论文部分内容阅读
【Abstract】The paper focuses on the explanatory power of context in explanaing discourse cohernce. Firstly， previous researches on discourse coherence are reviewed， since context is an indispensable factor in the analysis of discourse coherence， it gives a classification of context and analyses the role of three kinds of context in interpreting discourse coherence.
【Key words】discourse coherence； context； linguistic context； context of culture； context of situation
1. Previous Researches on Discourse Coherence
Coherence is a major property of discourse. Coherence from different perspectives has been discussed by almost all linguistic analysts. However， up to present， there has not been an overall agreement as for how to identify coherence and even what it means for a discourse to be coherent. The following section will present a general review about major theories on discourse coherence research.
1.1 Van Dijk’s Macrostructure Theory
In Text and Context， van Dijk （1977：95） holds that “discourse coherence is registered as two levels of coherence： ‘linear or sequential coherence’， and ‘the global or overall coherence’， i.e.， macrostructures.”
1.2 Widdowson’s Illocutionary Act Theory
Widdowson（1978） believes that coherence is a relationship between illocutionary acts in which propositions， not always overtly linked， are being used to perform. He further explains： “In the case of coherence， we infer the covert propositional connections from an interpretation of the illocutionary acts.”（ibid： 389）
1.3 Brown and Yule’s Psychological Framework Theory
Brown and Yule’s psychological framework theory is a good supplement to the above theories. During this theory， they put forward the idea that social and cultural background knowledge has a dominant role in the interpretation of discourse coherence. Brown and Yule say： “the more the analyst knows about the features of context， the more likely he is able to predict what is likely to be said，” （1983：40） and thus the more coherent the discourse will be.
Since context plays a significant function in interpreting discourse coherence， it is necessary to discuss context in the interpretation of discourse coherence， which will be the focus of the next section.
2. Classification of Context and Coherence
Language activities are all occurred in certain circumstances， i.e.， contexts. Therefore， it is necessary to have some knowledge of context in which information is conveyed. Only in this way can some instances of discourse be considered as coherent ones regardless of the fact that they lack in cohesive devices. Professor Hu Zhuanglin holds that context includes three categories， that is， linguistic context or co-text， context of situation and context of culture. These three categories of contexts can help the participants perceive the intention of the communication and understand the real meaning of the discourse so as to keep the discourse coherent. The following section will give a detailed description of the explanatory power of these three categories of contexts to discourse coherence.
2.1 Linguistic Context and Coherence
Linguistic context （which can also be called co-text or environment） refers to the previous discourse coordinate with the following discourse. It is the internal environment of discourse. In an utterance or a sentence， linguistic context could be the sounds， words， phrases or clauses occurring before another sound， word ， phrase or clause； in a discourse （literary or non-literary）， it could be the words， sentences or utterances， paragraphs or chapters， etc. Written discourses usually depend on co-text. The following example is a typical example of co-text.
[1] The boy rushed into the house when he saw a singing woman， distance away， coming along the street. One minute later， he came out with some changes in his hand. The boy was very happy with the candy.
After reading the first sentence， the reader will not have a clear understanding of the relationship between ‘the boy’ and ‘the woman’. The reader will make several presumptions about their relationship. After the reader has read the second sentence， the relationship between ‘the boy’ and ‘the woman’ became a little clearer. After reading the last sentence， their relationship is clear at a glance and the coherence of this discourse is realized. As a matter of fact， the woman is a peddler who sells candy； the boy is the one who buys candy in using his changes. Thus it can be seen that by virtue of co-text readers can better understand writers’ intentions and interpret discourses as coherent ones.
