试论近代历史语篇的语言变化
|
摘要
16世纪开始,自然科学对英国社会带来影响。科学思维模式不仅左右人的言行,而且对语篇也产生作用。近代英国历史语篇因为受到科学思想的影响经历了从16世纪的编年体叙事体裁向19世纪和20世纪宏大叙述体解释体裁的转变。历史语篇的作者群从非专业的编年体历史学家到19世纪和20世纪大学范围内的专业历史学家的转变。历史语篇的内容也相应发生变化,从单一叙述政治军事到涵盖社会生活的各个方面。伴随着体裁、作者群体和内容的转变,历史语篇的词汇语法也产生了显著的变化。相对于16世纪的历史语篇,19世纪和20世纪的历史语篇出现了近代科学和学术语篇的某些特征,历史语篇在它演变过程中向着科学和学术语篇的方向靠拢。
历史学家从历史方法、思想、学科、体裁、作者身份和内容的角度探讨了近代历史学受到科学思潮的影响出现的变化。他们的研究表明近代历史学在19世纪成为一门专业学科。笔者认为正是因为历史学的这些科学变化使得19世纪的历史语篇在词汇语法方面产生了变化。词汇语法的变化使得19世纪的历史语篇比起16世纪的历史语篇更具有抽象性、概括性、技术性、解释性、推理性、准确性和客观性等。
修辞学家注重研究历史语篇叙述模式的结构和演变,研究某些历史作品的整体写作风格和具体修辞格的表现和功能。他们认为历史语篇的叙述形式是历史学家表现过去不可缺少的手段,历史学家通过叙述形式把历史证据和自己的分析解释结合在一起。他们指出历史语篇是历史学家运用修辞策略的产物。他们分析到西方历史叙述体经历了从中世纪年代纪到文艺复兴编年体到19世纪历史叙述体的转变,三者的差异体现在解释程度的多少上。
语料库语言学家从历时和语料的方法研究英语散文词汇语法的演变,他们的研究对象主要是医学、科学和法律语篇。他们发现从16世纪到20世纪,这些语篇的特征是叙述性减弱、信息性和客观性增加。系统功能语言学家研究了学校历史语篇的语言特征,他们研究了历史语篇的体裁、及物性、语法隐喻、表示时间关系的词汇语法、表示因果关系的词汇语法、语气、情态和遁语。他们发现语法隐喻是历史学家在历史语篇里建立抽象性和技术性的重要语言资源。他们发现历史语篇主要通过物质和关系过程叙述和解释历史事件。历史学家试图通过减少情态的使用向读者展现一个客观的过去。他们也发现历史语篇里遁语的使用多少和历史学家对证据了解程度的多少有关。
本文试图从系统功能语言学角度,用定量和定性的方法对近代英国历史语篇因受到历史学科学化的影响而产生的语言变化进行对比分析。为了揭示近代历史语篇的语言变化,本文选择16世纪霍林西德的《英格兰、苏格兰和爱尔兰编年体》和19世纪伯利的《晚期罗马帝国史》作为对比研究的语料。编年体是16世纪历史写作的主要体裁,霍林西德是16世纪编年体历史学家的代表人物。19世纪出现了以大学为中心的专业史学,伯利是专业史学的代表人物,宏大历史叙述体的《晚期罗马帝国史》是伯利的代表作。
通过对具体人物和类别人物在霍林西德和伯利历史语篇当中的整体分布和在小句中作参与者的研究,本文发现语篇整体上霍林西德较多使用具体人物,而伯利较多使用类别人物,小句层面上霍林西德较多使用具体人物作参与者,而伯利较多使用类别人物作参与者。研究表明伯利历史语篇比霍林西德历史语篇更具有概括性。通过对非名词化语法隐喻的时间术语、制度性术语和符号性术语在霍林西德和伯利历史语篇当中的整体分布和在小句中作参与者的研究,本文发现语篇整体上伯利比霍林西德使用更多的时间术语、制度性术语和符号性术语。研究表明伯利历史语篇比霍林西德历史语篇更具有抽象性;伯利语篇的抽象性还表现在使用语法隐喻上。体现在大量使用名词化语法隐喻,使用名词化当中的动词派生名词,使用由名词化和动词化构成的抽象小句。伯利语篇抽象程度的提高还体现在对名词化、名词词组和抽象小句的还原问题上,正是因为高度的抽象性,名词化、名词词组和抽象小句的还原需要好几个步骤。高度的抽象性还造成了某些结构的无法还原。伯利语篇的技术性体现在大量使用名词化语法隐喻建立时间技术性术语和时间分类术语上。较高程度的概括性、抽象性和技术性使得伯利的历史语篇更加接近科学语篇。
通过对表示因果关系的词汇语法研究,发现霍林西德较多使用一致型式的词汇语法来解释历史。一致形式包括并列和从属连词。并列和因果连接词使得因果关系局限在时间框架里。因果连接词连接叙述两个包含具体历史事件的小句,小句的参与者往往是具体历史人物,解释的概括程度较低。
伯利较多使用隐喻形式的词汇语法来解释历史。隐喻形式的词汇语法有反真实条件句、外在和内在因果过程参与者、外在和内在因果过程、因果环境和因果环境关系过程。因果关系词汇语法从一致型向隐喻型的转变说明了伯利历史语篇中间因果关系摆脱时间关系的限制,成为语篇重要的组织手段。
使用反真实条件句是科学和学术语篇常用的表示作者对不同实验条件所产生可能结果的推测。伯利较多使用反真实条件句体现了他对历史事件因果关系解释性的推测。外在因果和内在因果是科学语篇经常使用的表示解释的词汇语法。外在因果过程参与者把原因和结果从因果连接词变成名词,使因果关系以实体的面貌出现,外在因果过程参与者可以成为抽象的事物之间的原因和结果。抽象的事物代替具人物,历史解释进而从具体走向抽象。外在因果过程把原因和结果从因果连接词变成动词,可以在抽象的事物之间建立因果关系。抽象的事物代替具体人物,历史解释进而从具体走向抽象。霍林西德历史语篇虽然也出现外在因果过程,但是过程前后的参与者是具体人物,显然解释程度不如伯利。内在因果过程参与者和内在因果过程体现了历史学家对历史证据和历史事实分析后得出的结论。只有在历史学科科学化之后,只有在历史写作建立在历史证据和历史事实基础上之后,内在因果过程参与者和内在因果过程的使用才会大量出现,伯利语篇大量出现内在因果过程参与者和内在因果过程体现了高度解释性。因果环境可以在抽象的原因和事件之间建立联系,提高了历史语篇的解释性。因果环境关系过程的使用主要出现在科学、地理和经济学等解释性质的语篇中间,伯利通过这个过程对抽象的历史事件进行解释。解释性的增强使得伯利的历史语篇更加接近科学语篇。
通过对情态和人称的词汇语法的研究,发现霍林西德语篇较多使用认识盖然性的情态动词、现象动词、外接小句和第一人称I和第二人称you。与之相反伯利的语篇更多使用认识必然性的情态动词、表示寻求表述准确和保护作者观点的情态附加语、名词化情态、研究型动词和第一人称we和祈使句。这些表示情态和人称的词汇语法的变化表明了近代历史学家情态立场的转变。主要有以下几方面的特征。比起霍林西德伯利对过去更加肯定,较多从演绎而非猜测得出结论,较多使用证据、分析、数据和事实而非外界观点证实命题和得出结论,伯利更加试图寻找历史事实的准确性的表述,同时使自己对历史事实的表述留有余地。虽然可以看到伯利比起霍林西德更加强调解释,但他试图以隐性的声音把解释传递给读者。这一切都反映了伯利语篇的情态和人称表达上向着科学语篇的方向靠拢,迎合了近代历史学科学化的趋势。
本文从功能语法角度对霍林西德和伯利的历史语篇进行了对比分析,揭示近代历史语篇受到历史学科学变化在词汇语法上产生的转变。19世纪历史学方法、历史学思想和历史学专业化更加接近自然科学的模式,对历史语篇的词汇语法产生了影响,19世纪的历史语篇通过语言的作用更具有抽象性、概括性、解释性,准确性和客观性。在词汇语法特征上更加接近科学语篇和学术语篇。
From the 16~(th) century the natural science has exerted its impacts upon the British society.The scientific mode of thinking not only influences people's actions,but the discourse as well.The modern British historical discourse has a shift in genre from the genre of chronicles in the 16~(th) century to the grand narrative in the 19~(th) and 20~(th) centuries.The authors of the historical discourse change from the non-professional city chroniclers of the 16~(th) century to the university-based professional historians of the 19~(th) and 20~(th) centuries.Themes of the historical discourse shift from political and military affairs to almost every aspect of human lives.In line with the changes in genres,author groups and themes,the language of the modern historical discourse also has obvious changes.In comparison with the 16~(th) century historical discourse,the 19~(th) and 20~(th) century historical discourse acquires some linguistic features that only modern scientific and academic discourses have.The historical discourse in its evolution moves towards discourse of science and academy.
