本文關(guān)鍵詞：阿爾茨海默癥患者話語的系統(tǒng)功能語言學(xué)研究，，由筆耕文化傳播整理發(fā)布。

        本研究的目的是：從理論層面探討臨床語言研究的系統(tǒng)功能語言學(xué)理據(jù)及途徑,從實(shí)踐操作層面嘗試基于系統(tǒng)功能語言學(xué)理論框架的阿爾茨海默癥患者話語分析,為該言語失調(diào)癥的早期評(píng)估和診斷提供語言學(xué)證據(jù)。臨床語言研究在當(dāng)今社會(huì)具有重要的理論和實(shí)踐價(jià)值。就臨床語言研究的理論價(jià)值而論,其研究發(fā)現(xiàn)將對(duì)主流語言學(xué)作出有益的補(bǔ)充,并從語言的病理表現(xiàn)檢驗(yàn)主流語言學(xué)的理論構(gòu)建。從臨床語言研究的實(shí)踐價(jià)值而言,對(duì)各類言語失調(diào)現(xiàn)象作基于語言學(xué)的科學(xué)研究,有助于對(duì)言語失調(diào)患者的語言功能作出準(zhǔn)確和明晰的評(píng)估,從而為言語失調(diào)的醫(yī)學(xué)診斷和干預(yù)提供基于語言學(xué)的證據(jù),為言語失調(diào)患者的語言康復(fù)制定合理的目標(biāo)和計(jì)劃。國外臨床語言學(xué)的研究已經(jīng)滲透到各類言語失調(diào)癥,呈現(xiàn)出蓬勃發(fā)展,欣欣向榮的局面；相形之下,國內(nèi)臨床語言學(xué)無論在研究的覆蓋面、研究隊(duì)伍、語料建設(shè)、專業(yè)刊物還是文獻(xiàn)資料等方面均有待改進(jìn)。當(dāng)前,國內(nèi)臨床語言的研究側(cè)重于失語癥和手語,其它言語失調(diào)癥,如口吃、唇腭裂、孤獨(dú)癥和因疾病等因素導(dǎo)致的特殊腦損傷、阿爾茨海默癥等疾病患者的言語失調(diào)現(xiàn)象尚未獲得足夠重視。另外,國內(nèi)臨床語言的研究以實(shí)用主義為導(dǎo)向,側(cè)重于言語康復(fù)訓(xùn)練,一定程度上忽視了臨床語言學(xué)的理論構(gòu)建。傳統(tǒng)臨床語言研究以結(jié)構(gòu)主義語言學(xué)和生成語法為理論藍(lán)圖,注重言語缺陷的音系、詞法和句法研究,忽視了語言的實(shí)際使用和意義發(fā)生的社會(huì)語境。當(dāng)今臨床語言研究的趨勢(shì)是以言語失調(diào)患者的真實(shí)話語為語料,注重語言的實(shí)際使用,將社會(huì)和文化語境作為重要的參項(xiàng),關(guān)注言語失調(diào)的跨語言表現(xiàn),并將臨床語言的研究推進(jìn)到語篇層面。Halliday (1994:F55-56)認(rèn)為語言學(xué)有21種用途,其中四種涉及臨床語言的評(píng)估和干預(yù)。為推動(dòng)系統(tǒng)功能語言學(xué)與臨床語言研究的整合,Halliday(2005：133-135)就系統(tǒng)功能語言學(xué)對(duì)臨床語言研究的意義作了精辟的闡述。此后,國外基于系統(tǒng)功能語言學(xué)分析框架的臨床語言研究逐年增加,吸引著越來越多學(xué)者的關(guān)注。然而,基于此框架的臨床語言研究只涉及系統(tǒng)功能語言學(xué)的個(gè)別側(cè)面,還不夠系統(tǒng)和全面,國內(nèi)至今尚無學(xué)者開展相關(guān)研究。系統(tǒng)功能語言學(xué)以解決語言之外的問題為理論構(gòu)建之價(jià)值訴求,其工作目標(biāo)是為話語(語篇)分析構(gòu)建一部語法。本文以系統(tǒng)功能語言學(xué)為理論框架,借助該理論的分析方法對(duì)英語輕度阿爾茨海默癥患者和健康老年人的話語作多維度的研究,具體而言,就是將系統(tǒng)功能語言學(xué)的三個(gè)元功能作為操作進(jìn)路,從主位結(jié)構(gòu)、人際意義、及物性、銜接與連貫四個(gè)維度對(duì)二組話語展開研究,從小句到語篇層面對(duì)輕度阿爾茨海默癥患者的語言功能作出較為全面的分析和評(píng)估。主位研究從三個(gè)方面展開,分別是主位的標(biāo)記性、主位推進(jìn)模式和多重主位；人際意義的研究也從三個(gè)方面進(jìn)行,分別是語氣、情態(tài)和評(píng)價(jià)；及物性研究重點(diǎn)從表征參與者和環(huán)境成分的詞匯語法資源著手；銜接與連貫研究從三個(gè)大的方面鋪開,即話語構(gòu)建、銜接和話語損傷,這三方面分別由不同的指標(biāo)構(gòu)成。由于四個(gè)維度的研究均由不同的范疇構(gòu)成,在具體分析中我們根據(jù)研究需要對(duì)語料作了細(xì)致的標(biāo)記。研究結(jié)果表明,在主位的標(biāo)記性方面,患者組和健康組的主位標(biāo)記性均不高,說明二組被試傾向于使用無標(biāo)記主位作為小句的出發(fā)點(diǎn)；在主位的推進(jìn)方面,患者組和健康組均以線性主位推進(jìn)模式和重復(fù)性主位推進(jìn)模式為主,二組被試在線性主位推進(jìn)方面不存在顯著差別,而在重復(fù)性主位推進(jìn)模式方面,患者組明顯高于健康組,說明輕度阿爾茨海默癥患者在言語交際中多使用重復(fù)性語義資源,反映出患者在詞匯提取方面存在一定的困難；在多重主位方面,二組語料均呈現(xiàn)出簡(jiǎn)化的特征,沒有發(fā)現(xiàn)由語篇、人際和概念成分共同構(gòu)成的多重主位,在患者組語料的多重主位中,多以人際+話題成分構(gòu)成,語篇成分較少。在人際意義層面,語氣分析重點(diǎn)考查了主語和補(bǔ)語的構(gòu)成,結(jié)果發(fā)現(xiàn)患者組和健康組用于表征主語和補(bǔ)語的名詞性詞匯資源多為簡(jiǎn)單名詞詞組,不同之處是,患者組語料中使用的名詞性語義資源具體性不強(qiáng),出現(xiàn)用上位詞代替具體名詞的現(xiàn)象,如用"thing"取代目標(biāo)名詞,另外,患者組語料中使用的指示詞較健康組語料多。這二種現(xiàn)象表明患者存在名詞提取故障,從而不得不求助于概括性的上位詞或指示詞。在情態(tài)分析中,著重考查患者組和健康組在情態(tài)助動(dòng)詞使用方面的情況,從而對(duì)被試在完成語言任務(wù)時(shí)話語的情態(tài)意義作出評(píng)估,分析結(jié)果表明,患者組所使用的情態(tài)助動(dòng)詞明顯多于健康組。在患者組所使用的情態(tài)助動(dòng)詞中,肯定性和否定性助動(dòng)詞均以中值和低值為主,表明輕度阿爾茨海默癥患者在對(duì)語言事件進(jìn)行表征時(shí)不夠確定,話語的歸向性(polarity)不明確,從而采取一種協(xié)商的立場(chǎng),而健康組被試較少使用情態(tài)助動(dòng)詞則說明他們對(duì)自己的話語有足夠的信心。