.2.4 Summary of the quoted definitions
5.2.5 The definition of mode to be taken in this research
5.3 Impact of mode upon text
5.3.1 Differences between spoken mode and written mode
5.3.1.1 Referential choices between spoken mode and written
5.3.1.2 Nominalization: a typical feature of written mode
5 .3 .2 Written-to-be-spoken mode and its actualization 1
5.3.3 Intemet relay chat and face-to-face conversation
5.3.3.1 Sequential organization in QS-CMC: The misinterpretation of adj acency
5.3.3.2 Phantom responsiveness and phantom adj acency pairs
5.3.3.3 Turn-taking in QS-CMC: The problem of virtual
5.3.3.4 The misinterpretation of silence
5.3.3.5 Miscommunication in QS-CMC
Chapter 6 Interaction between Contextual Factors and lts Impact
6. 1 Introductory remarks
6.2 Contextual factors revisited
6.3 Impact of field upon mode
6.4 Impact of mode upon tenor 1
6.5 Impact of tenor upon field
6.6 Impact of tenor on mode
6.7 Impact of field upon tenor
7.2 Contributions of the current research 1
7.3 Insu伍ciencies of the current research
7.4 Suggestions for future research
7.5 Pedagogical implications of this research
內容試閱：
As already has been mentioned, the Swiss linguist Ferdinandde Saussure fathered structuralism in 1916, which earned him aneverlasting reputation as the founder of modern linguistics. In thefollowing several decades of the 20th century, structuralism held swayin the field of linguistics, with lots of famous scholars both in Europeand in the United States of America practicing linguistics under theinfluence of his teachings, either directly or indirectly. The PragueSchool in Czechoslovakia and the American Descriptive Linguistics arethe prominent representatives, both of which have made tremendouscontributions to the development of linguistics. Here we will probe intotheir contributions and then their limitations and drawbacks in theirresearch methodology.
購物車/收銀台(0) | 在線留言板
| 付款方式
| 聯絡我們
| 運費計算
| 幫助中心 |
加入書簽
HOME
新書上架