Historiographers probe into the changes in the modern historiography in terms of the historical methods,historical thoughts,historical professions,genres,author groups and themes under the influence of the modern science.These changes contribute to the establishment of the modern historiography as a professional discipline.We hold that these developments in the modern historiography are as well indispensable to the changes in the language of the modern historical discourse.Some typical changes in the language of the modern historical discourse are high levels of abstraction, generalization,technicality,explanation,logical deduction and objectivity etc.
Rhetoricians give priority to the structure and evolution of the narrative in the historical discourse of different periods.They study the overall styles,and expressions and functions of specific rhetorical devices in some history works.They show that narrative is an essential means by historians to represent the past.It is through the narrative form that historians combine the historical evidences with their explanations and analysis.They also point out that the historical discourse is the end product of the employment of tropes.In their analysis of the evolution of the Western historical narratives from the medieval annalistic narrative to the Renaissance chronicle narrative to the 19~(th)-and 20~(th)-century historical narrative,explanation is highlighted as the major difference among these three forms of historical narratives.
Corpus linguists study the evolution of some linguistic forms of the modern English prose from the diachronic and corpus perspectives.They focus on discourses of medicine,science and law.They fred that from the 16~(th) to the 20~(th) centuries,discourses of these written registers have such features as the decrease of narrative and the increase of informational contents and impersonality.
Systemic Functional linguists explore the linguistic features of the school history discourse.Their researches deal with such topics as genres,transitivity,grammatical metaphor,lexicogrammar of temporality and causality,mood,modality and hedging of the historical discourse.They find that grammatical metaphor is an important linguistic resource for historian to construe abstraction and technicality.Material and relational processes are found to be major types of processes for the construal of action and explanation.They also find that historians prefer to reduce modal expressions to present to readers an objective picture of the past and the distribution of hedges is largely dependent on the availability of historical evidences and historians' knowledge of the past.
This thesis attempts to have a comparative and contrastive linguistic study of the changes in the British historical discourse under the influence of the scientific developments in the modern historiography.The linguistic framework is Systemic Functional Linguistics.Both quantitative and qualitative methods are adopted.In order to shed light on the changes in the language of the modern historical discourse,this thesis selects the Historie of England,Ireland and Scotland by Raphael Holinshed and the History of the Later Roman Empire by J.B.Bury.The genre of chronicles is one major genre in the 16~(th) century historical discourse.Holinshed is a representative of the city chroniclers.The 19~(th) century witnessed the emergence of the university-based school of professional historiography.Bury is a representative of the professional historiography in Britain.As a genre of grand narrative,the History of the Later Roman Empire is Bury's typical history work.
Holinshed's discourse has a higher distribution of specific referents of persons while Bury's discourse has a higher distribution of generalized referents of persons through the comparative study of the distribution of specific and generalized referents of persons in the discourse.We also fmd that Holinshed's discourse has a higher distribution of specific referents of persons as participants while Bury's discourse has a higher distribution of generalized referents of persons as participants in the chuse.This shows Bury's discourse has a higher degree of generalization than Holinshed's. Through the comparative study of the distribution of temporal,institutional and semiotic terms which are not counted as nominalizations,we find that in comparison with Holinshed's discourse Bury's discourse has a higher distribution of temporal, institutional and semiotic terms in the discourse as well as in the clause functioning as participants.This makes Bury's discourse more abstract.Bury's discourse is also more abstract with the use of a higher distribution of grammatical metaphors,including the higher distribution of nominalization where the deverbal type of nominalization plays a more important role,and that of the abstract chuse consisting of both nominalization and verbalization.The high degree of abstraction in Bury's discourse is also reflected in the difficult process of and even the impossibility of unpacking of nominalization, nominal groups and abstract clauses.Bury's discourse also has a higher degree of technicality construed through nominalizations.Linguistically this higher degree of technicality is manifest in the creation of technical terms of temporality and further taxonomized terms of temporality.The higher degree of generalization,abstraction and technicality in Bury's discourse construed through the language make Bury's discourse closer to the scientific discourse in terms of these scientific effects.
Holinshed's discourse has a higher distribution of congruent lexiogrammar of causality such as paratactic and hypotactic causal conjunctions to explain the past. Causal conjunctions make temporality hinged upon the framework of temporality and connect two clauses where specific historical characters function as participants.The explanation based on causal conjunctions has the lower degree of generalization.By contrast,Bury's discourse has a higher distribution of metaphoric lexicogrammmar of causality.Metaphoric lexicogrammar of causality includes counterfactual conditional clause,causal participants,external and internal causal processes,causal circumstance and causal circumstantial relational process.The shift of lexicogrammar of causality from congruent forms to metaphoric forms indicates that temporality in Holinshed's discourse moves away from the restriction imposed by the temporal framework and becomes an important semantic motif in the discourse.
The counterfactual conditional clause is a characteristic of scientific and academic discourse where the author expresses his speculations on possible results of different conditions of experiments.When used in the modern historical discourse,this type of clause indicates the author's interpretation of the past.Scientists use expressions of external and internal causality to explain abstract phenomena and reach conclusions through data,evidences and facts.Bury uses causal participant of external process to change causal conjunctions into causal nouns which function as cause and effect between abstract things.Specific historical characters are replaced with abstract participants.The historical explanation moves from specificity to abstraction.Bury uses external causal process to change causal conjunctions into causal verbs which establish cause-and-effect relations between two abstract things.By the same token the historical explanation changes from specificity to abstraction.Holinshed's discourse has external causal process,but it only links specific historical characters.This makes the historical explanation in Holinshed's discourse less abstract.Causal participant of internal causal process and internal causal process show historians reach conclusions after analyzing historical evidences and historical facts.Only when historiography becomes a professional discipline and when historiography is based on the historical evidences and facts can expressions of internal causality emerge in large quantity.The higher distribution of causal participant of internal causal process and internal causal process in Bury's discourse shows a high level of interpretation on the part of the historian. Causal circumstance makes a causal link between abstract things and events.It renders the cause and effect of the event abstract.The causal circumstantial relational process functions to explain the cause-and-effect relations between two abstract things.This type of process is widely used in expository discourses of science,geography and economics.Through the analysis we find that Bury's discourse highlights explanation through the language that makes the discourse resemble discourse of modern science in terms of the metaphoric expressions of causality.
Holinshed's discourse has a higher distribution of modal verbs of epistemic probability,appearance verbs,extra-posed clause,first person singularⅠand second person you.By contrast,Bury's discourse has a higher distribution of modal verbs of epistemic necessity,modal adjuncts as hedges to seek precision and protect author from potential criticism,nominalized modal expressions,research verbs and first person plural we and imperative sentence with hidden you.The shift in expressions of modality and person shows a contrast between Holinshed's and Bury's stance in writing history. Some tentative conclusions can be made as follows.We can say that in comparison with Holinshed,Bury has more certain knowledge of the past.Bury makes conclusions more through logical deductions than conjectures.Bury substantiates his claims and draws conclusions more from evidences,analysis,data,facts than from outside sources.Bury seeks more precision in his claims of the historical facts and at the same time avoids making statements too categorical.Despite the fact that Bury highlights explanation,it is found that he makes efforts to make his voice implicit as much as possible.
This research made a comparative linguistic study of changes in Holinshed's and Bury's historical discourses.It tentatively reveals the discursive changes in the modern historical discourse under the changing context of the modern historiography.Since the historical methods,thoughts and professions in the 19~(th) century gain more upon those of the natural sciences,they work together to have impacts on the discursive changes. Through the use of certain linguistic expressions,the 19~(th) century historical discourse is characterized with high level of abstraction,generalization,explanation,precision and objectivity.The lexicogrammar of the historical discourse is close to the scientific and academic discourses.
