Comparative Studies On Stylistic Functional Load Of Componential Cohesive Devices

Cohesion was first put forward by Halliday&Hasan in 1976, for quite a long time, many debates have been aroused among scholars about this theory and some researchers have found there are many differences between English and Chinese in the cohesive devices. However, most of the researches mainly focus on texts in general and few have touched the influence of style upon cohesion despite some study within one language. See Halliday&Hasan(1976/1990), Leech(1981), Zhang Delu, etc.However, if style can influence cohesive devices, does it work in the same way between English and Chinese? This thesis, by means of corpora approach, combines computer statistics with artificial analysis together to make a contrast of stylistic functional load of componential cohesive devices, more specifically, to make certain if cohesion, as a part of stylistic potential could all become stylistic features without any exceptions in both languages.The contents of this paper include three aspects:A: Through comparison of different language resources, the author tries to find out the similarities and differences between English and Chinese in stylistic functional load of componential cohesive devices;B: From the angle of Hallidayan Systematic Functional Stylistics approach, the reasons of differences which exist in the two language systems are analyzed;C: One of the important purposes of comparative study is to guide language communication. Based on the conclusion of my studies, the paper at last discusses the application of cohesive devices in translation practice.The theoretical foundation of the thesis is systematic functional stylistics of Halliday.The paper is composed of six chapters: Chapter1 is a brief introduction to the ready-made studies on the stylistic functional load of cohesion between English and Chinese as well as the origin, necessity and significance, objectives of the study and the organization of the thesis. Chapter2 is about the theory of cohesion and coherence, especially componential cohesive devices. In Chapter3 the terms of style and functional stylistics are carefully studied. Chapter4 introduces the methodology of this paper. In Chapter5 the results of our comparative study are listed and analyzed. The last chapter focuses on the enlightenment the study brings on translation, suggestions for further research and its limitations as well.This paper comes to the following conclusions:A: Generally speaking, style does influence the choice of componential cohesive devices more or less no matter in Chinese or English, that is to say, most of componential cohesive devices do serve as prominent stylistic features according to Hallidayan functional stylistics.B: There would be more personal reference, demonstrative reference and less nominal substitution and lexical repetition in English texts than in Chinese texts.C: Personal reference and nominal substitution are stylistic features, thus can bring about motivated prominence in both English and Chinese texts. Besides, lexical cohesion is not the distinguishable stylistic feature neither in Chinese nor in English as prominence can not be found.D: Demonstrative reference can carry some stylistic load in Chinese, but it fails to carry such load in English.E: In both English and Chinese, narration and argumentation tend to use more personal reference. Description employs the most demonstrative pronouns while exposition uses the least reference. Relatively speaking, it is also description that employs more lexical repetition. In addition, less nominal substitution can be found in argumentation and exposition than in narration and description.F: Comparatively speaking, English writers tend to use more personal references in argumentation and description, more nominal substitution in narration; Chinese writers have the tendency to use fewer demonstrative references in exposition, more nominal substitution in description.