iReasearch学术科研网

传统语义学对字、词、句意义的研究深入、全面,但对大语篇意义的研究涉及不深。大语篇的意义决定着人们交际的方向和目的,是一种人们赖以生存的社会过程。因此,研究大语篇、构建大语篇意义的分析框架成了当代语篇分析家的中心任务。20世纪后半叶以来,越来越多的语篇分析家和语篇语言学家或篇章语言学家开始关注语篇语义的研究,并取得了可喜的成果。本文关注语篇语义学的研究现状,从理论基础、代表作、主要观点和理论意义等方面研究悉尼学派和欧洲大陆学派的语篇语义观,并以王振华(2009)提出的一个范式、两个脉络、三种功能、四种语义、五个视角的语篇语义研究路径为基础,从研究范式、研究目标和研究内容上对两大学派在语篇语义学研究方面的异同进行对比分析,探索它们的优势和发展空间。研究发现这两个学派具有一定的互补性,对未来的语篇语义研究具有启发作用。

Traditional semantics looks into the meaning of words and sentences and has developed full-fledged theoretical frameworks. But this branch seldom explores effective approaches to big texts or discourses. In fact , the meaning of big text or discourse orients human communications to their real goal , for the text or discourse is a social process we live by. Therefore , to explore big texts and develop theories and analytical frameworks are focuses of contemporary discourse analysts and discourse semanticists. ln this paper. we review discourse-semantic studies done by Sydney School and European Continental School in the aspects of their theoretical foundations , masterpieces. and their frameworks. Then on the basis of the analytical framework of "one paradigm",  " two veins of texture" ,  "three meta-functions" , "four veins of meaning" , and "five perspectives" developed by Wang Zhenhua (2009) , we explore the similarities and differences hetween the two schools in terms of research paradigm , research objective and research focus. We then come to some tentative conclusion that these two schools are complementary in discourse-semantic studies.