历史学家从历史方法、思想、学科、体裁、作者身份和内容的角度探讨了近代历史学受到科学思潮的影响出现的变化。他们的研究表明近代历史学在19世纪成为一门专业学科。笔者认为正是因为历史学的这些科学变化使得19世纪的历史语篇在词汇语法方面产生了变化。词汇语法的变化使得19世纪的历史语篇比起16世纪的历史语篇更具有抽象性、概括性、技术性、解释性、推理性、准确性和客观性等。
修辞学家注重研究历史语篇叙述模式的结构和演变,研究某些历史作品的整体写作风格和具体修辞格的表现和功能。他们认为历史语篇的叙述形式是历史学家表现过去不可缺少的手段,历史学家通过叙述形式把历史证据和自己的分析解释结合在一起。他们指出历史语篇是历史学家运用修辞策略的产物。他们分析到西方历史叙述体经历了从中世纪年代纪到文艺复兴编年体到19世纪历史叙述体的转变,三者的差异体现在解释程度的多少上。
语料库语言学家从历时和语料的方法研究英语散文词汇语法的演变,他们的研究对象主要是医学、科学和法律语篇。他们发现从16世纪到20世纪,这些语篇的特征是叙述性减弱、信息性和客观性增加。系统功能语言学家研究了学校历史语篇的语言特征,他们研究了历史语篇的体裁、及物性、语法隐喻、表示时间关系的词汇语法、表示因果关系的词汇语法、语气、情态和遁语。他们发现语法隐喻是历史学家在历史语篇里建立抽象性和技术性的重要语言资源。他们发现历史语篇主要通过物质和关系过程叙述和解释历史事件。历史学家试图通过减少情态的使用向读者展现一个客观的过去。他们也发现历史语篇里遁语的使用多少和历史学家对证据了解程度的多少有关。
本文试图从系统功能语言学角度,用定量和定性的方法对近代英国历史语篇因受到历史学科学化的影响而产生的语言变化进行对比分析。为了揭示近代历史语篇的语言变化,本文选择16世纪霍林西德的《英格兰、苏格兰和爱尔兰编年体》和19世纪伯利的《晚期罗马帝国史》作为对比研究的语料。编年体是16世纪历史写作的主要体裁,霍林西德是16世纪编年体历史学家的代表人物。19世纪出现了以大学为中心的专业史学,伯利是专业史学的代表人物,宏大历史叙述体的《晚期罗马帝国史》是伯利的代表作。
通过对具体人物和类别人物在霍林西德和伯利历史语篇当中的整体分布和在小句中作参与者的研究,本文发现语篇整体上霍林西德较多使用具体人物,而伯利较多使用类别人物,小句层面上霍林西德较多使用具体人物作参与者,而伯利较多使用类别人物作参与者。研究表明伯利历史语篇比霍林西德历史语篇更具有概括性。通过对非名词化语法隐喻的时间术语、制度性术语和符号性术语在霍林西德和伯利历史语篇当中的整体分布和在小句中作参与者的研究,本文发现语篇整体上伯利比霍林西德使用更多的时间术语、制度性术语和符号性术语。研究表明伯利历史语篇比霍林西德历史语篇更具有抽象性;伯利语篇的抽象性还表现在使用语法隐喻上。体现在大量使用名词化语法隐喻,使用名词化当中的动词派生名词,使用由名词化和动词化构成的抽象小句。伯利语篇抽象程度的提高还体现在对名词化、名词词组和抽象小句的还原问题上,正是因为高度的抽象性,名词化、名词词组和抽象小句的还原需要好几个步骤。高度的抽象性还造成了某些结构的无法还原。伯利语篇的技术性体现在大量使用名词化语法隐喻建立时间技术性术语和时间分类术语上。较高程度的概括性、抽象性和技术性使得伯利的历史语篇更加接近科学语篇。
通过对表示因果关系的词汇语法研究,发现霍林西德较多使用一致型式的词汇语法来解释历史。一致形式包括并列和从属连词。并列和因果连接词使得因果关系局限在时间框架里。因果连接词连接叙述两个包含具体历史事件的小句,小句的参与者往往是具体历史人物,解释的概括程度较低。
伯利较多使用隐喻形式的词汇语法来解释历史。隐喻形式的词汇语法有反真实条件句、外在和内在因果过程参与者、外在和内在因果过程、因果环境和因果环境关系过程。因果关系词汇语法从一致型向隐喻型的转变说明了伯利历史语篇中间因果关系摆脱时间关系的限制,成为语篇重要的组织手段。
使用反真实条件句是科学和学术语篇常用的表示作者对不同实验条件所产生可能结果的推测。伯利较多使用反真实条件句体现了他对历史事件因果关系解释性的推测。外在因果和内在因果是科学语篇经常使用的表示解释的词汇语法。外在因果过程参与者把原因和结果从因果连接词变成名词,使因果关系以实体的面貌出现,外在因果过程参与者可以成为抽象的事物之间的原因和结果。抽象的事物代替具人物,历史解释进而从具体走向抽象。外在因果过程把原因和结果从因果连接词变成动词,可以在抽象的事物之间建立因果关系。抽象的事物代替具体人物,历史解释进而从具体走向抽象。霍林西德历史语篇虽然也出现外在因果过程,但是过程前后的参与者是具体人物,显然解释程度不如伯利。内在因果过程参与者和内在因果过程体现了历史学家对历史证据和历史事实分析后得出的结论。只有在历史学科科学化之后,只有在历史写作建立在历史证据和历史事实基础上之后,内在因果过程参与者和内在因果过程的使用才会大量出现,伯利语篇大量出现内在因果过程参与者和内在因果过程体现了高度解释性。因果环境可以在抽象的原因和事件之间建立联系,提高了历史语篇的解释性。因果环境关系过程的使用主要出现在科学、地理和经济学等解释性质的语篇中间,伯利通过这个过程对抽象的历史事件进行解释。解释性的增强使得伯利的历史语篇更加接近科学语篇。
通过对情态和人称的词汇语法的研究,发现霍林西德语篇较多使用认识盖然性的情态动词、现象动词、外接小句和第一人称I和第二人称you。与之相反伯利的语篇更多使用认识必然性的情态动词、表示寻求表述准确和保护作者观点的情态附加语、名词化情态、研究型动词和第一人称we和祈使句。这些表示情态和人称的词汇语法的变化表明了近代历史学家情态立场的转变。主要有以下几方面的特征。比起霍林西德伯利对过去更加肯定,较多从演绎而非猜测得出结论,较多使用证据、分析、数据和事实而非外界观点证实命题和得出结论,伯利更加试图寻找历史事实的准确性的表述,同时使自己对历史事实的表述留有余地。虽然可以看到伯利比起霍林西德更加强调解释,但他试图以隐性的声音把解释传递给读者。这一切都反映了伯利语篇的情态和人称表达上向着科学语篇的方向靠拢,迎合了近代历史学科学化的趋势。
本文从功能语法角度对霍林西德和伯利的历史语篇进行了对比分析,揭示近代历史语篇受到历史学科学变化在词汇语法上产生的转变。19世纪历史学方法、历史学思想和历史学专业化更加接近自然科学的模式,对历史语篇的词汇语法产生了影响,19世纪的历史语篇通过语言的作用更具有抽象性、概括性、解释性,准确性和客观性。在词汇语法特征上更加接近科学语篇和学术语篇。
From the 16~(th) century the natural science has exerted its impacts upon the British society.The scientific mode of thinking not only influences people's actions,but the discourse as well.The modern British historical discourse has a shift in genre from the genre of chronicles in the 16~(th) century to the grand narrative in the 19~(th) and 20~(th) centuries.The authors of the historical discourse change from the non-professional city chroniclers of the 16~(th) century to the university-based professional historians of the 19~(th) and 20~(th) centuries.Themes of the historical discourse shift from political and military affairs to almost every aspect of human lives.In line with the changes in genres,author groups and themes,the language of the modern historical discourse also has obvious changes.In comparison with the 16~(th) century historical discourse,the 19~(th) and 20~(th) century historical discourse acquires some linguistic features that only modern scientific and academic discourses have.The historical discourse in its evolution moves towards discourse of science and academy.
Historiographers probe into the changes in the modern historiography in terms of the historical methods,historical thoughts,historical professions,genres,author groups and themes under the influence of the modern science.These changes contribute to the establishment of the modern historiography as a professional discipline.We hold that these developments in the modern historiography are as well indispensable to the changes in the language of the modern historical discourse.Some typical changes in the language of the modern historical discourse are high levels of abstraction, generalization,technicality,explanation,logical deduction and objectivity etc.
Rhetoricians give priority to the structure and evolution of the narrative in the historical discourse of different periods.They study the overall styles,and expressions and functions of specific rhetorical devices in some history works.They show that narrative is an essential means by historians to represent the past.It is through the narrative form that historians combine the historical evidences with their explanations and analysis.They also point out that the historical discourse is the end product of the employment of tropes.In their analysis of the evolution of the Western historical narratives from the medieval annalistic narrative to the Renaissance chronicle narrative to the 19~(th)-and 20~(th)-century historical narrative,explanation is highlighted as the major difference among these three forms of historical narratives.
Corpus linguists study the evolution of some linguistic forms of the modern English prose from the diachronic and corpus perspectives.They focus on discourses of medicine,science and law.They fred that from the 16~(th) to the 20~(th) centuries,discourses of these written registers have such features as the decrease of narrative and the increase of informational contents and impersonality.
Systemic Functional linguists explore the linguistic features of the school history discourse.Their researches deal with such topics as genres,transitivity,grammatical metaphor,lexicogrammar of temporality and causality,mood,modality and hedging of the historical discourse.They find that grammatical metaphor is an important linguistic resource for historian to construe abstraction and technicality.Material and relational processes are found to be major types of processes for the construal of action and explanation.They also find that historians prefer to reduce modal expressions to present to readers an objective picture of the past and the distribution of hedges is largely dependent on the availability of historical evidences and historians' knowledge of the past.
