本文是语言学论文,The thesis has tried to find the internal driving forces of English interrogativesentences, and accordingly make a summary in Englishinterrogative sentences. With the help of Force Dynamic Theory, the study hasrevealed the relationship among language, psychology and society. The following partis about major findingsimplications, limitations of this study and suggestions forfurther studies.Every presence and existence in the world has its inherent dynamics and forces.Each presence and existence has its own self-worth, that is, its self-function. Thethesis mainly studies English interrogative sentences with the Force Dynamic Theory,which is aimed at exploring the internal driving forces of English interrogativesentences and their corresponding semantic functions. The following are the findingsand conclusions of study.In the first place, the driving forces of English interrogative sentences underdifferent force patterns are social forces and psychological forces. The operatingmechanism of these driving forces is that two sides generate a pressure differenceof consciousness due to the influence of social forces during communication, andthen the individual psychological force further prompts speaker to passively selectthe appropriate English interrogative sentences. The social force here refers to thesocial psychological differences between the two sides conversation. Thesepsychological pressure differences are usually caused by the different social status orsocial identities between the two sides. That is the interpsychology. psychological force refers to the psychological pressure inside the speaker, that is,the mentalstate of the speaker himself or herself, which is not directly related to the other side .Other than that, through detailed induction, it is not difficult to find that Englishinterrogative sentences have different semantic functions in different specific social and psychological forces. In other words, specific social andpsychological forces drive specific semantic functions. The following table clearlyshows the semantic functions of each type of interrogative sentences.To sum up, general interrogative sentences in three distinctions of force-dynamicpatterns have the semantic functions directives,warnings,suggestions, reminders, complaints, the temptation, the guidance, the reproach, thequestioning, threats and reprimands. Special interrogative sentences in threedistinctions of forcedynamic patterns have the semantic functions of interrogatories,greetings, warnings, reprimands, exclamations, queries, regrets, the loss andcon sultations. Disjunctive inter rogative sentences in three distinctions offorce-dynamic patterns have the semantic functions of interrogatories, the reproach,threats, queries, implications, reconfirmation and the consolation. Moreover,rhetorical interrogative sentences in three distinctions of patterns havethe semantic functions of interrogatories, the impatience, the boredom, the denial, accusation and suspicions. Certainly, one type of interrogatives has more than onesemantic function. In turn, even interrogative sentences with the same semanticfunction cannot be replaced with each other because interrogative sentences with thesame semantic function are influenced by their different internal forces.
An English interrogative sentence, different from a narrative sentence, alwayshas strong affections. It is usually intended to achieve a specific communicationpurpose. Asking for a help, asking for a definite answer and even making a sneer areall the possible aims of interrogative sentences. As a result, people select differentinterrogative sentences in different situations. Traditionally, English interrogativesentences include general questions, wh- questions, disjunctive questions andalternative questions. Contemporary works, such as A comprehensive grammar of theEnglish language (Quirk et al, 1985), Longman English grammar (Alexander, 1988),etc., have made a detailed description of the four kinds of questions and the varioussentence patterns they contain. In the course of the research, it is found that inaddition to the above basic patterns, the rhetorical questions also show obvioussemantic functions. Therefore, taking into account basic classifications and the reality,the subjects studied in this research are identified as general questions, wh- questions,disjunctive questions and rhetorical questions.So far, most studies on interrogative sentences are about language acquisition,phonology and pragmatics. In terms of second language acquisition, Yu (2005) studiesthe generation of English interrogative sentences from aspects of syntactic featuresand transitional forms. Song (2013) discusses the impact of teaching methods on theacquisition of English interrogative sentences. Similarly, the study of Mamasuew et al(2005) alsofocuses on the impact of negative feedback on the second languagelearners. In terms of phonology, Guo and Shi (2011) do a research on the intonationpatterns of English interrogative sentences and make a comparison with Chineseinterrogative sentences. Abroad, Schack (2000) studies the difference in intonationpatterns between native English speakers and Chinese immigrants when they readEnglish interrogative sentences. Besides, some scholars make a combination betweensecond language acquisition and intonation of English interrogative sentences. Wang(2014) explores the pitch ranges between Chinese English learners and native Englishspeakers when they read different types of English interrogative sentences. In terms ofpragmatics, Wang (1995) reclassifies English interrogative sentences into informationquestions, rhetorical questions, examination questions and indirect request questionsaccording to pragmatic functions. Based on different theories and perspectives, X.C.Xu and S.H. Xu (1999) divide English interrogative sentences into stronginterrogative sentences and weak interrogative sentences. Kang and Niu (2001)confirm that some certain pragmatic factors influence the grammatical structure ofEnglish interrogative sentences. Abroad, Algeo (1988), Tottie and Hoffmann (2006)all study the pragmatic functions of tag questions. Naturally, there are also somepeople who study the relationship between phonology and pragmatics in Englishinterrogative sentences. Hedberg et al (2010) are the representatives suggesting thatwh- interrogative sentences in different tones have different pragmatic functions.