2.2 Context of Culture and Coherence
Context of culture is a term originally coined by Malinowski， an anthropologist， to describe the institutional and ideological background knowledge shared by participants in the communicative events. Language is a social phenomenon and a reflection of social activity. Each speech community has its own history， culture， customs， thinking mode， ethic idea and values. The above factors which reflect the characteristics of specific community constitute the context of culture. The context of culture on which a person is dependent will directly influence the utterances he will speak and his understanding or interpretation towards the utterances made by the other side. If the utterances spoken by the other party conform to his thinking mode and way of speaking， this person will naturally interpret the utterances as coherent discourses and give them positive evaluation. At the meantime， this situation can facilitate him to interpret the following utterances as coherent utterances. Otherwise， misunderstanding or interruption of communication will probably be brought about.
Restricted by context of culture， each speech community forms some relatively fixed communicative modes and discourses’ semantic structures in the long-term social communication. These fixed communicative modes can promote members of the speech community communicate with each other and they are also the result of long-term accumulation of these communicative meanings. Consider the following example：
[2] A： They quarrel again.
B： It takes two to tango.
There is no cohesive tie in example [2] at the superficial level of semantic relationship. People who do not have any idea of western culture will feel puzzled and to be at a loss when hearing this reply. This dialogue can not be interpreted as a coherent discourse from this perspective. The coherent interpretation of this discourse must rely on the context of culture. All people who are familiar with western culture know that it needs two to dance tango. Hence the implicature of this discourse can be figured out， that is： both men have made mistakes （i.e.， a palm cannot make a sound）. Thus， this discourse can be interpreted as a coherent discourse. It can be deduced from the analysis of the above example that context of culture plays a crucial role in understanding discourse coherence.
2.3 Context of Situation and Coherence
Context of situation， can， and should be defined in such a way that it subsumes everything in the co-text that bears upon the questions of cohesion， coherence and relevance. It is concerned with the immediate physical， spatial， temporal， environment in which discourses take place.
According to the theory of systemic-functional linguistics， context of situation is the practical representation of context of culture. It refers to the factors which dominate semantic selection in the concrete communicative events. Therefore， context of situation includes not only elements in the on-the-spot context such as topics， happenings， participants， communicative media and channel but also factors which are determined by social and cultural background， like standard of behavior， moral consciousness， etc. The section is intended to discuss how the elements of context of situation influence the process of producing and most importantly， interpreting discourse coherence. The example below can illustrate this point：
[3] A： Pekie refused again.
B： Oh， damn. Where are the gloves？
At first sight， it seems that this is not a coherent discourse. People even do not know what they are talking about. Pekie is actually a cat； he is sick and needs to make an injection. But he always refused to do so. Therefore， it is necessary to wear gloves so as to avoid being scratched. It is hard to interpret this discourse to be a coherent one if these factors embedded in context of situation are not known. Have a look at another example：
[4a] A： Hey， stop it， will you？ I can’t sleep.
B： What？ What？ What’s going on？
[4b] It is night， A and B are in bed， B is groaning， A sits up， gets out of bed， switches on the light， goes over to B and shakes him.
A： Hey， stop it， will you？ I can’t sleep.
B： What？ What？ What’s going on？
[4a] is less intelligible than [4b]， because the latter provides the context of situation， and it is these non-linguistic factors that help to make the latter discourse coherent.
Since discourses are communicative manners in certain situations， it is necessary to take context of situation into account in the process of analyzing discourses. Context of situation is the direct environment of discourse. From the perspective of context of situation， a discourse is coherent if this discourse performs proper functions in the context of situation. It means that the relationship between discourse and context of situation has been established. Under specific social and cultural background， context of situation determines coherence and appropriateness of discourses.
3. Summary
Pragmatically speaking， the decisive importance of context is that it allows language users to use their linguistic resources to the utmost， without having to spell out all the tedious details every time they use a particular construction.
In a word， context， as an important term in semantics and pragmatics， plays a vital role in the process of interpreting coherence in discourse. The coherence in discourse is the result of the interaction between utterances and context factors. All the three categories of contexts can help the participants perceive the intention of the communication and understand the real meaning of the discourse so as to keep the discourse coherent. It is generally accepted that some discourses which are not coherent superficially can be restored or derived as coherent discourses with the help of contextual information. In contrast， a certain coherent discourse may be mistaken for incoherent if the addressee lacks necessary contextual information and world knowledge.