評(píng)價(jià)資源的分析重點(diǎn)從表達(dá)說話人態(tài)度的語義資源入手,結(jié)果表明,患者在完成語言任務(wù)時(shí)基本沒有使用態(tài)度類評(píng)價(jià)語義資源,而健康組被試則較多使用了表達(dá)態(tài)度的語義資源,這從側(cè)面表明輕度阿爾茨海默癥患者的語義資源不夠豐富,話語內(nèi)容不夠具體,在完成語言任務(wù)時(shí)缺乏語言多樣性。在及物性層面,研究首先考查了輕度阿爾茨海默癥患者和健康被試表征過程的能力,結(jié)果發(fā)現(xiàn),和健康老年人一樣,患者能夠表征各類過程類型,二組語料占前三位的過程類型分別是物質(zhì)過程、心理過程和關(guān)系過程。在此基礎(chǔ)上,我們對(duì)三類主要過程的參與者和環(huán)境成分的構(gòu)成作了分析,結(jié)果發(fā)現(xiàn),患者組在參與者和環(huán)境成分構(gòu)成的復(fù)雜性方面沒有健康組高,多使用簡(jiǎn)單名詞詞組、上位詞"thing"和指示詞(如‘’that","this").在患者所使用的復(fù)合名詞詞組中,較少使用對(duì)中心詞的性質(zhì)、特征、分類等作限定或說明的成分,表明患者在參與者和環(huán)境成分的表征方面缺乏具體性,導(dǎo)致話語的內(nèi)容空洞貧乏,反映出患者在名詞性詞匯資源方面存在提取困難和缺乏對(duì)其進(jìn)行修飾加工的能力。在銜接與連貫層面,研究從話語與語義記憶和工作記憶的關(guān)系著手,著重從話語構(gòu)建、銜接和話語損傷三方面對(duì)二組語料作了分析。結(jié)果表明,患者組在話語構(gòu)建和銜接性語言指標(biāo)的使用方面明顯低于健康組,在話題維系和整體連貫方面健康組明顯優(yōu)于患者組,而患者組在話語損傷指標(biāo)方面則顯著高于健康組,同時(shí)患者組在話語進(jìn)行中還存在話題驟轉(zhuǎn)現(xiàn)象。上述分析結(jié)果表明,話語的語義記憶與銜接具有關(guān)聯(lián)性,銜接手段中的照應(yīng)、時(shí)間銜接和話題維系均需借助語義資源的合理布局和使用才能實(shí)現(xiàn),而整體連貫則和語言使用者的工作記憶相關(guān),因?yàn)檎w連貫涉及話題的一致性和話語內(nèi)容的協(xié)調(diào)性,如果說話者的工作記憶受損,那么他的話語可能會(huì)出現(xiàn)話題轉(zhuǎn)移從而發(fā)生言語內(nèi)容前后不一致的情況。從對(duì)患者組和健康組語料的銜接與連貫的分析結(jié)果來看,輕度阿爾茨海默癥患者無論在語義記憶還是在工作記憶方面均受到了損傷,而健康老年人不存在類似情況。本文共分十章。第一章“導(dǎo)論”闡明研究的背景、目的、意義和語料收集的方法。從研究的意義而言,本文旨在從理論和實(shí)踐二方面展示系統(tǒng)功能語言學(xué)在臨床語言研究中的獨(dú)特價(jià)值,并通過實(shí)證研究為早期阿爾茨海默癥的診斷和語言功能的評(píng)估提供語言學(xué)證據(jù)。第二章“文獻(xiàn)綜述”是對(duì)本文的主要理論和方法發(fā)展現(xiàn)狀的總體回顧和評(píng)述。本章主要內(nèi)容有：首先對(duì)臨床語言學(xué)的相關(guān)概念和研究范圍作簡(jiǎn)要說明,明確其操作路徑；其次,對(duì)阿爾茨海默癥患者的語言功能作簡(jiǎn)要評(píng)述；再次,探討話語與語義記憶和工作記憶的關(guān)系；最后,對(duì)系統(tǒng)功能語言學(xué)指導(dǎo)下的與本研究相關(guān)的研究作評(píng)述。第三章“理論基礎(chǔ)”對(duì)本研究所依賴的指導(dǎo)性理論作闡述。首先,我們對(duì)系統(tǒng)功能語言學(xué)對(duì)本研究的意義和啟示作宏觀的探討,然后對(duì)臨床話語研究的語言學(xué)理論框架作簡(jiǎn)要的評(píng)述,探討各理論框架的優(yōu)點(diǎn)和不足,最后明確臨床話語分析的系統(tǒng)功能語言學(xué)理據(jù)及途徑。第四章“研究設(shè)計(jì)”首先對(duì)本文依托的方法論作簡(jiǎn)要說明,然后闡明語料的標(biāo)記方法和實(shí)證分析方法,并呈現(xiàn)本研究被試的人口學(xué)信息。總體而言,本文采用了質(zhì)性和量性相結(jié)合的研究方法,目的是對(duì)語料作多維度、全方位的研究。第五章“阿爾茨海默癥患者話語的主位結(jié)構(gòu)分析”從主位的標(biāo)記性、主位推進(jìn)模式和多重主位三方面對(duì)被試的語料作詳盡的分析。在具體分析中,著重從主位的構(gòu)成、標(biāo)記性主位的特征、線性和重復(fù)性主位推進(jìn)模式、多重主位的組成成分對(duì)患者組和健康組的語料作對(duì)比分析,揭示二者在主位這一語言構(gòu)式方面的使用情況。第六章“阿爾茨海默癥患者話語的銜接研究”從三方面展開,分別是話語構(gòu)建、銜接和話語損傷。本章的目的是對(duì)患者在語篇生成過程中所使用的話語構(gòu)建和銜接性語義資源作評(píng)估和分析,揭示患者話語損傷的具體方面,并將被試的話語表現(xiàn)與語義記憶和工作記憶建立關(guān)聯(lián),從這二方面對(duì)患者話語的銜接與連貫問題進(jìn)行解釋。第七章“阿爾茨海默癥患者話語的人際意義研究”著重從語氣、情態(tài)和評(píng)價(jià)三方面入手,對(duì)患者組和健康組在語氣的主語和補(bǔ)語構(gòu)成、情態(tài)助動(dòng)詞的使用和評(píng)價(jià)系統(tǒng)中態(tài)度類語義資源的使用情況作綜合研究。語氣研究中的主語和補(bǔ)語的分析與第七章的及物性分析具有互補(bǔ)性,而情態(tài)分析則揭示了患者在表達(dá)個(gè)人情感和立場(chǎng)時(shí)的語言使用情況。評(píng)價(jià)系統(tǒng)中的態(tài)度分析則進(jìn)一步對(duì)患者和健康老年人在表達(dá)個(gè)人態(tài)度時(shí)的語義資源作出描述,從而對(duì)被試話語的質(zhì)量作出評(píng)估。第八章“阿爾茨海默癥患者話語的及物性分析”重點(diǎn)分析患者組和健康組的名詞性語義資源。以往研究發(fā)現(xiàn),阿爾茨海默癥患者存在名詞提取困難,集中表現(xiàn)為命名缺陷,本章的及物性分析正好可以從名詞詞組的角度對(duì)先前的研究結(jié)論進(jìn)行檢驗(yàn)。研究從過程類型分析出發(fā),進(jìn)而對(duì)三類主要過程的參與者和環(huán)境成分作系統(tǒng)分析,重點(diǎn)是參與者和環(huán)境成分的構(gòu)成,以此揭示患者在表征參與者和環(huán)境成分時(shí)的名詞性詞匯語法資源的使用情況。第九章“討論與啟示”對(duì)研究結(jié)果進(jìn)行探討,明確研究結(jié)果的啟示。第十章“結(jié)論”對(duì)整個(gè)研究的發(fā)現(xiàn)作總結(jié),在此基礎(chǔ)上探討研究的不足和今后努力的方向。

