语言学研究

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

展开
  • 惠州学院,惠州,516007
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

网络出版日期: 2020-07-25

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

Expand

Online published: 2020-07-25

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。

本文引用格式

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 . DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1674-8921.2016.06.004

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.

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.
文章导航

/