References：
[1]Brown，G.
【Key words】discourse coherence； context； linguistic context； context of culture； context of situation
1. Previous Researches on Discourse Coherence
Coherence is a major property of discourse. Coherence from different perspectives has been discussed by almost all linguistic analysts. However， up to present， there has not been an overall agreement as for how to identify coherence and even what it means for a discourse to be coherent. The following section will present a general review about major theories on discourse coherence research.
1.1 Van Dijk’s Macrostructure Theory
In Text and Context， van Dijk （1977：95） holds that “discourse coherence is registered as two levels of coherence： ‘linear or sequential coherence’， and ‘the global or overall coherence’， i.e.， macrostructures.”
1.2 Widdowson’s Illocutionary Act Theory
Widdowson（1978） believes that coherence is a relationship between illocutionary acts in which propositions， not always overtly linked， are being used to perform. He further explains： “In the case of coherence， we infer the covert propositional connections from an interpretation of the illocutionary acts.”（ibid： 389）
1.3 Brown and Yule’s Psychological Framework Theory
Brown and Yule’s psychological framework theory is a good supplement to the above theories. During this theory， they put forward the idea that social and cultural background knowledge has a dominant role in the interpretation of discourse coherence. Brown and Yule say： “the more the analyst knows about the features of context， the more likely he is able to predict what is likely to be said，” （1983：40） and thus the more coherent the discourse will be.
Since context plays a significant function in interpreting discourse coherence， it is necessary to discuss context in the interpretation of discourse coherence， which will be the focus of the next section.
2. Classification of Context and Coherence
Language activities are all occurred in certain circumstances， i.e.， contexts. Therefore， it is necessary to have some knowledge of context in which information is conveyed. Only in this way can some instances of discourse be considered as coherent ones regardless of the fact that they lack in cohesive devices. Professor Hu Zhuanglin holds that context includes three categories， that is， linguistic context or co-text， context of situation and context of culture. These three categories of contexts can help the participants perceive the intention of the communication and understand the real meaning of the discourse so as to keep the discourse coherent. The following section will give a detailed description of the explanatory power of these three categories of contexts to discourse coherence.
2.1 Linguistic Context and Coherence
Linguistic context （which can also be called co-text or environment） refers to the previous discourse coordinate with the following discourse. It is the internal environment of discourse. In an utterance or a sentence， linguistic context could be the sounds， words， phrases or clauses occurring before another sound， word ， phrase or clause； in a discourse （literary or non-literary）， it could be the words， sentences or utterances， paragraphs or chapters， etc. Written discourses usually depend on co-text. The following example is a typical example of co-text.
[1] The boy rushed into the house when he saw a singing woman， distance away， coming along the street. One minute later， he came out with some changes in his hand. The boy was very happy with the candy.
After reading the first sentence， the reader will not have a clear understanding of the relationship between ‘the boy’ and ‘the woman’. The reader will make several presumptions about their relationship. After the reader has read the second sentence， the relationship between ‘the boy’ and ‘the woman’ became a little clearer. After reading the last sentence， their relationship is clear at a glance and the coherence of this discourse is realized. As a matter of fact， the woman is a peddler who sells candy； the boy is the one who buys candy in using his changes. Thus it can be seen that by virtue of co-text readers can better understand writers’ intentions and interpret discourses as coherent ones.
2.2 Context of Culture and Coherence
Context of culture is a term originally coined by Malinowski， an anthropologist， to describe the institutional and ideological background knowledge shared by participants in the communicative events. Language is a social phenomenon and a reflection of social activity. Each speech community has its own history， culture， customs， thinking mode， ethic idea and values. The above factors which reflect the characteristics of specific community constitute the context of culture. The context of culture on which a person is dependent will directly influence the utterances he will speak and his understanding or interpretation towards the utterances made by the other side. If the utterances spoken by the other party conform to his thinking mode and way of speaking， this person will naturally interpret the utterances as coherent discourses and give them positive evaluation. At the meantime， this situation can facilitate him to interpret the following utterances as coherent utterances. Otherwise， misunderstanding or interruption of communication will probably be brought about.