This thesis attempts to have a comparative and contrastive linguistic study of the changes in the British historical discourse under the influence of the scientific developments in the modern historiography.The linguistic framework is Systemic Functional Linguistics.Both quantitative and qualitative methods are adopted.In order to shed light on the changes in the language of the modern historical discourse,this thesis selects the Historie of England,Ireland and Scotland by Raphael Holinshed and the History of the Later Roman Empire by J.B.Bury.The genre of chronicles is one major genre in the 16~(th) century historical discourse.Holinshed is a representative of the city chroniclers.The 19~(th) century witnessed the emergence of the university-based school of professional historiography.Bury is a representative of the professional historiography in Britain.As a genre of grand narrative,the History of the Later Roman Empire is Bury's typical history work.
Holinshed's discourse has a higher distribution of specific referents of persons while Bury's discourse has a higher distribution of generalized referents of persons through the comparative study of the distribution of specific and generalized referents of persons in the discourse.We also fmd that Holinshed's discourse has a higher distribution of specific referents of persons as participants while Bury's discourse has a higher distribution of generalized referents of persons as participants in the chuse.This shows Bury's discourse has a higher degree of generalization than Holinshed's. Through the comparative study of the distribution of temporal,institutional and semiotic terms which are not counted as nominalizations,we find that in comparison with Holinshed's discourse Bury's discourse has a higher distribution of temporal, institutional and semiotic terms in the discourse as well as in the clause functioning as participants.This makes Bury's discourse more abstract.Bury's discourse is also more abstract with the use of a higher distribution of grammatical metaphors,including the higher distribution of nominalization where the deverbal type of nominalization plays a more important role,and that of the abstract chuse consisting of both nominalization and verbalization.The high degree of abstraction in Bury's discourse is also reflected in the difficult process of and even the impossibility of unpacking of nominalization, nominal groups and abstract clauses.Bury's discourse also has a higher degree of technicality construed through nominalizations.Linguistically this higher degree of technicality is manifest in the creation of technical terms of temporality and further taxonomized terms of temporality.The higher degree of generalization,abstraction and technicality in Bury's discourse construed through the language make Bury's discourse closer to the scientific discourse in terms of these scientific effects.
Holinshed's discourse has a higher distribution of congruent lexiogrammar of causality such as paratactic and hypotactic causal conjunctions to explain the past. Causal conjunctions make temporality hinged upon the framework of temporality and connect two clauses where specific historical characters function as participants.The explanation based on causal conjunctions has the lower degree of generalization.By contrast,Bury's discourse has a higher distribution of metaphoric lexicogrammmar of causality.Metaphoric lexicogrammar of causality includes counterfactual conditional clause,causal participants,external and internal causal processes,causal circumstance and causal circumstantial relational process.The shift of lexicogrammar of causality from congruent forms to metaphoric forms indicates that temporality in Holinshed's discourse moves away from the restriction imposed by the temporal framework and becomes an important semantic motif in the discourse.
The counterfactual conditional clause is a characteristic of scientific and academic discourse where the author expresses his speculations on possible results of different conditions of experiments.When used in the modern historical discourse,this type of clause indicates the author's interpretation of the past.Scientists use expressions of external and internal causality to explain abstract phenomena and reach conclusions through data,evidences and facts.Bury uses causal participant of external process to change causal conjunctions into causal nouns which function as cause and effect between abstract things.Specific historical characters are replaced with abstract participants.The historical explanation moves from specificity to abstraction.Bury uses external causal process to change causal conjunctions into causal verbs which establish cause-and-effect relations between two abstract things.By the same token the historical explanation changes from specificity to abstraction.Holinshed's discourse has external causal process,but it only links specific historical characters.This makes the historical explanation in Holinshed's discourse less abstract.Causal participant of internal causal process and internal causal process show historians reach conclusions after analyzing historical evidences and historical facts.Only when historiography becomes a professional discipline and when historiography is based on the historical evidences and facts can expressions of internal causality emerge in large quantity.The higher distribution of causal participant of internal causal process and internal causal process in Bury's discourse shows a high level of interpretation on the part of the historian. Causal circumstance makes a causal link between abstract things and events.It renders the cause and effect of the event abstract.The causal circumstantial relational process functions to explain the cause-and-effect relations between two abstract things.This type of process is widely used in expository discourses of science,geography and economics.Through the analysis we find that Bury's discourse highlights explanation through the language that makes the discourse resemble discourse of modern science in terms of the metaphoric expressions of causality.
Holinshed's discourse has a higher distribution of modal verbs of epistemic probability,appearance verbs,extra-posed clause,first person singularⅠand second person you.By contrast,Bury's discourse has a higher distribution of modal verbs of epistemic necessity,modal adjuncts as hedges to seek precision and protect author from potential criticism,nominalized modal expressions,research verbs and first person plural we and imperative sentence with hidden you.The shift in expressions of modality and person shows a contrast between Holinshed's and Bury's stance in writing history. Some tentative conclusions can be made as follows.We can say that in comparison with Holinshed,Bury has more certain knowledge of the past.Bury makes conclusions more through logical deductions than conjectures.Bury substantiates his claims and draws conclusions more from evidences,analysis,data,facts than from outside sources.Bury seeks more precision in his claims of the historical facts and at the same time avoids making statements too categorical.Despite the fact that Bury highlights explanation,it is found that he makes efforts to make his voice implicit as much as possible.
This research made a comparative linguistic study of changes in Holinshed's and Bury's historical discourses.It tentatively reveals the discursive changes in the modern historical discourse under the changing context of the modern historiography.Since the historical methods,thoughts and professions in the 19~(th) century gain more upon those of the natural sciences,they work together to have impacts on the discursive changes. Through the use of certain linguistic expressions,the 19~(th) century historical discourse is characterized with high level of abstraction,generalization,explanation,precision and objectivity.The lexicogrammar of the historical discourse is close to the scientific and academic discourses.
引文
[1]Achugar,Mariana & Schleppegrell,Mary J.Beyond connectors:The construction of cause in history textbooks[J].Linguistics and Education,2005,16(3):1-21.
[2]Achugar,Mariana & Schleppegrell,Mary J.Engaging teachers in language analysis:a functional linguistics approach to reflective literacy[J].English Teaching:Practice and Critique,2007,6(3):8-24.
[3]Ankersmit,F.R.History and Tropology[M].Berkeley:University of California Press,1994.
[4]Atkinson,Dwight.Scientific Discourse in,Sociohistorical Context:The Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London,1675-1975[M].Mahwah:Lawrence Erblaum Associates Inc.,1999
[5]Banks,David.Emerging scientific discourse in the late seventeenth century:a comparison of Newton's Opticks and Huygens' Traite de la lumiere[J].Functions of Language,2005,12(1):65-86.
[6]Banks,David.The Development of Scientific Writing:Linguistic Features and Historical Context[M].London:Equinox Publishing Ltd.,2007.
[7]Barthes,Roland.The Discourse of History[J].S.Bann(trans.).Comparative Criticism,1981,3:7-20.
[8]Bartholomae,D.Inventing the University[J].Journal of Basic Writing,1986,5:4-23.
[9]Bazerman,C.Shaping Written Knowledge:the Genre and Activity of the Experimental Article in Science[M].Madison:The University of Wisconsin Press,1988.
[10]Berkhoffer,Robert F.(1995).Beyond the Great Story:History as Text and Discourse[M].Cambridge:Harvard University Press,1995.
[11]Biber,D.& Finegan,E.Diachronic relations among speech-based and written registers in English[A].In S.Conrad & D.Biber(eds.).Variation in English:Multi-Dimensional Studies[M].pp.66-83.Hadow:Pearson Education Limited.,2001:66-83.
[12]Biber,D.Historical patterns for the grammatical marking of stance:a cross-register oomparison[J].Journal of Historical Pragmatics,2004,5(1):107-136.
[13]Board of Studies NSW(ed.).History Extension Stage 6:Source Book of Reading [M].Sydney,2001.
[14]Brammall,Kathryn.Reading Holinshed's Chronicles[J].Sixteenth Century Journal,1995,26(2):475-476.
[15]Breen,Dan.Early Modern Historiography[J].Literature Compass,2005,2:1-14.
[16]Breisach,Ernst.Historiography:Ancient,Medieval,and Modern[M].Chicago:University of Chicago,1983.
[17]Bruner,J.Actual minds,possible worlds[M].Cambridge:Harvard University Press,1986.
[18]Burke,Peter.Hew Perspectives on Historical Writing[M].Oxford:Polity Press,1991.
[19]Bury,J.B.The History of the Later Roman Empire[M].London:Macmillan,1923.
[20]Chopoidalo,Cindy.The Drama of History:Examinations in Shakespearean Historiography[D].University of Allberta,2000.
[21]Coffin,Caroline.Constructing and giving value to the past[A].In F.Christie &J.R.Martin(eds.).Genres and Institutions:Social processes in the workplace and school[M].London:Pinter,1997:96-230.