    The present study has two purposes. The first purpose is to theoretically address the Systemic functional linguistic (SFL) motive and approach of clinical discourse analysis. The second purpose is to practically conduct a discourse analysis of the Alzheimer’s patients within the framework of SFL and to provide linguistics evidence for the assessment and intervention of the Alzheimer’s disease.Studies of language disorder are both theoretically and practically significant in our times. So far as the theoretical significance is concerned, the findings of clinical linguistic studies are valuable supplements to the mainstream linguistics. In the meantime, disordered language is a touchstone which serves to the test, remediation and development of the mainstream linguistic theories. In terms of the practical value of language disorder studies, a linguistics-based study of the disordered language would make a clear and accurate assessment of the language functions of the clinical population. A linguistics-based assessment of the language function is essential for the medical diagnosis and intervention of language disorders. Furthermore, it serves as the evidence for making feasible plans and approachable goals for language function remediation. Clinical linguistic studies abroad have reached to all the disordered syndromes and made great achievements in the past few years. In comparison to the prosperity of clinical linguistic studies abroad, we are falling far behind in the scope of certain disordered areas, the research staff, the bank of material, academic journals and references. Currently, Chinese clinical linguistic studies are focused on aphasia and sign language, for other language disorders, such as stuttering, cleft palate, autism and other brain damage induced or disease induced disorders like Specific Brain Impairment and the dementia of Alzheimer’s type are not yet given due recognition. Meanwhile, Chinese clinical linguistic studies are pragmaticism guided which pay more attention to remediation rather than theory construction.Conventional clinical linguistic studies were mainly conducted under the guidelines of structural linguistics and generative grammar which focused on phonology, lexicon and syntax and discarded the social context of authentic language use and meaning making. The tendency of clinical linguistic studies is to analyze the disordered language users’ discourse and synthesize the social and cultural contexts in the analysis. Meanwhile, cross language performance of the disordered language users is now becoming an emergent area in clinical linguistic studies. In taking the authentic language use and context into consideration, clinical linguistic studies are called to be conducted on discourse level rather than sentence level. The analytic framework of this thesis is the systemic functional linguistics (SFL) for its unique advantages in discourse analysis. The aims of the study were a multi-dimensional investigation of the mild Alzheimer’s narrative description of the Cookie Theft Picture. The analyses of the Alzheimer’s disease were carried