As the description of the relational clause, the Token-Value configuration is mainly defined in a semantic sense, based on the human understanding of the world experience. This paper, based on the analysis of the specific linguistic facts, finds out that different syntactic explanation of the clause may result from the different organization among the Token-Value configuration, the Identified-Identifier structure and the Information structure by means of a case study of the difference between the two identifying clauses “shui shi NP?” and “NP shi shui?”. Meanwhile, the Token-Value configuration, as the syntactic organization of semantic representation, expresses the semantic relations such as presupposition and implicature. This study indicates the probability of the employment of this configuration in the analysis of relational clauses, and sheds some light on the essence of relational clauses as well as the representational function of the language.
WANG Yao, LI Jingna
. A Functional-syntactic Analysis of the Token-value Configuration: A Case Study of “shui shi NP?” and “NP shi shui?”[J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2014
, 14(03)
: 15
-19
.
DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1674-8921.2014.03.004
Bloor, T. & M. Bloor. 1995. The Functional Analysis of English: A Hallidayan Approach [M]. London: Edward Arnold.
Davidse, K. 1992. A semiotic approach to relational clauses [J]. Occasional Papers in Systemic Linguistics (6): 99-131.
Davidse, K. 1996. Turning grammar on itself: Identifying clauses in linguistic discourse [A]. In M. Berry, C. Butler, R. Fawcett & G. Huang (eds.). Meaning and Form: Systemic Functional Interpretations [C]. Norwood: Ablex. 367-93.
Fawcett, R. 1987. The semantics of clause and verb for relational processes in English [A]. In M. A. K. Halliday & R. Fawcett (eds.). New Developments in Systemic Linguistics, Volume 1: Theory and Description [C]. London: Frances Pinter. 130-83.
Halliday, M. A. K. 1967. Notes on transitivity and theme in English: Part 1 [J]. Journal of Linguistics (3): 37-81.
Halliday, M. A. K. 1994. An Introduction to Functional Grammar (2nd ed.) [M]. London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K & C. Matthiessen. 2004. An Introduction to Functional Grammar (3rd ed.) [M]. London: Edward Arnold.
Matthiessen, C.M.I.M. 1991. Language on language: The grammar of semiosis [J]. Social Semiotics (12): 69-111.
Thompson, G. 1996. Introducing Functional Grammar [M]. London: Edward Arnold.
程晓堂.2002.关于及物性系统中关系过程的两点存疑[J].现代外语(3):311-17.
何恒幸.2007.系统功能语法中英语认同型小句的构建理据[J].外语学刊(3):60-64.
何伟.2002.英语识别小句中的“标记-价值”配置结构之研究[J].解放军外国语学院学报(1):5-9.
何中清.2009.英语关系过程分类中的两个存疑[J].北京科技大学学报(社会科学版)(4):117-24.
胡壮麟.2008.《功能语法导论》导读[A].In M. A. K. Halliday & C. Matthiessen. An Introduction to Functional Grammar (3rd ed.) [M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社.ⅵ-ⅹⅹⅴ.
黄国文.2000.《功能语法入门》导读[A]. In G. Thompson. Introducing Functional Grammar [M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社.F13-48.
杉村博文.2002.论现代汉语特指疑问判断句[J].中国语文(1):14-21.
吕叔湘.1984.“谁是张老三?”=“张老三是谁?”[J].中国语文(4):305.
袁鑫.2004.论英语识别小句中的标记-价值关系的双向性[J].天津外国语学院学报(6):56-59.
王遥、李景娜.2007.英语认同型关系小句中价值/标示结构分析[J].忻州师范学院学报(2):69-72.
张和友.2003.“标示-价值”和“被认同者-认同者”及汉语语法研究二三例[J].外语与外语教学(2):40-43,53.
张璘.2007.英语识别型小句中标记和价值划分的理据及其他[J].江苏大学学报(社会科学版)(6):73-76.