[22]Coffin,Caroline.History as Discourse:Construals of Time,Cause and Appraisal [D].Sydney:University of New South Wales,2000.
[23]Coffin,Caroline.The Voices of History:Theorizing the Interpersonal Semantics of Historical Discourses[J].Text,2002,22(4):503-528.
[24]Coffin,Caroline.Learning to write history:the Role of Causality[J].Written Communication,20004,21(3):261-289.
[25]Coffin,Caroline.Historical Discourse:the Language of Time,Cause and Evaluation[M].London:Continuum,2006.
[26]Collingwood,R.G.The Idea of History[M].Oxford:Oxford University Press,1946.
[27]Croce,B.History:Its Theory and Practice[M].London:Harcourt,Brace and Company,1923.
[28]Crismore,A.Talking with Readers:metadiscourses as a rhetorical act[M].New York:Peter Lang,1989.
[29]Crombie,A.C.Styles of Scientific Thinking in the European Tradition:The History of Argument and Explanation Especially in the Mathematical and Biomedical Sciences and Arts[M].London:Duckworth,1994.
[30]Dear,Peter.Totius in Verba:Rhetoric and Authority in the Early Royal Society[J].Isis,1985,76(2):144-161.
[31]Dear,Peter.Revolutionizing the Sciences:European Knowledge and its Ambitions,1500-1700[M].Princeton:Princeton University Press,2001.
[32]Damply,William Cecil.A History of Science and Its Relations with Philosophy and Religion[M].Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1958.
[33]Davies,S.Empiricism and History[M].London:Palgrave Macmillan,2003.
[34]Dixon,R.M.W.& Aikhenvald,Alexandra Y.(eds.).Changing Valency Case Studies in Transitivity[M].Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2000.
[35]Donno,E.S.Holinshed's Chronicles:England,Scotland and Ireland[J].Renaissance Quarterly,1977,30(3):390-394.
[36]Edling,Agnes.Abstraction and authority in textbooks:The textual paths towards specialized language[D].Acta Universitatis Upsalinensis,2006.
[37]Eggins,S.& Wignell,E & Martin,J.R.The Discourse of History:Distancing the Recoverable Past[A].In M.Ghadessy(ed.).Register Analysis[M].London:Pinter Publishers,1993:75-109.
[38]Ernst,T.B.Towards an Integrated Theory of Adverb Position in English[M].Indiana Linguistics Club,1984.
[39]Firth,J.R.Papers in Linguistics 1934-1951[M].London:Oxford Uniwrsity Press,1957.
[40]Gairdaer,James.Early Chroniclers of Europe:England[M].London:Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge,1883.
[41]Gardiner,P.The nature of historical explanation[M].Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1961.
[42]Gay,Peter.Style in History[M].London:McGraw-Hill Book Company,1974.
[43]Gee,J.P.An Introduction to Discourse Analysis:Theory and Method[M].London:Routledge,1999.
[44]Goldstein,Doris S.J.B.Bury's Philosophy of History:A Reappraisal[J].The American Historical Review,1977,82(4):896-919.
[45]Goldstein,Doris S.The Organizational Development of the British Historical Profession,1884-1931[J].Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research,1982,4:181-184.
[46]Goldstein,Doris S.The Origins and Early Years of the English Historical Review [J].The EnglishHistoricalReview,1986,101(398):6-19.
[47]Gooeh,G.P.History and Historians in the Nineteenth Century[M].London:Longmans,Greens,And Co.,1913.
[48]Grefenstette,G.& Teufel,S.A corpus-based method for automatio identifioation of support verbs for nominalizations[J].Proceedings of EACL,1995:98-103.
[49]Hallden,O.Learning History[J].Oxford Review of Education,1986,12(1):53-66.
[50]Halliday,M.A.K.An Introduction to Functional Grammar[M].London:Edward Arnold Publishers Ltd.,1985/1994.
[51]Halliday,M.A.K.& Martin,J.R.Writing Science:Literacy and Discursive Power [M].London:Palmer,1993.
[52]Halliday,M.A.K.& Matthiessen,M.I.M.Construing Experience Through Meaning:A Language-based Approach to Cognition[M].London:Continuum,1999.
[53]Halliday,M.A.K.On Language and Linguistics[M].London:Continuum,2003.
[54]Halliday,M.A.K.The Language of Science[M].London:Continuum,2004.
[55]Hexter,J.H.The Rhetoric of History[J].History andTheory,1967,6:3-13.
[56]Hexter,J.H.Doing History[M].Indiana:Indiana University Press,1971.
[57]Holinshed,R.Chronicles of England,Scotland and lreland[M].New York:AMS Press,1587/1965.
[58]Hyland,K.Hedging in academic writing and EPA textbooks[J].English for Specific Purpose,1994,13:239-256.
[59]Hyland,K.Hedging m scientific research articles[M].Amsterdam:John Benjamins,1998.
[60]Hyland,K.Persuasion in Academic Articles[J].Perspectives,1999a,11:73-103.
[61]Hyland,K.Academic attribution:Citation and the combination of disciplinary knowledge[J].Applied Linguistics,1999b,20(3):342-367.
[62]Iggers,G.G.Historiography in the twentieth century:from scientific objectivity to the postmodern challenge[M].Hanover,NH:Wesleyan University Press,1997.
[63]James,Mervyn.Reading Holinshed's Chronicles[J].The English Historical Review,1997,112(446):462-464.
[64]Jann,Rosemary.From Amateur to Professional:The Case of the Oxbridge Historians[J].The Journal of British Studies,1983,22(2):122-147.
[65]Kamps,Ivo.The Writing of History in Shakespeare's England[A].In R.Dutton &J.E.Howard(eds.).A Companion to Shakespeare's Works:The Histories[M].Oxford:Blackwell,2005:4-25.
[66]Kelley,Donald R.Faces of History:Historical Inquiry from Herodotus to Herder [M].New Haven:Yale University Press,1998.
[67]Kellner,Hans.Language and Historical Representation[M].Madison:University of Wisconsin Press,1989.
[68]Lipson,M.Exploring Functional Grammar[PDF].http://amsacta.cib.unibo.it/archive/00001138,2008/03/26.
[69]Lyons,John.Semantics[M].Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1977.
[70]Martin,J.R.English Text:System and Structure[M].Amsterdam:John Benjamins Publishing Company,1992.
[71]Martin,J.R.Analyzing Genre:Functional Parameters[A].In J.R.Matin & F.Christie(eds.).Genre and Institutions:Social Processes in the Workplace and School [M].London:Continuum,1997:3-40.
[72]Martin,J.R.Technicality and Abstraction:Language for the Creation of Specialised Texts[A].In Anne Burns.& Caroline Coffin(eds.).Analysing English in a Global Context:A Reader[M].London:Routledge,2001:211-228.
[73]Martin,J.R.Writing history:Construing time and value in discourses of the past [A].In M.J.Schleppegrell & M.C.Colombi(eds.).Developing advanced literacy in first and second languages:Meaning with power[M].Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2002:87-118.
[74]Martin,J.R.Making history:Grammar for interpretation[A].In J.R.Martin & R.Wodak(eds.).Re/reading the past:Critical and functional perspectives on time and value[M].Amsterdam:John Benjamins,2003:19-57.
[75]Martin,J.R.Genre and Field:Social Process and Knowledge Structures in Systemic Functional Semiotics.L Barbara & T Berber Sardinha[eds.].Proceedings 33~(rd) International Systemic Functional Congress[C],Sao Paulo:PUCSP,2006.
[76]Martin,J.R.& V.eel,R.(eds.).Reading Science:critical and functional perspectives on discourses of science[M].London:Routledge,1998.
[77]Martin,J.R.& Rose,D.Genre Relations:Mapping Culture[M].London:Equinox,2007.
[78]MoCabe,Anne M.Theme and Thematic Patterns in Spanish and English History Texts[D].Aston University,1999.
[79]McCabe,Anne M.Mood and modality in Spanish and English history textbooks:The Construction of Authority[J].Text,2004,24(1):1-29.
[80]McLachlan,Jean O.The Origin and Early Development of the Cambridge Historical Tripos[J].Cambridge Historical Journal,1947,9:101-102.
[81]Megill,Allan.Recounting the Past:Description,Explanation,and Narrative in Historiography[J].The American Historical Review,1989,94(3):627-653.
[82]Miller,William.John Bagnell Bury[J].The English Historical Review,1928,43(169):66-72.
[83]Novick,P.That noble dream:the "objectivity question" and the American historical profession[M].Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1988.
[84]Olschki,Leonardo.The Scientific Revolution:Galileo's Philosophy of Science[A].In F.Baumer(ed.).Intellectual Movements in Modern European History[M].New York:the Macmillian Company,1965:42-55.
[85]Patterson,Annabel.Reading Holinshed's Chronicles[M].Chicago:University of Chicago Press,1994.
[86]Phillips,Mark S.Genres of Historical Writing in Britain,1740-1820[M]. Princeton:Princeton University Press,2000.