out in accordance with SFL’s metafunctions, i.e. ideational, interpersonal and texture with detailed tagging of the discourse in the quantitative and qualitative analyses. The metafunctional analyses of the discourse of the Alzheimer’s patients have made it possible to deal with the discourse from clause to text which yielded a comprehensive assessment of the language function of the Alzheimer’s patients.Firstly, the textural metafunction of the discourse was analyzed in the markedness of themes, the patterns of theme progression and multiple themes. Secondly, the analyses of the interpersonal meanings of the discourse were carried out in mood, modality and appraisal system. Thirdly, the ideational meanings of the discourse were analyzed in transitivity system with special attention given to the construction of participant and circumstance of the clause. Fourthly, the thesis gave a detailed analysis of the cohesion and coherence of the Alzheimer’s patients’discourse in three aspects, i.e. discourse building, cohesion and discourse impairment. SFL provides a unitary framework for discourse analysis, but the three metafuntional analyses of the discourse needed different tagging of the samples. In order to meet the goals of the study, the discourse samples were finely tagged.In terms of theme analyses, the results showed that both the Alzheimer’s subject and their counterpart used less marked themes as the departure of the clauses which indicated that both groups tended to use unmarked themes. In theme progression, both groups tended to use linear and iterative patterns and there was no significant difference in linear progression. The mildly demented group used more iterative theme progression which indicated that they might have difficulty in vocabulary retrieval. In multiple theme analyses, the study found no multiple themes which were constructed with textural, interpersonal and ideational elements and most of the multiple themes consisted of interpersonal and topical elements which indicated a simplified multiple theme construction of both groups.Interpersonal meaning analyses were conducted in three aspects. Mood analysis investigated the construction of subjects and complements of the clause. The results showed that in constructing subjects and complements, both groups tended to use simple nominal groups and the difference was that the mildly demented group’s nominal groups were less specific and informative. The demented group frequently used superordinate and deictic terms to denote target nouns. The most frequently used superordinate term was thing, the deictic terms were that and this. The findings in the way the demented group constructing their subjects indicated a less efficient retrieval of the noun. The modality analyses investigated the use of auxiliary modal verbs in both groups’discourse. The results showed that in representing the speakers’modal meanings, the mildly demented group used more modal auxiliary verbs and most of the verbs were median and low value ones which meant that the mildly demented subject were less certain about their discourse and