摘要
在逻辑实证主义的影响下，人们一般认为科技语篇是以“白描式”(literal)的语言来记述科学发现，很少有人会将隐喻与科技语篇联系起来。但最近的研究表明，科技语篇同样应是隐喻性的。本文从系统功能语言学的角度探讨科技语篇中的语法隐喻现象及其功能，并对语法隐喻在汉语和英语科技语篇中的功能作尝试性的对比分析。
第二章从文体学、认知语言学与系统功能语言学的角度回顾科技语篇的发展轨迹。文体学家对科技语篇的研究主要集中在语言形式，如词汇、语法结构、语篇结构等，而忽略了其隐喻性。科技语篇的隐喻性虽然是认知语言学家的研究重心，但是认知语言学的隐喻观只涉及了其词汇隐喻现象，导致了其研究的片面性。系统功能语言学的语法隐语从词汇语法层面探讨科技语篇的隐喻性，从语言学的角度成功地解构了科技语篇。
第三章全面地阐述了韩礼德的语法隐喻理论。首先，在对比词汇隐喻，阐明“一致式”的基础上全面探讨了语法隐喻这一理论。其次，详细描述了韩礼德最新提出的13类语法隐喻，韩礼德对语法隐喻做出地新的分类表明了他对语法隐喻理论的新发展。第三部分主要论述了在韩礼德研究基础上提出的语法隐喻的语篇功能。
第四章对比了汉语科技语篇与英语科技语篇中的语法隐喻现象及其功能。分析表明，汉语科技语篇同英语科技语篇一样存在大量的语法隐喻，而且在功能上具有惊人的相似。分析首先证明了在英汉科技语篇中语法隐喻具有语篇功能，即：指称功能，扩充功能和衔接功能。在此基础上探讨了语法隐喻的另外三点功能：第一，语法隐喻在科技语篇中通过掩饰科学家在研究过程中的主导作用或动因而使其具有客观性、准确性和权威性，因此语法隐喻从语言学的角度解构了科技语篇，从而为探索真理的相对性这一课题提供了新的视角。其次，通过语法隐喻，人类能够把握纷繁无序的客观世界所具有的相似性、关联性，从而改变或建构一个全新的、有序的大千世界以供我们进行研究、探索，并最终促进人类认知的发展和科学的进步。最后，通过语法隐喻，大量的由小句传递的信息被压缩、打包成名词或名词词组，并在小句中充当成分，使科技语篇的句子浓缩，信息量大大增加，从而使科技语篇显得抽象、客观、简练、技术性强。所以说，语法隐喻已成为科技语篇显示其语类特征不可或缺的手段。
本文最后一章总结全文，并指出在英汉科技语篇中语法隐喻起着几乎相同的作用，只是由于英汉语在不同语法与文化背景的影响下，在功能的显现程度上有些不同。
Influenced by logical positivism, the philosophical trend of thinking prevalent in the western science culture, science is and should be described in terms of literal language, while scientific discourse, as a special genre of discourse, has long been regarded as the presentation of facts, and similar types of information with clear, unambiguous, precise and objective language. However, recent studies on metaphor issue a challenge to it, maintaining the metaphoricity of scientific discourse. Among the study of metaphoricity of scientific discourse, Halliday's grammatical metaphor theory achieves a lot. This thesis takes the perspective of systemic functional linguistics to explore the functions of grammatical metaphor in Chinese and English scientific discourse, with an attempt to discover similarities and dissimilarities between them.
The historical review of the scientific discourse study in Part 2 falls into three parts. The first part describes and assesses the research in terms of stylistics. This traditional approach considers scientific discourse as a repository of scientific results or products, so their studies mainly center on the features of linguistic form, such as word choice and sentence pattern, with an attempt to facilitate translation, reading and writing of scientific discourse. The studies in this respect are effective in promoting the translation of scientific discourse, while ignoring the metaphoricity of scientific discourse. The second part gives a brief account of cognitive approach to scientific discourse. Traditionally, the relationship between metaphor and science has never been attended to in the study of metaphor. However, owing to the influence of logical relativism, the demise of logical positivism as well as the recognition of metaphor as one kind of cognitive means, we have seen some emerging interest in th
e metaphoricity of scientific discourse in the past two or three decades. Constructivists like Gertner, Boyd and Kuhn (1979, in Ortony, 1979 ) all argue to the effect that metaphor permeates all discourse, ordinary and special. Cognitive theorists, Lakoff and his colleagues demonstrate that metaphors are not something that occur only in the domains of poetry and art language, but are an indispensable part of other kinds of
discourse, professional or nonprofessional (In, Ortony, 1993). The pity is, however, that most of the theorists engaged in the study of the metaphoricity of scientific discourse, such as Lakoff and Boyd have only attended to the function of metaphor in the introduction or development of scientific terms^, 2000). Their studies have focused on the lexical level and stopped as such. The way of investigation is insightful, but suffers the defect of partiality. In the third part, the systemic functional approach to scientific discourse, particularly Halliday's grammatical metaphor, is introduced. Halliday's grammatical metaphor is devoted to the metaphoricity of scientific discourse in grammatical terms. He intends to deconstruct scientific discourse from linguistic perspective by applying grammatical metaphor theory to the study of scientific discourse.