[87]Quirk,R.et al.A Grammar of Contemporary English[M].London:Longman Group Limited.,1972.
[88]Regeczi,David.Stop telling stories:the splintering of History into academic and non-academic discourses m the United States from 1870[D].Kingston:Queen's University,1999.
[89]Roberts,Geoffrey.Introduction:the history and narrative debate,1960-2000[A].In Geoffrey Roberts(ed.).The History and Narrative Reader[M].London:Routledge,2001:1-21.
[90]Saeed,John I.Semantics[M].London:Blackwell Publishing Ltd.,1997.
[91]Schleppegrell,Mary J.Linguistic Features of the Language of Schooling[J].Linguistics and Education,2001:12(4),431-459.
[92]Schleppegrell,Mary J.The Language of Schooling:A Functional Linguistics Perspective[M].Mahwah:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,2004.
[93]Schleppegrell,Mary J.& de Oliveria Luoiana C.An integrated language and content approach for history teachers[J].Journal of English for Academic Purposes,2006,5:254-268.
[94]Shapin,Steven.Pump and Circumstance:Robert Boyle's Literary Technology[J].Special Studies of Science,1984,14(4):481-520.
[95]Shapin,Steven.The House of Experiment in Seventeenth-Century England[J].1sis,1988,79(3):373-404.
[96]Shibatani,Masayoshi.Syntax and Semantics:the Grammar of Causative Constructions[M].New York:Academic Press,1976.
[97]Spiegelberg,H.On the right way to say "we":A linguistic and phenomeno-logical analysis[A].In G.Psathas(ed.).Phenomenological Sociology[M].New York:Wiley,1973:129-156.
[98]Stone,Lawrence.The revival of narrative:reflections on a new old history[A].In Geoffrey Roberts(ed.).The History and Narrative Reader[M].London:Routledge,2001,281-298.
[99]Stieg,M.The origin and development of scholarly historical journals[M]. Alabama:University of Alabama Press,1986.
[100]Stow,George B.Stubbs,Steel,and Richard Ⅱ as Insane:The Origin and Evolution of an English Historiographical Myth[J].Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society,1999,143(4):601-638.
[101]Struever,N.S.Historical Discourse[A].In T.A.van Dijk(ed.).Handbook of Discourse Analysis:Disciplines of Discourse[M].New York:Academic Press,1985:249-271.
[102]Stuchtey,B.& Wende,P.(eds.).British and German Historiography,1750-1950:Traditions,Perceptions,and Transfers[M].London:Oxford University Press,2000.
[103]Swales,J.M.Genre Analysis:English in Academic and Research settings[M].Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1990.
[104]Taavitsainen,Irma & Pahta,Paivi.The Corpus of Early English Medical Writing [J].ICAME,1997,21:71-78.
[105]Taylor,John.R.Cognitive Grammar[M].Oxford:Oxford University Press,2002.
[106]Thompson,J.W.& Holm,B.J.A History of Historical Writing[M].New York:the MacMillan Company,1942.
[107]Thompson,G.Introducing Functional Grammar[M].London:Edward Arnold Publishers Ltd.,1996.
[108]Topolski,Jerzy.Historical Narrative:Towards a Coherent Structure[J].History and Theory,1987,26(4):75-86.
[109]Trimble,William Raleigh.Early Tudor Historiography,1485-1548[J]Journal of the History of Ideas,1950,11(1):30-41.
[110]Unsworth,Len.Developing critical understanding of the specialized language of school science and history texts:A functional grammatical perspective[J].Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy,1999,42(7):508-521.
[111]Vann,T.R.Rhetoric and Social History[J].Journal of Social History,1976,10:221-236.
[112]Veel,R.& Coffin,C.Learn to think like a historian:The language of secondary school history[A].In R.Hasan & G Williams(eds.).Literacy in Society[M].London: Longman,1996:191-231.
[113]Veel,Robert.Learning how to mean--scientifically speaking:apprenticeship into scientific discourse in the secondary school[A].In F.Christie & J.R.Martin(eds.).Genres and Institutions:Social processes in the workplace and school[M].London:Pinter,1997:161-194.
[114]Ventola,Eija.Packing and Unpacking of Information in Academic Texts[A].In E.Ventola,& Anna Mauranen(eds).Academic Writing:Intercultural and Textual lssues [M],Amsterdam:John Benjamins,1996:153-194.
[115]Weiss,G & Wodak,R:(eds.).Critical Discourse Analysis:Theory and Interdisciplinarity[M].London:Palgrave Macmillan,2003.
[116]Wells,Gordon.The complementary contributions of Halliday and Vygosky to a 'Langugage-based Theory of Learning'[J].Linguistics and Education,1994,6:41-90.
[117]White,Hayden.Metahistory:The Historical Imagination in Nineteenth-Century Europe[M].Baltimore:Johns Hopkins University Press,1973.
[118]White,Hayden.Tropics of Discourse[M].Baltimore:John Hopkins University Press,1978.
[119]White,Hayden.The Contents of the Form:Narrative Discourse and Historical Representation[M].Baltimore:John Hopkins University Press,1987.
[120]White,Hayden.The Historical Text as Literary Artifact[A].In Roberts Geoffrey (ed.).The History and Narrative Readers[M].London:Routledge,2001:221-236.
[121]Whitney,J.P.& Bury,J.B.The Late Professor J.B.Bury[J].Cambridge Historical Journal,1927,2(2):191-197.
[122]Woolf,D.R.Genre into Artifact:the Decline of the English Chronicle in the Sixteenth Century[J].Sixteenth Century Journal,1988,19(3):321-354.
[123]Woolf,D.R.Reading History in Early Modern England[M].Cambridge:Cambridge University,2000.
[124]Woolf,D.R.Historiography[A].In M.C.Horowitz(ed.).The New Dictionary of the History of Ideas[M].New York:Charles Scribner's Sore,2005:xxxv-lxxviii
[125]陈新.《西方历史叙述学》[M].北京:社会科学文献出版社,2005.
[126]郭小凌.《西方史学史》[M].北京:北京师范大学出版社,1995.
[127]顾乡.《晚期罗马帝国史》语篇抽象性和客观性分析[J].《复旦外国语言文学论丛秋季号》,2006:277-285.
[128]顾乡.牛顿、波意尔与科学语篇的语法隐喻[J].《复旦外国语言文学论丛春季号》,2007,83-92.
[129]胡壮麟.《认知隐喻学》[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2004.
[130]胡壮麟等.《系统功能语言学概论》[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2005.
[131]林慈淑.柏林与史家论‘道德判断'--兼谈二十世纪英国史学的若干发展[J].《台大历史学学报》,2006,38:219-270.
[132]王立永.《历史文本中的模糊限制语:一项基于两本中英历史书对比的个案研究》[D].西安:西安交通大学,2006.
[133]张广智等.《史学:文化中的文化:文化视野中的西方史学》[M].杭州:浙江人民出版社,1991.
[135]张广智.《西方史学史》[M].上海:复旦大学出版社,2004.
[136]张延君.《学术论文的人际意义研究》[M].青岛:中国海洋大学出版社,2006.
[137]朱永生.名词化、动词化与语法隐喻[J].《外语教学与研究》,2006,38(2):83-89.
[138]朱永生等.《系统功能语言学多维思考》[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2001.
[139]朱永生等.《功能语言学导论》[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2004.
[140]朱卫斌.历史学:科学还是艺术[J].《中山大学学报(社会科学版)》,1995,4:74-81.
[2]Achugar,Mariana & Schleppegrell,Mary J.Engaging teachers in language analysis:a functional linguistics approach to reflective literacy[J].English Teaching:Practice and Critique,2007,6(3):8-24.
[3]Ankersmit,F.R.History and Tropology[M].Berkeley:University of California Press,1994.
[4]Atkinson,Dwight.Scientific Discourse in,Sociohistorical Context:The Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London,1675-1975[M].Mahwah:Lawrence Erblaum Associates Inc.,1999
[5]Banks,David.Emerging scientific discourse in the late seventeenth century:a comparison of Newton's Opticks and Huygens' Traite de la lumiere[J].Functions of Language,2005,12(1):65-86.
[6]Banks,David.The Development of Scientific Writing:Linguistic Features and Historical Context[M].London:Equinox Publishing Ltd.,2007.
[7]Barthes,Roland.The Discourse of History[J].S.Bann(trans.).Comparative Criticism,1981,3:7-20.
[8]Bartholomae,D.Inventing the University[J].Journal of Basic Writing,1986,5:4-23.
[9]Bazerman,C.Shaping Written Knowledge:the Genre and Activity of the Experimental Article in Science[M].Madison:The University of Wisconsin Press,1988.
[10]Berkhoffer,Robert F.(1995).Beyond the Great Story:History as Text and Discourse[M].Cambridge:Harvard University Press,1995.
