从“描述”到“解释”——多模态语篇的系统功能符号学分析法与认知诗学分析法比较

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1674-8921.2016.06.004

当代外语研究 ›› 2016, Vol. 16 ›› Issue (06): 19-22.doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1674-8921.2016.06.004

从“描述”到“解释”——多模态语篇的系统功能符号学分析法与认知诗学分析法比较

曾方本

惠州学院,惠州,516007

出版日期:2016-11-28 发布日期:2020-07-25
作者简介:曾方本,惠州学院外语系教授。主要研究方向为语用学、多模态语篇分析、认知诗学。电子邮箱:zfb@hzu.edu.cn

From DESCRIBING to INTERPRETING: On the Two Approaches for MTA—A Comparative Study of MTA with the Systemic functional Semiotic Approach or Cognitive Poetics

ZENG Fangben

Online:2016-11-28 Published:2020-07-25

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 多模态语篇的社会符号学分析法着力于“描述”构建语篇的符号资源及其意义整合,是目前多模态语篇分析的主流理论与方法。认知诗学致力于“解释”语篇结构可引起的语篇效果,它最初主要面向文学语篇,但也适用于多模态语篇的分析,它为多模态语篇分析提供了新的理论与方法。本文从理论基础、分析方法、分析对象、主体、语篇依据及分析模式等方面对二者进行了大致的比较。多模态语篇的系统功能符号学分析与认知诗学分析本质不同之处,在于”描述”与“解释”的区别。从“描述”到“解释”,系统功能符号学分析法与认知诗学二者具有一定的互补性。

关键词: 认知诗学, 多模态语篇, 功能语法, 视觉语法

Abstract: The systemic functional semiotic approach aims at DESCRIBING the interactive meaning and textual structure resulting from various modes integrated. It is the leading theory and approach for multimodal text analysis(MTA) at present. Cognitive poetics tries to INTERPRETE the textual effect caused by the textual structure. It used to serve literary texts. In fact it is also applicable to MTA. It may serve as a new theory and approach for MTA. This article makes a comparison between the systemic functional Semiotic Approach and cognitive poetics from their theoretical bases, analysis approaches, objectives, subjects,textual evidence and analysis patterns. The key difference between the systemic functional semiotic approach and cognitive poetics lies in the distinction of DESCRIBING and INTERPRETING. They are complimentary to MTA in a sense.

中图分类号:

H319

曾方本. 从“描述”到“解释”——多模态语篇的系统功能符号学分析法与认知诗学分析法比较[J]. 当代外语研究, 2016, 16(06): 19-22.

ZENG Fangben. From DESCRIBING to INTERPRETING: On the Two Approaches for MTA—A Comparative Study of MTA with the Systemic functional Semiotic Approach or Cognitive Poetics[J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2016, 16(06): 19-22.

参考文献

Baldry, A. & P. J.Thibault. 2006. Multimodal Transcription and Text Analysis: A Multimedia Toolkit and Coursebook [M]. London: Equinox.
Bateman, J.A. 2008. Multimodality and Genre: A Foundation for the Systematic Analysis of Multimodal Documents [M]. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Forceville, C. 1996. Pictorial Metaphor in Advertising [M]. London & New York: Routledge.
Forceville, C. 2006. Non-verbal and multimodal metaphor in a cognitivist framework:Agendas for research[A]. In G. Kristiansen, M. Achard, R. Driven & F. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibanez(eds.). Cognitive Linguistics: Current Applications and Future Perspectives [C]. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Forceville, C. 2008. Metaphorsin pictures and multimodal representations [A].In R.W.Gibbs,Jr(ed.). The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought [C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Forceville, C. & E. Urios-Aparisi. 2009. Multimodal Metaphor [M]. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Gavins, J. & G. Steen.(eds.). 2003. Cognitive Poetics in Practice[C]. London and New York: Routledge.
Gibbons, A. 2012. Multimodality,Cognition,and Experimental Literature [M]. London: Routledge.
Jewitt,C. 2009. Different approaches to multimodality [A]. In C.Jewitt(ed.). The Routledge Handbook to Multimodal Analysis [C]. London: Routledge.
Halliday, M.A.K & R. Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in English [M]. London & New York: Routledge.
Kress, G & T. van Leeuwen.1996. Reading Images [M]. London: Routledge.
Stockwell, P. 2002. Cognitive Poetics [M]. London & New York: Routledge.
Verdonk, P. 2005. Painting,poetry, parallelism: Ekphrasis, stylistics and cognitive poetics [J].Language and Literature 14(3): 231-244.
Widdowson, H.G. 1992. Practical Stylistics [M].上海:上海外语教育出版社.
黄国文.1987.语篇分析概要 [M].长沙:湖南教育出版社.
李荣启. 2005.文学语言学 [M]. 北京:人民出版社.
Stockwell、马菊玲. 2012.文学认知研究的精妙科学 [J].外国语文(6): 2.
王佐良、丁往道.1987.英语文体学引论 [M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社.
熊沐清. 2012.“从解释到发现”的认知诗学分析方法 [J].外语教学与研究(3): 448-458.

[1]	高岩杰, 丁艺, 蒋跃. 英语政治访谈文本中情态量值的人际意义[J]. 当代外语研究, 2020, 450(6): 50-58.
[2]	陈冬纯, 陈燕霞. 立体式营销广告的多模态语篇模式建构[J]. 当代外语研究, 2020, 449(5): 67-76.
[3]	瞿桃. 语言语篇与多模态语篇中的互动对比——以《傲慢与偏见》为例[J]. 当代外语研究, 2015, 15(09): 14-19.
[4]	雷茜, 张德禄. 格林海姆·洛雷拼贴小说《女性世界》两版封面的多模态文体对比研究[J]. 当代外语研究, 2015, 15(09): 20-25.
[5]	刘睿, 张德禄. 中国大学生外语多元读写能力评估框架探索[J]. 当代外语研究, 2015, 15(09): 26-31.
[6]	张立英. 一个事件,三个文本,三种视角——对六人审判事件三个文本的系统功能视角分析[J]. 当代外语研究, 2013, 13(11): 60-64.
[7]	柴同文. 英语的there be构式及其隐喻系统——基于SFG及物性新模式的专题研究[J]. 当代外语研究, 2013, 13(11): 15-20.
[8]	张敬源;贾培培;. 关于视觉语法的几点思考[J]. 当代外语研究, 2012, 12(03): 38-42+160.
[9]	胡加圣;柴改英;. 多模态小品的功能间性[J]. 当代外语研究, 2012, 12(03): 69-70+72.
[10]	任绍曾;. 质疑辩惑,探索求真[J]. 当代外语研究, 2011, 11(06): 1-8.

从“描述”到“解释”——多模态语篇的系统功能符号学分析法与认知诗学分析法比较

From DESCRIBING to INTERPRETING: On the Two Approaches for MTA—A Comparative Study of MTA with the Systemic functional Semiotic Approach or Cognitive Poetics

PDF (PC)

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

参考文献

相关文章 10

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价