they took a negotiating stance in their speaking while their counterpart were more confident in their speaking. The appraisal analyses investigated the subject’s semantic resources used to express their attitudes. The results indicated that the mildly demented group did not use appraisal resources in their discourse while the control group made frequent use of this semantic resource. The findings of appraisal analyses reflected a poor semantic resource of the demented subject in expressing their attitudes because of semantic impairment.In transitivity analyses, the study first made an analysis of the processes of the clauses in both groups’discourse. The results showed that both groups were capable of producing all the process types with material, relational and mental processes as the major ones. Secondly, the study investigated the construction of participant and circumstance of the major process types which found that in representing participants and circumstances, the complexity of these two categories of the mildly demented group was much lower than that of the control group. The mildly demented group used more simple nominal groups in representing participants and circumstances. In the complex nominal groups the mildly demented groups used, a lack of modifier, classifier or qualifier of the head nouns could be found which indicated that the discourse of the demented was not as specific and informative as that of the control group.In cohesion and coherence analyses, the study aimed to find out the correlations between discourse and the semantic and working memory of the mildly demented Alzheimer’s patients. The analyses were conducted in three aspects, i.e. discourse building, cohesion and discourse impairment. The results showed that in discourse building and cohesion, the mildly demented group used less linguistic resources to build their discourse. The mildly demented group’s topic maintenance and global coherence were impaired. In discourse impairment, the mildly demented group was worse in all the categories and in their discourse we found abrupt topic shifts. The analyses and findings indicated that there was a correlation between discourse coherence and semantic and working memory since the coherence of the discourse must be realized by the appropriate used of semantic devices. In order to maintain a global coherence, the speaker had to make good references and connections between clauses, an impaired working memory prevented the speaker from maintaining the wholeness and harmony of his or her discourse. The healthy counterpart of this study did not have the problem of maintaining discourse global coherence.The thesis consists of ten chapters. The first chapter is an introduction to the background, purposes, significance and data collection of the study. So far as the significance of the study is concerned, two points are taken into consideration. The first is to make an organic integration of SFL and clinical linguistic studies. The second is to provide linguistics evidence for the diagnosis and assessment of the early Alzheimer’s disease.The second chapter