[11]Biber,D.& Finegan,E.Diachronic relations among speech-based and written registers in English[A].In S.Conrad & D.Biber(eds.).Variation in English:Multi-Dimensional Studies[M].pp.66-83.Hadow:Pearson Education Limited.,2001:66-83.
[12]Biber,D.Historical patterns for the grammatical marking of stance:a cross-register oomparison[J].Journal of Historical Pragmatics,2004,5(1):107-136.
[13]Board of Studies NSW(ed.).History Extension Stage 6:Source Book of Reading [M].Sydney,2001.
[14]Brammall,Kathryn.Reading Holinshed's Chronicles[J].Sixteenth Century Journal,1995,26(2):475-476.
[15]Breen,Dan.Early Modern Historiography[J].Literature Compass,2005,2:1-14.
[16]Breisach,Ernst.Historiography:Ancient,Medieval,and Modern[M].Chicago:University of Chicago,1983.
[17]Bruner,J.Actual minds,possible worlds[M].Cambridge:Harvard University Press,1986.
[18]Burke,Peter.Hew Perspectives on Historical Writing[M].Oxford:Polity Press,1991.
[19]Bury,J.B.The History of the Later Roman Empire[M].London:Macmillan,1923.
[20]Chopoidalo,Cindy.The Drama of History:Examinations in Shakespearean Historiography[D].University of Allberta,2000.
[21]Coffin,Caroline.Constructing and giving value to the past[A].In F.Christie &J.R.Martin(eds.).Genres and Institutions:Social processes in the workplace and school[M].London:Pinter,1997:96-230.
[22]Coffin,Caroline.History as Discourse:Construals of Time,Cause and Appraisal [D].Sydney:University of New South Wales,2000.
[23]Coffin,Caroline.The Voices of History:Theorizing the Interpersonal Semantics of Historical Discourses[J].Text,2002,22(4):503-528.
[24]Coffin,Caroline.Learning to write history:the Role of Causality[J].Written Communication,20004,21(3):261-289.
[25]Coffin,Caroline.Historical Discourse:the Language of Time,Cause and Evaluation[M].London:Continuum,2006.
[26]Collingwood,R.G.The Idea of History[M].Oxford:Oxford University Press,1946.
[27]Croce,B.History:Its Theory and Practice[M].London:Harcourt,Brace and Company,1923.
[28]Crismore,A.Talking with Readers:metadiscourses as a rhetorical act[M].New York:Peter Lang,1989.
[29]Crombie,A.C.Styles of Scientific Thinking in the European Tradition:The History of Argument and Explanation Especially in the Mathematical and Biomedical Sciences and Arts[M].London:Duckworth,1994.
[30]Dear,Peter.Totius in Verba:Rhetoric and Authority in the Early Royal Society[J].Isis,1985,76(2):144-161.
[31]Dear,Peter.Revolutionizing the Sciences:European Knowledge and its Ambitions,1500-1700[M].Princeton:Princeton University Press,2001.
[32]Damply,William Cecil.A History of Science and Its Relations with Philosophy and Religion[M].Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1958.
[33]Davies,S.Empiricism and History[M].London:Palgrave Macmillan,2003.
[34]Dixon,R.M.W.& Aikhenvald,Alexandra Y.(eds.).Changing Valency Case Studies in Transitivity[M].Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2000.
[35]Donno,E.S.Holinshed's Chronicles:England,Scotland and Ireland[J].Renaissance Quarterly,1977,30(3):390-394.
[36]Edling,Agnes.Abstraction and authority in textbooks:The textual paths towards specialized language[D].Acta Universitatis Upsalinensis,2006.
[37]Eggins,S.& Wignell,E & Martin,J.R.The Discourse of History:Distancing the Recoverable Past[A].In M.Ghadessy(ed.).Register Analysis[M].London:Pinter Publishers,1993:75-109.
[38]Ernst,T.B.Towards an Integrated Theory of Adverb Position in English[M].Indiana Linguistics Club,1984.
[39]Firth,J.R.Papers in Linguistics 1934-1951[M].London:Oxford Uniwrsity Press,1957.
[40]Gairdaer,James.Early Chroniclers of Europe:England[M].London:Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge,1883.
[41]Gardiner,P.The nature of historical explanation[M].Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1961.
[42]Gay,Peter.Style in History[M].London:McGraw-Hill Book Company,1974.
[43]Gee,J.P.An Introduction to Discourse Analysis:Theory and Method[M].London:Routledge,1999.
[44]Goldstein,Doris S.J.B.Bury's Philosophy of History:A Reappraisal[J].The American Historical Review,1977,82(4):896-919.
[45]Goldstein,Doris S.The Organizational Development of the British Historical Profession,1884-1931[J].Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research,1982,4:181-184.
[46]Goldstein,Doris S.The Origins and Early Years of the English Historical Review [J].The EnglishHistoricalReview,1986,101(398):6-19.
[47]Gooeh,G.P.History and Historians in the Nineteenth Century[M].London:Longmans,Greens,And Co.,1913.
[48]Grefenstette,G.& Teufel,S.A corpus-based method for automatio identifioation of support verbs for nominalizations[J].Proceedings of EACL,1995:98-103.
[49]Hallden,O.Learning History[J].Oxford Review of Education,1986,12(1):53-66.
[50]Halliday,M.A.K.An Introduction to Functional Grammar[M].London:Edward Arnold Publishers Ltd.,1985/1994.
[51]Halliday,M.A.K.& Martin,J.R.Writing Science:Literacy and Discursive Power [M].London:Palmer,1993.
[52]Halliday,M.A.K.& Matthiessen,M.I.M.Construing Experience Through Meaning:A Language-based Approach to Cognition[M].London:Continuum,1999.
[53]Halliday,M.A.K.On Language and Linguistics[M].London:Continuum,2003.
[54]Halliday,M.A.K.The Language of Science[M].London:Continuum,2004.
[55]Hexter,J.H.The Rhetoric of History[J].History andTheory,1967,6:3-13.
[56]Hexter,J.H.Doing History[M].Indiana:Indiana University Press,1971.
[57]Holinshed,R.Chronicles of England,Scotland and lreland[M].New York:AMS Press,1587/1965.
[58]Hyland,K.Hedging in academic writing and EPA textbooks[J].English for Specific Purpose,1994,13:239-256.
[59]Hyland,K.Hedging m scientific research articles[M].Amsterdam:John Benjamins,1998.
[60]Hyland,K.Persuasion in Academic Articles[J].Perspectives,1999a,11:73-103.
[61]Hyland,K.Academic attribution:Citation and the combination of disciplinary knowledge[J].Applied Linguistics,1999b,20(3):342-367.
[62]Iggers,G.G.Historiography in the twentieth century:from scientific objectivity to the postmodern challenge[M].Hanover,NH:Wesleyan University Press,1997.
[63]James,Mervyn.Reading Holinshed's Chronicles[J].The English Historical Review,1997,112(446):462-464.
[64]Jann,Rosemary.From Amateur to Professional:The Case of the Oxbridge Historians[J].The Journal of British Studies,1983,22(2):122-147.
[65]Kamps,Ivo.The Writing of History in Shakespeare's England[A].In R.Dutton &J.E.Howard(eds.).A Companion to Shakespeare's Works:The Histories[M].Oxford:Blackwell,2005:4-25.
[66]Kelley,Donald R.Faces of History:Historical Inquiry from Herodotus to Herder [M].New Haven:Yale University Press,1998.
[67]Kellner,Hans.Language and Historical Representation[M].Madison:University of Wisconsin Press,1989.
[68]Lipson,M.Exploring Functional Grammar[PDF].http://amsacta.cib.unibo.it/archive/00001138,2008/03/26.
[69]Lyons,John.Semantics[M].Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1977.
[70]Martin,J.R.English Text:System and Structure[M].Amsterdam:John Benjamins Publishing Company,1992.
[71]Martin,J.R.Analyzing Genre:Functional Parameters[A].In J.R.Matin & F.Christie(eds.).Genre and Institutions:Social Processes in the Workplace and School [M].London:Continuum,1997:3-40.
[72]Martin,J.R.Technicality and Abstraction:Language for the Creation of Specialised Texts[A].In Anne Burns.& Caroline Coffin(eds.).Analysing English in a Global Context:A Reader[M].London:Routledge,2001:211-228.
[73]Martin,J.R.Writing history:Construing time and value in discourses of the past [A].In M.J.Schleppegrell & M.C.Colombi(eds.).Developing advanced literacy in first and second languages:Meaning with power[M].Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2002:87-118.
[74]Martin,J.R.Making history:Grammar for interpretation[A].In J.R.Martin & R.Wodak(eds.).Re/reading the past:Critical and functional perspectives on time and value[M].Amsterdam:John Benjamins,2003:19-57.
[75]Martin,J.R.Genre and Field:Social Process and Knowledge Structures in Systemic Functional Semiotics.L Barbara & T Berber Sardinha[eds.].Proceedings 33~(rd) International Systemic Functional Congress[C],Sao Paulo:PUCSP,2006.