Chapter TwoLiterature Review
This part reviews the previous studies on English interrogative sentences. Inview of the fact that previous studies mainly have four aspects, including languageacquisition, phonology, pragmatics and cognitive linguistics, the following partsummarizes them respectively.As a supplement to the previous study, Hedberg et al (2010) did acorpus studyaimed at exploring the correlation between the prosodic form and pragmatic functionsof wh- questions in North American English. Their findings confirm the general viewthat wh- interrogative sentences in English tend to be falling in intonation. It is shownthat wh- interrogative sentences that end with a rising nuclear contour are actually different because their characteristics occur in a “interrupted” discourse environment.More broadly, however, in addition to rhetorical questions, the interrogatives,which end with a rising tone, seem to raise direct questions about information that hasno direct impact on the current discourse topic. Despite this, the wh- interrogativesentences in the rising tone do not seem to change the topic of discourse. Theysuggest that those rising wh- interrogative sentences propose “side issues”, which issignificantly different from the use of wh- interrogative sentences in a falling tone,which may help to start a new topic, or to ask about the main topic of theconversation.This part returns to the study of the phonological characteristics of Englishinterrogative sentences themselves. The intonational characteristics of almost all kindsof English interrogative sentences are compared and analyzed. But it still doesn’tinvolve the internal forces and semantic functions of English interrogative sentences.
2.2 Previous Studies on English Interrogative Sentences
As a part of grammar, English interrogative sentences have always receivedmuch attention of scholars. In everyday life, for being more polite or to achieve somespecific aims, people would like to use various types of interrogative sentences toexpress themselves, directly or indirectly. Different interrogative sentences express different emotions According to Quirk et al (1985, pp. 804-806), the interrogativesentence is “primarily used to seek information on a specific point”, but it is also“often used as directives conveying requests, offers, invitations, and advice”. Thus,how to use interrogative sentences and how to learn to use them have become thefocus of scholars’ research.So far, more and more scholars both at home and abroad have probed into thestudy of English interrogative sentences from many aspects. Overall, their researchescan be broadly divided into four perspectives, including language acquisitionperspective, phonological perspective, pragmatic perspective and cognitiveperspective.From the point of view of second language acquisition, most studies on Englishinterrogative sentences have something in common, that is, empirical research. Inpreviousstudies, almost all of them are carried out through experiments. Throughtheexperimental data, the characteristics of English interrogative sentence acquisition,the influence of L1 (first language) on L2 and the influence ofsecond language on mother tongue are illustrated.Within the framework of the Minimalist Program, Yu (2005) studied thegeneration mechanism of English interrogative sentences and their transitionalrepresentations in several different stages in second language acquisition from theaspects of syntactic features of English interrogative sentences and the movement. Hediscussed the syntactic structure of interrogative sentences and several transitionalforms of interrogative sentences in second language acquisition.