Restricted by context of culture， each speech community forms some relatively fixed communicative modes and discourses’ semantic structures in the long-term social communication. These fixed communicative modes can promote members of the speech community communicate with each other and they are also the result of long-term accumulation of these communicative meanings. Consider the following example：
[2] A： They quarrel again.
B： It takes two to tango.
There is no cohesive tie in example [2] at the superficial level of semantic relationship. People who do not have any idea of western culture will feel puzzled and to be at a loss when hearing this reply. This dialogue can not be interpreted as a coherent discourse from this perspective. The coherent interpretation of this discourse must rely on the context of culture. All people who are familiar with western culture know that it needs two to dance tango. Hence the implicature of this discourse can be figured out， that is： both men have made mistakes （i.e.， a palm cannot make a sound）. Thus， this discourse can be interpreted as a coherent discourse. It can be deduced from the analysis of the above example that context of culture plays a crucial role in understanding discourse coherence.
2.3 Context of Situation and Coherence
Context of situation， can， and should be defined in such a way that it subsumes everything in the co-text that bears upon the questions of cohesion， coherence and relevance. It is concerned with the immediate physical， spatial， temporal， environment in which discourses take place.
According to the theory of systemic-functional linguistics， context of situation is the practical representation of context of culture. It refers to the factors which dominate semantic selection in the concrete communicative events. Therefore， context of situation includes not only elements in the on-the-spot context such as topics， happenings， participants， communicative media and channel but also factors which are determined by social and cultural background， like standard of behavior， moral consciousness， etc. The section is intended to discuss how the elements of context of situation influence the process of producing and most importantly， interpreting discourse coherence. The example below can illustrate this point：
[3] A： Pekie refused again.
B： Oh， damn. Where are the gloves？
At first sight， it seems that this is not a coherent discourse. People even do not know what they are talking about. Pekie is actually a cat； he is sick and needs to make an injection. But he always refused to do so. Therefore， it is necessary to wear gloves so as to avoid being scratched. It is hard to interpret this discourse to be a coherent one if these factors embedded in context of situation are not known. Have a look at another example：
[4a] A： Hey， stop it， will you？ I can’t sleep.
B： What？ What？ What’s going on？
[4b] It is night， A and B are in bed， B is groaning， A sits up， gets out of bed， switches on the light， goes over to B and shakes him.
A： Hey， stop it， will you？ I can’t sleep.
B： What？ What？ What’s going on？
[4a] is less intelligible than [4b]， because the latter provides the context of situation， and it is these non-linguistic factors that help to make the latter discourse coherent.
Since discourses are communicative manners in certain situations， it is necessary to take context of situation into account in the process of analyzing discourses. Context of situation is the direct environment of discourse. From the perspective of context of situation， a discourse is coherent if this discourse performs proper functions in the context of situation. It means that the relationship between discourse and context of situation has been established. Under specific social and cultural background， context of situation determines coherence and appropriateness of discourses.
3. Summary
Pragmatically speaking， the decisive importance of context is that it allows language users to use their linguistic resources to the utmost， without having to spell out all the tedious details every time they use a particular construction.
In a word， context， as an important term in semantics and pragmatics， plays a vital role in the process of interpreting coherence in discourse. The coherence in discourse is the result of the interaction between utterances and context factors. All the three categories of contexts can help the participants perceive the intention of the communication and understand the real meaning of the discourse so as to keep the discourse coherent. It is generally accepted that some discourses which are not coherent superficially can be restored or derived as coherent discourses with the help of contextual information. In contrast， a certain coherent discourse may be mistaken for incoherent if the addressee lacks necessary contextual information and world knowledge.
References：
[1]Brown，G.