Systemic Functional Approach And Cognitive Approach To Discourse Analysis: A Comparative Study

Since its emergence over 50 years ago, discourse analysis has developed into a new branch of linguistics and an interdisciplinary subject. Its multidisciplinary feature decides it to be an interdisciplinary activity involving sociolinguistics, psycholinguistics, philosophical linguistics and so on. This thesis focuses on systemic-functional and cognitive approaches towards this subject. During the analyzing process, similarities and differences between the two approaches will be explored. Systemic Functional Grammar (SFG henceforth) is supposed to be born to analyze discourse, with a close relationship with discourse and the nature of elucidating it. Cognitive Grammar (CG henceforth) is set forth by Langacker and proposed to have an intrinsic and natural relationship with discourse (Langacker, 2001: 185). Though coming from different schools, SFG and CG both belong to functionalism and put emphasis on social and semantic functions, except that SFG focuses on natural language while CG on cognition. Therefore there is valuable space for examining them by making a comparative study. This thesis will make a detailed analysis and comparison of SFG and CG in respect of discourse and try to draw out the major similarities and discrepancies between them either on theoretical ideas or on practical applications. Before the comparison, a brief introduction is presented in the first chapter, involving background, purpose, and significance of the thesis. In the succeeding chapter, besides an overview of the previous studies, clarifications of such concepts as discourse and text, discourse analysis and textlinguistics, grammar and linguistics, and functionalism and cognitivism are made. Here in this thesis discourse serves as a general term for the coverage of both written and spoken language resources and for clarification of textual function in SFG only for the sake of convenience.In Chapter Three, which is the main body, detailed comparisons are presented. First, two grammars are compared according to orientation from theoretical bases to developing tracks. Second, linguistic units and methods of analysis are discussed in detail. Then comes the main comparison between them from the aspects of theoretical frameworks and basic principles. Since discourse is a major concern of systemic functional study, SFG is mature enough for analyzing any type of discourses, and until now the evaluation system has been further explored. In contrast to the clear stratification and elaborateness of SFG towards discourse analysis, CG does not have so clear definitions and conceptualizations, which are rather extensive and therefore further detailed jobs need to be carried out on specific layers of discourse. Researches on and below the sentential level in CG are relatively highly developed while discourse analysis has been focused on only in recent years. In the following part, coherence and metaphors are especially picked out. The next part makes specific analyses on excerpt examples from views of both approaches, which may provide an intuitionistic eyesight towards them. After the sample analysis, the advantages and practical applications as well as the inadequacies and new trends of the two approaches are further explored.Chapter Four is concerned with compatibility and counterbalance of the two approaches. There are cognitive considerations in SFG and functional orientations in CG, which bring about infiltration and confluence between these two approaches.In the last chapter, an overview of this study with its findings and inadequacies that calls for further studies will be given. Generally speaking, both grammars emphasize the role played by human beings. Man in the society acts as a tie connecting both grammars, which differs in that SFG emphasizes participants' role as a social man and CG focuses on the psychological aspects of the participants. We can say that the former puts more value on interorganism while the latter on intraorganism. Despite the discrepancies, there is a tendency for both grammars to be enriched and perfected from absorbing nutrition from each other, as well as help other trends of linguistics come into being. Moreover, such comparative study provides both functionalists and cognitivists with new views to be investigated into.