is to give a review of the literature pertaining to the present study. This chapter first defines the clinical linguistics and its scope and the approach to do clinical linguistic studies. Secondly, the author gives a reasoned discussion of the guiding linguistic theory of this study. Meanwhile, a discussion of the motive and access of doing clinical discourse analysis under SFL will be given in this chapter.The third chapter is a discussion of the theoretical foundation of the present study. Firstly, this chapter gives a critical review of the implication of SFL for discourse analysis of the Alzheimer’s patients. Secondly, the chapter discusses the linguistic guidelines for clinical discourse analysis. Thirdly, an SFL motive and approach of doing clinical discourse analyses would be elaborated.Chapter Four elaborates the methodology of the study. The key points of this chapter are the tagging of the samples, the demographic information of the subject and the specific methods of discourse analysis used in this study. Generally speaking, both quantitative and qualitative methods would be employed in the study because the aim of the thesis was to make a multi-dimensional analysis of the samples.The fifth chapter is the analyses of theme in the discourse of the Alzheimer’s patients. Specifically, the analyses are made in three ways, i.e. the markedness of theme, the patterns of theme progression and multiple themes. In the analyses, the differences between the mildly demented and their counterpart in the above aspects would be addressed.Chapter Six "A cohesion and coherence analysis of the discourse of the Alzheimer’s patients" is carried out in three categories, i.e. discourse building, cohesion and discourse impairing. The aim of this chapter is to build an organic correlation between Alzheimer’s patients’ discourse and their semantic and working memory.Chapter Seven is the analyses of the interpersonal meanings of discourse of the Alzheimer’s patients. The study is carried out in three aspects, i.e. mood, modality and appraisal system. The mood analysis which focuses on nominal groups resonates well with the transitivity analysis in Chapter Six. While the modality analysis would give us a thorough understanding of the stance and certainty of the speakers’ discourse, the appraisal analysis makes it possible to evaluate the quality of the discourse in terms of semantic resources.The eighth chapter is a transitivity analysis of the discourse of the Alzheimer’s patients. The focus of the analysis is the construction of participant and circumstance in terms of nominal groups. As previous studies have pointed out that the Alzheimer’s patients have difficulties in naming, the participant and circumstance analysis would make a better assessment of the nominal resources of the Alzheimer’s patients.Based on the findings in quantitative and qualitative analyses, the nineth chapter makes discussions on the results and finds out the implications of the analyses.Chapter Ten concludes the thesis with a discussion of the limitations of the study and suggestions for further research.

