作　　者： ;

机构地区： 北京外国语大学中国外语与教育研究中心

出　　处： 《外语教学》 2021年第6期17-23,共7页

摘　　要： 学界一般认为,英语"处所倒装句"是"常规句"的倒装变换形式,两种句式表达相同的命题意义,"处所倒装句"不具备独立的语法地位。本研究在系统功能视角下重新审视英语"处所倒装句"的语法性质和语法地位,认为英语"处所倒装句"和"常规句"存在本质区别:经验元功能维度,"处所倒装句"实质上是存在过程小句,相应的"常规句"则为物质过程或关系过程小句,两种句式识解不同的经验意义。在人际功能维度上,两种句式承担命题效度的人际主语不同;与"常规句"相比,"处所倒装句"对极性系统的选择受到否定制约。在语篇元功能维度上,"处所倒装句"和"常规句"的主位结构、语篇衔接和信息分布存在差异。由此从学理看,英语"处所倒装句"不应被视作倒装句式,而应被赋予独立的语法地位。 Traditional grammar discerns CWO(canonical word order) clauses and LI(locative inversion) clauses in English,which are regarded to express almost the same propositional meaning. LI clauses are not endowed with an independent status in grammar, and are treated as the inversional transformation of CWO clauses. From the SFG perspective, this study argues that there are essential differences between LI clauses and CWO clauses. In the experiential metafunction dimension, LI clauses are existential processes in nature while CWO clauses are action processes or relational processes. In the interpersonal dimension, the subject responsible for the validity of the clause proposition is different between LI and CWO clauses;compared with CWO clauses, the wording choices concerning POLARITY show a certain degree of negation restriction in LI clauses. In the textual metafunction dimension, the thematic structure, the textual cohesion and the information distribution are all different between LI and CWO clauses. Thus, LI clauses are not the simple word-order reconstruction of CWO clauses, and should not be regarded as subordinate structures, which implies that they should be endowed with an independent status in grammar.

关 键 词： 处所倒装句 常规句 元功能 存在过程

领　　域： [语言文字—语言学]