元话语的分类

2元话语的分类由于对元话语的性质和功能的认识差异,对元话语的分类也存在不同。迄今为止,元话语已有几种不同的分类体系(参Williams,1981;Lautamatti,1978;Vande,1985;Crismore,1989;Crismoreetal,1993;Hyland,1998,2005)。本研究将会主要讨论三种分法:Kopple（1985）、Crismoreetal（1993）以及Hyland（2004）。VandeKopple(1985)基于Lautamatti和Williams对元话语的研究,概括了7种元话语并将其分为语篇元话语和人际元话语两大类型。其中,语篇元话语指的是在语篇中连接语篇各层次的主要成分,组词成篇的词和短语。人际元话语主要是体现作者和读者关系的词和短语,见表1。表1VandeKopple的元话语分类CategoryFunctionExamplesTextualmetadiscourseTextconnectivesShowhowpartsofatextareconnectedtooneanothersequencers(first,next),reminders(asImentionedinChapter2),topicalizers(withregardto)CodeglossesHelpreadersgraspthewriter’sintendedmeaningmean,suchasValiditymarkersExpressthewriter’scommitmenttoastatementhedges(perhaps,might),emphatics(undoubtedly)，attributors(accordingto)NarratorsInformreadersofthesourceofinformationaccordingtoSmith,InterpersonalmetadiscourseIllocutionmarkersMakethediscourseactexplicitatcertainpointtoconclude,Ihypothesize,tosumup,wepredictAttitudemarkersExpressthewriter’sattitudesunfortunately,interestingly,IwishthatCommentariesaddressreadersdirectly,drawingthemintoanimplicitdialogueyouwillcertainlyagreethat,youmightwanttoreadthethirdchapterfirst不难看出,VandeKopple的分类存在问题,如,同样是“accordingto”,既属于归属语又属于叙说词。Oneprobleminidentifyingmetadiscourseisitsmultifunctionality,thatis,thefunctionsarenotperformedinisolationandonemetadiscoursemayachieveseveralpurposessimultaneously.Therefore,inordertosolvethisproblem,Crismore,Markkanen,andSteffensen(1993)intheirclassificationtrytouseafunctionalanalysis:metadiscourseisdefinedaccordingtoitsprimaryfunctioninthecontext.Crismoreetal(1993）在VandeKopple(1985)的分类基础上,也将元话语分为两大类:语篇元话语和人际元话语。Crismoreetal的分类中去掉了叙说词一项,将逻辑连接词、序列词、提醒词和主题词概括为语篇标记语,同时将语码注释词和施事标记词纳入解释标记语。语篇标记语和解释标记语这一全新分法说明了元话语的语篇功能:语篇标记语帮助组织语篇,解释标记语帮助读者解释和更好地理解作者的意图及写作策略。Forinterpersonalmetadiscourse,validitymarkers,whichisasubcategoryoftextualmetadiscourse,isnowundertheclassificationofinterpersonalmetadiscourseandthreeseparatesubcategories---hedges,certaintymarkers，andattributorsareincluded.Attributorsarecombinedwithnarratorsbecausebothareusedtoinformthereadersofthesourceofideas.见表2不过,Crismoreetal的这一分法也存在一些问题,如,将语篇元话语分为语篇标记语和解释标记语的依据不明确,另外,用来指称语篇前部分所提内容的提醒词属于语篇标记语,而用于指称语篇后部分所提内容的宣告词却又属于解释标记语,这似乎有点牵强附会。CategoryFunctionExamplesTextualmetadiscourseTextualMarkersLogicalConnectiveswenotedearlierHelpshowconnectionsbetweenideasand,but,thereforeSequencersHelpshowsequenceofmaterialfirst,secondRemindersRefertoearliertextmaterialAswesawinChapter1TopicalizersIndicatetopicshiftoranewtopicWell;nowIwilldiscuss,inregardtoInterpretiveMarkersCodeGlossesExplaintextmaterialWhatImeanis,thatis,forexampleIllocutionMarkersNametheactperformedToconclude;insum;IpredictAnnouncementsAnnouncingupcomingmaterialInthenextsectionInterpersonalmetadiscourseHedgesShowlackofcommitmenttothetruth-valueofpropositionmay,mightCertaintyMarkersShowfullcommitmenttoIabsolutelysureIknowthetruth-valueofpropositionAttributorsRefertoauthoritiesusedforpersuasiveforceEinsteinclaimedthatAttitudeMarkersExpresswriter’saffectivevaluesIagree,unfortunatelyCommentaryBuildwriter-readerrelationshipsMyfriend,youmaynotagreethatHyland(2004)认为,将元话语分为语篇元话语和人际元话语不太确切,应将元话语分为指引读者读完整个语篇的交互式元话语和帮助读者掌握论点的互动式元话。其中,交互式元话语涉及作者对读者的意识,以及作者对读者的知识、兴趣、修辞期望和语篇处理能力的调解,它反映了作者组织语篇的方法,在一定程度上体现出作者在创作语篇的过程中考虑到了读者的需求。而互动式元话语是作者通过入侵语篇和对语篇信息加以评论来引领互动展开交际的方法,它在一定程度上体现了语篇是由作者和读者一起构建的。关于Hyland的分类模式，本文将会在theoreticalbasis里详细解释。CategoryFunctionExamplesInteractivemetadiscourseHelptoguidethereaderthroughthetextTransitionsexpressrelationsbetweenmainclauseinaddition;but;thus;andFramemarkersrefertodiscourseacts,sequencesorstagesfinally;toconclude;mypurposeisEndophoricmarkersrefertoinformationinotherpartsofthetextnotedabove;seeFig;insection2EvidentialsrefertoinformationinotherpartsofthetextaccordingtoX;ZstatesCodeglosseselaboratepropositionalmeaningsnamely;e.g.;suchas;inotherwordsInteractionalmetadiscourseInvolvethereaderinthetextHedgeswithholdcommitmentandopendialoguemight;perhaps;possible;aboutBoostersemphasizecertaintyorclosedialogueinfact;definitely;itisclearthatAttitudemarkersexpresswriter’sattitudetopropositionunfortunately;Iagree;surprisinglySelfmentionsexplicitreferencetoauthor(s)I;we;my;me;ourEngagementmarkersexplicitlybuildrelationshipwithreaderconsider;note;youcanseethatClass2metadiscourseRecognizingthedifferencesinthenatureandfunctionofmetadiscourse,thediscourseofthedollarclassificationarealsodifferent.Todate,thereareseveraldifferentmetadiscourseclassificationsystem(seeWilliams,1981;Lautamatti,1978;Vande,1985;Crismore,1989;Crismoreetal,1993;Hyland,1998,2005).XuJiujiu(2006)summarizefindingsanddiscusstheclassificationofmetadiscoursemainlyinvocabularyclasses.Fromthecurrentresearchpointofview,therearethreemainpointsoflaw:chapterKopple(1988)proposedandinterpersonalmetadiscourse,HylandandTse(2004)proposedaguidedandinteractivemetadiscourse,andIfantidou(2005)proposedinternaldiscourseandExternalchaptermetadiscourse.ThefirstclassificationismadeVande(1985)made,heputmetadiscoursedividedintotwocategories:Textmetadiscoursemeansconnectingthemaincomponen