阿爾茨海默癥患者話語的系統(tǒng)功能語言學(xué)研究

摘要7-12Abstract12-17第一章 導(dǎo)言18-25    1.1 研究背景18-19    1.2 研究意義19-20        1.2.1 理論意義19-20        1.2.2 實(shí)踐意義20    1.3 研究目的20-21    1.4 數(shù)據(jù)收集21-22    1.5 論文框架22-25第二章 文獻(xiàn)綜述25-53    2.1 臨床語言學(xué)的概念和研究范圍25-30        2.1.1 臨床語言學(xué)的定義25-28        2.1.2 臨床語言學(xué)的研究范圍28-29        2.1.3 臨床話語與醫(yī)療話語的區(qū)別29-30    2.2 臨床語言研究回顧30-35    2.3 阿爾茨海默癥患者的語言功能評(píng)述35-38    2.4 話語與記憶的關(guān)系38-40    2.5 相關(guān)研究40-53        2.5.1 宏觀探討40-43        2.5.2 及物性研究43-46        2.5.3 人際意義研究46        2.5.4 主位研究46-48        2.5.5 銜接研究48-53第三章 理論基礎(chǔ)53-71    3.1 系統(tǒng)功能語言學(xué)的理論價(jià)值及啟示53-61        3.1.1 從更深層面認(rèn)識(shí)語言54-57        3.1.2 語言功能的社會(huì)理據(jù)性57-59        3.1.3 語言理論與社會(huì)實(shí)踐59-61    3.2 臨床話語分析的理論框架61-62    3.3 臨床話語分析的系統(tǒng)功能語言學(xué)理據(jù)62-65    3.4 臨床話語分析的系統(tǒng)功能語言學(xué)框架65-71        3.4.1 語境65-67        3.4.2 元功能67-68        3.4.3 語言的層次性68-71第四章 研究設(shè)計(jì)71-77    4.1 研究方法72-73    4.2 語料及標(biāo)記方法73-75    4.3 個(gè)案描述性分析75    4.4 語料統(tǒng)計(jì)分析75-77第五章 阿爾茨海默癥患者話語的主位結(jié)構(gòu)分析77-94    5.1 引言77    5.2 理論解析77-81    5.3 主位的標(biāo)記性81-85    5.4 主位推進(jìn)模式85-89    5.5 多重主位構(gòu)成89-92    5.6 小結(jié)92-94第六章 阿爾茨海默癥患者話語的銜接研究94-108    6.1 引言94    6.2 理論解析94-97    6.3 語料的處理97    6.4 統(tǒng)計(jì)檢驗(yàn)97-102    6.5 個(gè)案描述性分析102-106    6.6 小結(jié)106-108第七章 阿爾茨海默癥患者話語的人際意義研究108-122    7.1 引言108    7.2 理論解析108-110    7.3 語氣分析110-116    7.4 情態(tài)分析116-118    7.5 評(píng)價(jià)資源分析118-121    7.6 小結(jié)121-122第八章 阿爾茨海默癥患者話語的及物性分析122-134    8.1 引言122    8.2 理論解析122-124    8.3 語料處理方法124-125    8.4 過程類型125-130        8.4.1 物質(zhì)過程126-129        8.4.2 心理過程129-130        8.4.3 關(guān)系過程130    8.5 描述性語料分析130-133    8.6 小結(jié)133-134第九章 討論與啟示134-144    9.1 討論134-139        9.1.1 基于主位分析的討論134-135        9.1.2 基于銜接系統(tǒng)分析的討論135-137        9.1.3 基于人際意義分析的討論137-138        9.1.4 基于及物性系統(tǒng)分析的討論138-139    9.2 啟示139-144        9.2.1 理論啟示139-142        9.2.2 實(shí)踐啟示142-144第十章 結(jié)論144-151    10.1 研究發(fā)現(xiàn)144-148    10.2 研究的不足之處及今后研究的建議148-151        10.2.1 不足之處149        10.2.2 今后研究的建議149-151參考文獻(xiàn)151-166附錄1 語料銜接與連貫標(biāo)記的操作性定義166-167附錄2 本研究所分析的部分語料167-188讀博期間發(fā)表論文列表188-189讀博期間參加旳重要學(xué)術(shù)會(huì)議189讀博期間參與的重要科研項(xiàng)目189-190致謝190-191

  本文關(guān)鍵詞：阿爾茨海默癥患者話語的系統(tǒng)功能語言學(xué)研究，由筆耕文化傳播整理發(fā)布。