Chapter Three Theoretical Framework.......17
3.1 Introduction........................................ 17
3.2 Force Dynamics..................................17
3.3 Summary............................................ 30
Chapter Four Force Dynamic Study of English Interrogative Sentences.......31
4.1 Introduction........................................ 31
4.2 English Interrogative Sentences in Steady-State Force-Dynamic Patterns.....31
4.3 English Interrogative Sentences in Shifting Force-Dynamic Patterns............43
4.4 English Interrogative Sentences in Secondary Steady-StateForce-Dynamic Patterns..............57
4.5 Summary............................................ 64
Chapter Five Conclusion......................... 66
Chapter FourForce Dynamic Study of English Interrogative Sentences
This chapter fixes its eyes on the cognitive study of English interrogativesentences from the perspective of Force Dynamics, which is divided into threesections according to the three distinctions of Force Dynamics. In each section, theselected sentences are analyzed in order to find the internal driving forces of Englishinterrogative sentences, and the corresponding semantic functions under such specificforces are precipitated.In this relationship, the Agonist is Hedda and the Antagonist is Lövborg. Both ofthem only have one force, the social force. Lövborg, the Antagonist, is weaker thanthe Agonist,Hedda, because he loved Hedda. In order to get an answer he expected,he still proposed a tough question. He can’t hurt the person he loved even if in words.Thus, his words became relatively mild, as the second sentence. The Agonist is strongbecause she was in control of the Antagonist. In the relationship between the two ofthem, the Antagonist is succumbed to the Agonist. Therefore, the Antagonist’s wordswere getting more and more gentle. Still, he cannot change the intrinsic tendency ofthe Agonist.The example listed above is one of the forms in which extra work is done by theAntagonist, and the other one is described in the next paragraph.This conversation is also from Romeo and Juliet. After the meeting with Romeo,the nurse came back and Juliet wanted to know what Romeo said. She was so anxiousthat shewas not in a good tone. Then, the nurse spoke out her whine. In thisconversation, the nurse also used general questions. Then, what prompted her to sayso. The answer is in the figure of force dynamics.
4.2 English Interrogative Sentences in Steady-State Force-Dynamic
PatternsAs elaborated in the previous chapter, the steady-state force-dynamic patterns arethe basic patterns of Force Dynamic Theory. There are four basic patterns, that is, fourtypes of force interactions. English interrogative sentences also have manyexpressions and patterns in daily use. Why are there so many forms? What is theintrinsic reason for people being able to output the right interrogative sentences? Inthis part, two sections, the internal driving force analysis and the semantic functionsof English interrogative sentences are included, which give the answer to the abovequestions.Generally speaking, the higher the social status one has, the more powerful his orher words are, just like a big boss to his staff and a commander to his soldiers. Whatthe higher one says usually has great influence on the lower one, probably involvinghis or her thoughts or even his or her actions. Then, how does the internal force work?Firstly, look at the following sentences.The sentences above are chosen from the drama Romeo and Juliet, written by William Shakespeare. The background of the scene is that Romeo fell in love withJuliet and planned to marry her. He came to the friar and wanted the friar to host their .When Romeo came, the friar asked his recent situation. The friar askeddirectly with a wh-question instead of a general question with modal verbs like “couldyou tell me where you’ve been?” or “may I know where you’ve been?”. The reasonwhy the friar spoke so directly is that his inner force is stronger.Chapter Five
Taking Force Dynamic Theory to study language is a new way of knowing theworld. The world is in action and language is also in action. By studying the internaldriving forces of English interrogative sentences, it is obvious that forces are essentialin the whole process of communication. This implies that people should pay moreattention to the state of forces in communication to ensure that the meaning in thesentences is accurately conveyed or understood. To put it another way, language is notonly a product of cognition, but also a cognitive tool and an integral part of cognition.In addition to embodied nature and social nature, tool cognition is also an importantpart of human cognition (Wen, 2019, p. 297). Therefore, it is also important to learnhow to use this tool. To learn to use language, people must learn to analyze theinternal forces of language so that they are able to achieve the purpose ofcommunication better.Because the driving forces involve social forces and psychological forces, peopleshould combine these forces analyze. Social forces must first be considered inthe communication. In modern society, the main consideration is social identity. Onlywhen there is an accurate understanding of each other’s social identities, can themeanings be properly expressed or understood. Then it is psychological force. Peoplemust consider the inner needs and mental states of both sides of the conversation, sothat they can accurately grasp the key points of the communication, which can makethe expression in place or the understanding meaning in place.Language is dynamic rather than static. It implies that people should learnlanguage, understand the meaning of language, and use language dynamicmind.