| This thesis explores engaging principles of language users. The theoretical foundations are chiefly the APPRAISAL Systems within the paradigm of the systemic functional linguistics. The qualitative method is taken for this research. On the basis of data analysis, I have found that language users regularly engage to evaluate other people, events, happenings, and objects etc. within the interactional model of "addresser + medium + addressee". Martin mentions the system of ENGAGEMENT in his framework of APPRAISAL Systems, yet he doesn't spend much ink on the principles of ENGAGEMENT. This thesis makes great efforts in setting up the model of ENGAGEMENT to investigate language users'engaging manners. ENGAGEMENT in this thesis refers to the language users'adjustment of what they say or write. The framework of ENGAGEMENT includes three systems: "the first voice", "the second voice", and "the third voice"(hereafter 3V). These 3Vs are the general principles of human beings'linguistic engagement. Chapter 1, Introduction, states that the human society is an interactional society within the model of addresser + medium + addressee. The concept of interaction covers three types: overt, covert, and pro-covert. Interaction is closely related to the functions of language, especially transactional and interactional functions. The former refers to that language can be used to transfer "content"such as knowledge and message. The latter refers to that language can be used to socialize, and to express emotion and attitude. Interaction is accompanied with engagement. Engagement can be realized via "preface", projection, mood, and rhetoric techniques. This chapter also points out the objectives of this thesis: the generation of meanings and their influence on engagement, the bases for engagement, and the tactics of engagement. Chapter 2 talks about the theoretic foundations, which are chiefly Halliday's FG grammar and Martin's APPRAISAL Systems. Halliday's notion of "meaning potential", which is based on Benstein's "behavior potential", is discussed in detail. Halliday's approach to discourse analysis is also talked about. What is also discussed in detail is Martin's framework of APPRAISAL Systems, which includes the systems of ATTITUDE, ENGAGEMENT, and AMPLIFICATION. The framework of appraisal is the thematic starting point for the thesis, and Halliday's functional ideas are the methodological guidance. Chapter 3, Meaning and Approaches, points out that mono-meaning attitude towards linguistic research is risky. The reason is that language meaning is not merely linguistic meaning. It also includes meaning from the speaker/writer as well as meaning from interpretation. On the basis of this, I put forward a tripartite model of meaning strands: i.e., linguistic meaning, meaning from use, and meaning from interpretation. Linguistic meaning is the common-core meaning. It is the basis for the other two strands. The strands of meaning from use and meaning from interpretation add to linguistic meaning. Halliday's "Silver"text is revisited in this chapter by using Martin's APPRAISAL Systems. And then ideas of angles of interpretation from Derrida and Gadamer as well as Birch are applied to the analysis of Halliday's example John taught the students English. This chapter concludes that these three strands of meaning are the semantic basis for ENGAGEMENT. In Chapter 4, the three bases for ENGAGEMENT are developed. They are the psychological basis, the sociological basis, and the semantic basis. The psychological basis focuses on the concept of prioritization in the terms of emotion. Prioritization, a cognitive process, determines the degree of affection, and in turn determines the degree of engagement, which is graded into high, median and low. A tripartite model of context is set up in the course of discussing the sociological basis. This context model contains the context of situation, the social context and the cultural context. This model has some differences from that of Halliday, though they share some similarities. The context of situation in our model refers to chiefly people, matters, things, location, time, and causes. The social context refers to social status and social power. And the cultural context refers to the ethic norms and values. In the discussion of the semantic basis, the concept of "discourse potential"is established. Discourse potential is different from Halliday's meaning potential in that discourse potential refers to discourse which has the three strands of meaning mentioned in Chapter 3, that is, linguistic meaning, meaning from use, and meaning from interpretation. In Chapter 5, the framework of ENGAGEMENT is established. The framework is established on the three bases mentioned in Chapter 4. It consists of the 3Vs. The first voice is the voice that projects the speaker/writer's own ideas or thoughts without reporting, quoting, or reflecting other people's ideas or thoughts, for the purpose of thespeaker/writer's engagement. The second voice is the voice that projects sourcible ideas from other people by reporting or quoting in/directly. The third voice is the voice that projects non-sourcible ideas from other sources by the speaker/writer's implicit reporting or quoting. The 3Vs are the linguistic engaging principles of human beings as well as the resources for them to choose in the process of linguistic interaction. When a language user engages by employing the first voice, what he projects are his own evaluation of other people, events, happenings, and objects. The second voice and the third voice are used to justify the language user's own attitude towards other people, events, happenings, and objects. These three systems are compatible as well as complementary. In other words, an utterance sometimes may contain one voice only, and sometimes may contain two of the voices, or all the three. The employment of multiple voices indicates that the language user is affected to a great extent so that he adjusts his attitude frequently. This framework is different from the Engagement system in Martin's appraisal, which consists of monogloss and heterogloss. Martin sub-systemizes heterogloss into projection, modality and concession. I hold that the 3Vs are the result of projection, and the resources for the realization of these 3Vs are "prefacing"and "hedging". Prefacing is sub-systemized into conditionals and concessions. And hedging is sub-systemized into modality and quality lexis. This framework offers more room for critical discourse analysis. In Chapter 6, I conclude that I have explored the three objectives, which are the generation of meanings and their influence on engagement, the bases for engagement, and the tactics of engagement. Yet I haven't explored the lexical hedging for ENGAGEMENT, nor have I expanded the third voice convincingly enough. And thirdly, I haven't been able to do a substantial 3Vs analysis of any complete whole text. I'll hold these as my future academic efforts.
|
PDF Full Text Request