The revisit to grammatical metaphor theory in Part 3 is divided into 3 parts. The first part mainly focuses on the elucidation of grammatical metaphor theory basing on the distinction between lexical and grammatical metaphor, and Halliday's interpretation of the term "congruent". Halliday in his early writings considers lexical metaphor as "variation in the meaning of a given expression", while grammatical metaphor as "variation in the expression of a given meaning", and in 1996 he mentions this issue again and draws the distinction between them like this "Traditionally the term is applied only to lexical transformations and it is theorized as 'same signifier, different signified'...But I shall theorize these as 'same signified, different signifier' ". However, Halliday's definition of "congruent" is not as explicit as his distinction between lexical and grammatical metaphor. In his several writings he is de
引文
Barber, C. L. 1962. Some Measurable Characteristics of Modern Scientific Prose[A], In Contributions to English Syntax and Phonology. Stockholm: Almquist & Wiksell.
Boyd, R. 1979. Metaphor and Theory Change[A], In Ortony (eds.). Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Close, R. A. 1965. The English We Use for Science [M]. London: Longman.
Ewer, J. R. and G. Latorre. 1969. A Course in Basic English [M]. London: Longman
Geoff Thompson. 1996. Introducing Functional Grammar[M], London: Edward and Arnold
Halliday, M.A.K. 1985. An introduction to Functional Grammar[M]. London: Edward and Arnold.
Halliday, M.A.K. 1994. An introduction to Functional Grammar (New Edition) [M]. London: Edward and Arnold.
Halliday, M.A.K. 1996. Things and Relations: Regrammaticizing Experience as Technical Knowledge [A], In J. R. Martin & Robert Veel(eds.). Reading Science: critical and functional perspectives on discourses of science [C]. London: Routledge.
Halliday, M.A.K. 1999. The Grammatical Construction of Scientific Knowledge: the Framing of the English Clause[A], In R. Rossini, G. Sandri & R. Scazzieri(eds.). Incommensurability and Translation [C], Cheltenham: Edgar
Herbert, A. J. 1965. The Structure of Technical English[M]. London: Longman.
Kuhn, T. S. 1979. Metaphor in Science[A], In Ortony(eds.), Metaphor and Thought[C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Lackstrom, J. Selinker, L and L. Trimber, 1972, Grammar and Technical English, English Teaching Forum X, 5.3-14
Louis Trimble. 1985. English for Science and Technology: A Discourse Approach [M]. London: Cambridge University Press.
Martin, J. R. 1992. English Text [M], Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company
McDermott, T. S. 1999. Two Models of the Overlap of the Sciences: Modern Reductionism and Medieval Abstraction[A]. In R. Rossini, G. Sandri & R. Scazzieri(eds.). Incommensurability and Translation [C]. Chelterham: Elgar.
Ortony, A. (eds.) 1979. Metaphor and Thought [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Ortony, A. (eds.) 1993. Metaphor and Thought (second edition) [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Roe, P. 1977. Scientific Text: Discourse Analysis Monograph [M]. Birminghan: Birminghan University Press.
Swlinder, L. Lackstrom, J. and L. Trimble. 1973. Technical Rhetorical Principle and Grammatical Choice[J]. TESOL Quarterly Ⅶ, 2. 127-136
Widdowson, H. G. 1979. Explorations in Applied Linguistics[M]. London: Oxford University Press.
范文芳，2001，《语法隐喻理论》[M]，北京：外语教学与研究出版社。
胡壮麟，1994，《语篇的衔接与连贯》[M]，上海外语出版社
胡壮麟，1996，语法隐喻[J]，《外语教学与研究》第4期。
李鲁，1993，EST发展轨迹探析[J]，《外语教学与研究》第4期
肖建安、王志军，2001，名物化结构地功能及变体特征[J]，《外语与外语教学》第6期
严世清，1995，隐喻理论史探[J]，《外国语》第5期
严世清，2000，《隐喻论》[M]，苏州：苏州大学出版社。
严世清，2002a，论韩礼德的语言哲学思想[J]，《外语研究》第2期。
严世清, 2002b, The discursive functions of grammatical metaphor. Paper presented to the 7th Discourse Analysis Symposium.
朱永生，1994，英语中的语法比喻现象[J]，《外国语》第1期。
朱永生、董宏乐，2001，科技语篇中的词汇隐喻、语法隐喻及其互补性[J]，《山东外语教学》第4期
朱永生、严世清，2000，语法隐喻理论的理据与贡献[J]，《外语教学与研究》第2期。
朱永生、严世清，2001，《系统功能语言学多维思考》[M]，上海：上海外语教育出版社。