[76]Martin,J.R.& V.eel,R.(eds.).Reading Science:critical and functional perspectives on discourses of science[M].London:Routledge,1998.
[77]Martin,J.R.& Rose,D.Genre Relations:Mapping Culture[M].London:Equinox,2007.
[78]MoCabe,Anne M.Theme and Thematic Patterns in Spanish and English History Texts[D].Aston University,1999.
[79]McCabe,Anne M.Mood and modality in Spanish and English history textbooks:The Construction of Authority[J].Text,2004,24(1):1-29.
[80]McLachlan,Jean O.The Origin and Early Development of the Cambridge Historical Tripos[J].Cambridge Historical Journal,1947,9:101-102.
[81]Megill,Allan.Recounting the Past:Description,Explanation,and Narrative in Historiography[J].The American Historical Review,1989,94(3):627-653.
[82]Miller,William.John Bagnell Bury[J].The English Historical Review,1928,43(169):66-72.
[83]Novick,P.That noble dream:the "objectivity question" and the American historical profession[M].Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1988.
[84]Olschki,Leonardo.The Scientific Revolution:Galileo's Philosophy of Science[A].In F.Baumer(ed.).Intellectual Movements in Modern European History[M].New York:the Macmillian Company,1965:42-55.
[85]Patterson,Annabel.Reading Holinshed's Chronicles[M].Chicago:University of Chicago Press,1994.
[86]Phillips,Mark S.Genres of Historical Writing in Britain,1740-1820[M]. Princeton:Princeton University Press,2000.
[87]Quirk,R.et al.A Grammar of Contemporary English[M].London:Longman Group Limited.,1972.
[88]Regeczi,David.Stop telling stories:the splintering of History into academic and non-academic discourses m the United States from 1870[D].Kingston:Queen's University,1999.
[89]Roberts,Geoffrey.Introduction:the history and narrative debate,1960-2000[A].In Geoffrey Roberts(ed.).The History and Narrative Reader[M].London:Routledge,2001:1-21.
[90]Saeed,John I.Semantics[M].London:Blackwell Publishing Ltd.,1997.
[91]Schleppegrell,Mary J.Linguistic Features of the Language of Schooling[J].Linguistics and Education,2001:12(4),431-459.
[92]Schleppegrell,Mary J.The Language of Schooling:A Functional Linguistics Perspective[M].Mahwah:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,2004.
[93]Schleppegrell,Mary J.& de Oliveria Luoiana C.An integrated language and content approach for history teachers[J].Journal of English for Academic Purposes,2006,5:254-268.
[94]Shapin,Steven.Pump and Circumstance:Robert Boyle's Literary Technology[J].Special Studies of Science,1984,14(4):481-520.
[95]Shapin,Steven.The House of Experiment in Seventeenth-Century England[J].1sis,1988,79(3):373-404.
[96]Shibatani,Masayoshi.Syntax and Semantics:the Grammar of Causative Constructions[M].New York:Academic Press,1976.
[97]Spiegelberg,H.On the right way to say "we":A linguistic and phenomeno-logical analysis[A].In G.Psathas(ed.).Phenomenological Sociology[M].New York:Wiley,1973:129-156.
[98]Stone,Lawrence.The revival of narrative:reflections on a new old history[A].In Geoffrey Roberts(ed.).The History and Narrative Reader[M].London:Routledge,2001,281-298.
[99]Stieg,M.The origin and development of scholarly historical journals[M]. Alabama:University of Alabama Press,1986.
[100]Stow,George B.Stubbs,Steel,and Richard Ⅱ as Insane:The Origin and Evolution of an English Historiographical Myth[J].Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society,1999,143(4):601-638.
[101]Struever,N.S.Historical Discourse[A].In T.A.van Dijk(ed.).Handbook of Discourse Analysis:Disciplines of Discourse[M].New York:Academic Press,1985:249-271.
[102]Stuchtey,B.& Wende,P.(eds.).British and German Historiography,1750-1950:Traditions,Perceptions,and Transfers[M].London:Oxford University Press,2000.
[103]Swales,J.M.Genre Analysis:English in Academic and Research settings[M].Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1990.
[104]Taavitsainen,Irma & Pahta,Paivi.The Corpus of Early English Medical Writing [J].ICAME,1997,21:71-78.
[105]Taylor,John.R.Cognitive Grammar[M].Oxford:Oxford University Press,2002.
[106]Thompson,J.W.& Holm,B.J.A History of Historical Writing[M].New York:the MacMillan Company,1942.
[107]Thompson,G.Introducing Functional Grammar[M].London:Edward Arnold Publishers Ltd.,1996.
[108]Topolski,Jerzy.Historical Narrative:Towards a Coherent Structure[J].History and Theory,1987,26(4):75-86.
[109]Trimble,William Raleigh.Early Tudor Historiography,1485-1548[J]Journal of the History of Ideas,1950,11(1):30-41.
[110]Unsworth,Len.Developing critical understanding of the specialized language of school science and history texts:A functional grammatical perspective[J].Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy,1999,42(7):508-521.
[111]Vann,T.R.Rhetoric and Social History[J].Journal of Social History,1976,10:221-236.
[112]Veel,R.& Coffin,C.Learn to think like a historian:The language of secondary school history[A].In R.Hasan & G Williams(eds.).Literacy in Society[M].London: Longman,1996:191-231.
[113]Veel,Robert.Learning how to mean--scientifically speaking:apprenticeship into scientific discourse in the secondary school[A].In F.Christie & J.R.Martin(eds.).Genres and Institutions:Social processes in the workplace and school[M].London:Pinter,1997:161-194.
[114]Ventola,Eija.Packing and Unpacking of Information in Academic Texts[A].In E.Ventola,& Anna Mauranen(eds).Academic Writing:Intercultural and Textual lssues [M],Amsterdam:John Benjamins,1996:153-194.
[115]Weiss,G & Wodak,R:(eds.).Critical Discourse Analysis:Theory and Interdisciplinarity[M].London:Palgrave Macmillan,2003.
[116]Wells,Gordon.The complementary contributions of Halliday and Vygosky to a 'Langugage-based Theory of Learning'[J].Linguistics and Education,1994,6:41-90.
[117]White,Hayden.Metahistory:The Historical Imagination in Nineteenth-Century Europe[M].Baltimore:Johns Hopkins University Press,1973.
[118]White,Hayden.Tropics of Discourse[M].Baltimore:John Hopkins University Press,1978.
[119]White,Hayden.The Contents of the Form:Narrative Discourse and Historical Representation[M].Baltimore:John Hopkins University Press,1987.
[120]White,Hayden.The Historical Text as Literary Artifact[A].In Roberts Geoffrey (ed.).The History and Narrative Readers[M].London:Routledge,2001:221-236.
[121]Whitney,J.P.& Bury,J.B.The Late Professor J.B.Bury[J].Cambridge Historical Journal,1927,2(2):191-197.
[122]Woolf,D.R.Genre into Artifact:the Decline of the English Chronicle in the Sixteenth Century[J].Sixteenth Century Journal,1988,19(3):321-354.
[123]Woolf,D.R.Reading History in Early Modern England[M].Cambridge:Cambridge University,2000.
[124]Woolf,D.R.Historiography[A].In M.C.Horowitz(ed.).The New Dictionary of the History of Ideas[M].New York:Charles Scribner's Sore,2005:xxxv-lxxviii
[125]陈新.《西方历史叙述学》[M].北京:社会科学文献出版社,2005.
[126]郭小凌.《西方史学史》[M].北京:北京师范大学出版社,1995.
[127]顾乡.《晚期罗马帝国史》语篇抽象性和客观性分析[J].《复旦外国语言文学论丛秋季号》,2006:277-285.
[128]顾乡.牛顿、波意尔与科学语篇的语法隐喻[J].《复旦外国语言文学论丛春季号》,2007,83-92.
[129]胡壮麟.《认知隐喻学》[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2004.
[130]胡壮麟等.《系统功能语言学概论》[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2005.
[131]林慈淑.柏林与史家论‘道德判断'--兼谈二十世纪英国史学的若干发展[J].《台大历史学学报》,2006,38:219-270.
[132]王立永.《历史文本中的模糊限制语:一项基于两本中英历史书对比的个案研究》[D].西安:西安交通大学,2006.
[133]张广智等.《史学:文化中的文化:文化视野中的西方史学》[M].杭州:浙江人民出版社,1991.
[135]张广智.《西方史学史》[M].上海:复旦大学出版社,2004.
[136]张延君.《学术论文的人际意义研究》[M].青岛:中国海洋大学出版社,2006.
[137]朱永生.名词化、动词化与语法隐喻[J].《外语教学与研究》,2006,38(2):83-89.
[138]朱永生等.《系统功能语言学多维思考》[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2001.
[139]朱永生等.《功能语言学导论》[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社,2004.
[140]朱卫斌.历史学:科学还是艺术[J].《中山大学学报(社会科学版)》,1995,4:74-81.