英国dissertation范文-Compliance analysis anaphora in the 2010 British gene

ChapterⅠ Introduction

1.1 Motivation of the ResearchAnaphora choice in human utterance is an extremely complicated phenomenon. There mayexist a variety of potentially suitable referring expressions with exactly correct grammaticalforms, thus they can all be used to refer to the entity that anaphor is intended for. However, notall of language choices are highly felicitous in real-life situations. As for nominal anaphora,sometimes, nouns may be used, including nouns, noun phrases, proper nouns, and definitedescriptions; sometimes, pronouns are preferred, including personal pronouns, demonstrativepronouns and reflexives; sometimes zero pronouns are even appreciated. For instance, whenHillary Clinton is referred to, nouns Clinton, Hillary, or definite noun phrases the U.S.ASecretary of State, the former first lady, the former presidency candidate or pronouns she, oreven zero anaphora are all correct options. However, each choice of the referring expressions isnot indiscriminate and random, but intentional and purposeful.A great number of linguists and scholars have made substantial researches about anaphorafrom various points of views such as syntax, semantics, functional linguistics, cognitivelinguistics, pragmatics and discourse analysis, geared to exploring the choice, the employmentand general principles of anaphora. They indeed have made some achievements in the relatedfields. In those studies, the understanding of anaphora is deepened gradually: direct anaphora isconverted to indirect anaphora and superficial form has replaced deep cognitive mechanism.Anyhow, those research approaches still have some limitations and demerits to a certain extent,therefore, this thesis adopts adaptation theory proposed by Verschueren as theoretical basiswhich is a kind of pragmatic perspective at an attempt to get over the deficiencies of previousstudies and thus make this research more comprehensive and scientific.

1.2 Significance of the Research
Previous studies are mostly carried out from unidimensional and perspectives, some static are confined to formal syntactic rules without regard to context, some are restricted bysuperficial structure of text with neglecting participant’s subjectivity and self-consciousness,and some only emphasize interpreter’s psychological and cognitive mechanism with anoversight of utterer’s communication intention and strategy. Although those studies go deeperand deeper into the exploration of anaphora and some attainments have been made, the previousresearch approaches have some limitations. For instance, pragmatic model and cognitive modelprobe into deep mechanism that restricts anaphora from dynamic perspective of reference,which goes beyond traditional views from research depth and width. But the two approachesfail to reveal interactive choice mechanism of anaphora, with stress solely on addresser’sintention and pragmatic strategy but overlooking addressee’s understanding effect and feedbackon utterance.This thesis breaks away from traditional approaches which are mostly confined toone-dimensional and static perspective, and adopts a quite different angle. It plans to useadaptation theory proposed by Verschueren to explore the phenomenon of anaphora in theBritain’s election debates, at an attempt to analyze anaphora choice as a bidirectional anddynamic process with mutual constraint and adaptation when the utterer and interpreter arepositioned in the perspective context, since in the process of communication the addresser’sexpression and addressee’s understanding are of the same significance. This linguisticadaptation manages to integrate related theories of syntax, semantics, cognitive linguistics,pragmatics, discourse analysis and sociolinguistic as a whole theoretical framework ofpragmatic perspective, it is “a general cognitive, social, and cultural perspective on linguisticphenomenon in relation to their usage in forms of behavior” (Verschueren，1999:7). This canprovide crucial guidelines and instructions for anaphora research.#p#分页标题#e#

Chapter I Introduction...........................................1
1.1 Motivation of the Research......................................2
1.2 Significance of the Research...................................3
1.3 Methodology of the Research.............................................3
Chapter II Literature Review..................................5
2.1 Notion of Anaphora.......................................5
2.2 Categories of Anaphora....................................6
2.3 Function of Anaphora...........................................9
2.4 Previous studies of Anaphora.......................................10
Chapter III Theoretical Framework.............................................20
3.1 An Introduction to Adaptation Theory......................................20
3.2 Context in Adaptation Theory.................................................24
3.3 Adaptation Theory as Theoretical Framework for Anaphora Study.....28
Chapter IV Anaphora as Adaptation to Communicative Context...........29
4.1 Anaphora as Adaptation to Mental World...............................29

Chapter Ⅴ Conclusion

5.1 Summary of the Research
The analyses are carried out revolving around the phenomenon of anaphora in the 2010Britain’s TV election debate. With an overview of three speakers’ utterance, the debate aboundsin a full range of anaphora. As a linguistic device, anaphora is widely applied to their utteranceby the speakers throughout the debate. The three contestants make linguistic choices for thesake of their own interests. No matter what anaphora form is adopted, they all strive for theultimate objective—to be elected Prime Minister. Admittedly, the employment of anaphora canexercise some influence on final result.In general, the anaphora mainly adapts to communicative context in accordance withadaptation theory. To be specific, it adapts to mental world, social world and physical world.Most instances about the anaphora use are subsumed under the category of adaptation to mentalworld since lots of mental factors can play a part in the speakers’ utterance. Therefore, theutterers’ anaphor choices adapt to their motivation, political intention, self-centeredness,emotion and character. Among the three contestants, Gordon’s too much emphasis on his selfvalue and most of his reproof adapts to his self-centeredness and hasty character throughanaphora while most of anaphora employed by David and Nick adapts to their motivation,political intention, outburst of emotion at a certain moment as well as their relatively modestand kind character. In addition to speakers’ mental world, anaphora also adapts to audience’smental world with taking into consideration their wish, desire, and feeling. In the social world,the anaphors David and Nick choose adapt to social solidarity with stress on every Britishpeople’s effort, some anaphora in David’s utterance also adapts to Gordon’s social status, andthe three contestants all utilize a certain anaphora just to adapt to political party of their own ortheir opponent. In the physical world, both David and Nick pay attention to their words at thebeginning of debate and then their anaphor choices adapt to their utterance time, and Nick alsouses a certain anaphora as adaptation to his utterance space.#p#分页标题#e#

Bibliography
[1] Ariel, M. Accessing Noun Phrase Antecedents [M]. London: Routledge, 1990.
[2] Ariel, M. Interpreting Anaphoric Expressions: A Cognitive versus Pragmatic Approach [J]. Journal ofLinguistics, 30: 3-40.
[3] Charalles, M. http://www.ukthesis.org/ygsslwdx/ Associative Anaphora and Its Interpretation [J]. Journal of Pragmatics, 1999 (31): 311-326.
[4] Chomsky, N. Lectures on Government and Binding [M]. Dordrecht: Foris. 1981.
[5] Christopher Hart, Dominik Lukes. Cognitive Linguistics in Critical Discourse Analysis: Application andTheory [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2007
[6] Fox, B. A. Discourse Structure and Anaphora: Written and Conversational English [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1993.
[7] Gibbs, R. Speaking and Thinking with Metonymy [A]. In Klaus-Uwe Panther & G. Radden (eds.)Metonymy in Language and Thought [C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1999.