《等待戈多》中人物对话的人际意义研究

⑨硕士学位论文《等待戈多》中人物对话的人际意义研究论文作者：张梅莉指导教师：王勇教授学科专业：英语语言文学研究方向：功能语言学华中师范大学外国语学院2013年5月 ⑧硕士学位论文MASTER’STHESISIIllllIlUllUlllIlllllUlIIIIY2352292AStudyoftheInterpersonalMeaninginWaitingforGodot么砀酗西SubmittedinPartialFulfillmentoftheRequirementFortheM．A．DegreeinLiteratureByPostgraduateProgramSchoolofForeignLanguagesCentralChinaNormalUniversitySupervisor：WangYongAcademicTitle：ProfessorSignatureApprovedMay,2013 ⑧硕士学位论文MASTER’STHESIS华中师范大学学位论文原创性声明和使用授权说明原创性声明本人郑重声明：所呈交的学位论文，是本人在导师指导下，独立进行研究工作所取得的研究成果。除文中已经标明引用的内容外，本论文不包含任何其他个人或集体已经发表或撰写过的研究成果。对本文的研究做出贡献的个人和集体，均已在文中以明确方式标明。本声明的法律结果由本人承担。作者签名：拌构约日期：如B年f月／了日学位论文版权使用授权书本学位论文作者完全了解学校有关保留、使用学位论文的规定，即：学校有权保留并向国家有关部门或机构送交论文的复印件和电子版，允许论文被查阅和借阅。本人授权华中师范大学可以将本学位论文的全部或部分内容编入有关数据库进行检索，可以采用影印、缩印或扫描等复制手段保存和汇编本学位论文。同时授权中国科学技术信息研究所将本学位论文收录到《中国学位论文全文数据库》，并通过网络向社会公众提供信息服务。作者签名：纬构粕导师签名：乡乡日期：zo)3年f月邝日日期：如，；年1-’月，驴日本人已经认真阅读”CALLS高校学位论文全文数据库发布章程一同意将本人的学位论文提交”CALLS高校学位论文全文数据库”中全文发布，并可按”章程”中的规定享受相关权益。回童途塞握銮卮溢卮!旦主生；旦二生；旦三生筮查!作者签名：张诱莉日期：2D房年歹月旧日劳一一≯月●●钮f签年师哆导劢期 Acknowledgements1wouldliketoexpressmydeepestgratitudetoallthosewhoareconcernedaboutmeandhaveofferedtheirsincereassistancetomeduringthewritingcourseofthisthesis．Firstofall，1wouldliketoexpressmygreatestthankstoDr．WangYong，mysupervisor．Withouthislectures，booksandsuggestions，theaccomplishmentofthisthesiswouldnotbepossible．Hehasofferedmeagreatmanyofvaluableinstructionsduringtheperiodofmythree—yearM．A．studyandhasencouragedmetogetdowntothestudyofmymajor．Hisrigorousacademicattitudeshavepositivelyinfluencedme．1wouldnothavecompletedthisthesisSOsmoothlywithouthissincereenlightenmentandenormouspatience．Secondly,1wouldliketoowemygreatthankstootherprofessorsandteachersintheSchoolofForeignLanguagesofCCNU．Myhorizonhasbeenbroadenedandmyknowledgehasbeenendchedduetotheircourses．Theyhavehelpedmehaveabetterunderstandingandappreciationonlinguistics，literatureandtranslation．ThecoursesIhavehadinmythree—yearM．A．studyhavelaidasolidfoundationformyfuturescientificresearch．Finally,1wouldliketoexpressmysinceregratitudetomybelovedparentsandmydearfriends．Theyhavecaredaboutmeandhavegivenmetheirsupport诵tllheartandsoul．Withouttheirconcemandlove，1wouldnotaccomplishmystudyjoyfulandfruitful． ⑧硕士学位论文MASTER’STHESIS摘要系统功能语法认为语言实现三大纯理功能，其中的人际元功能指的是语言被用来与他人互动、与他人建立和保持关系，或者被用来影响他人的行为，表达自己或影响他人对周围事物的看法时所体现的功能。人际元功能的提出，为语言学、文学和翻译学等学科提供了新的理论视角，被广泛应用于文学语篇的研究。本文旨在探索荒诞戏剧《等待戈多》中人物对话的人际意义。人际功能的主要实现方式是语气系统、情态系统和调值。其中语气系统主要通过言语角色、语气种类和语气结构等实现。本研究采取定量分析和定性分析相结合的方法，统计和计算了《等待戈多》剧本第一幕中人物对话中所包含的语气种类和言语角色的数量和比例，分析了人物之间对话所体现出的人际意义，探索了人物对语气结构的不同选择在刻画人物性格、展现人物关系和表达荒诞主题等方面所起到的作用。通过对《等待戈多》中人物对话的语气结构的人际意义分析，本文发现不同人物对语气种类和言语角色的不同选择在塑造人物形象、展现人物间的关系以及表达该剧的荒诞主题等方面起到了重要的作用。在人物性格方面，两个流浪汉之间性格互补，特点分明；波卓骄傲自负、极少关心他人；小男孩则胆小怯懦。在人物关系方面，两个流浪汉既无法忍受对方，又不能离开对方，双方的关系紧张而脆弱；当两个流浪汉与波卓进行交流时，波卓表现出的自大与冷漠、弗拉季米尔表现出的漠不关心以及爱斯特拉贡表现出的贪婪使三人无法真正融入正常的对话中；而当两个流浪汉与小男孩进行交流时，他们的对话又因为小男孩简短的回答和不时出现的沉默而出现问题。剧中人物鲜明的性格特点、脆弱的人物关系、艰难的人物互动进一步揭示了戏剧的荒诞主题。本研究进一步验证了运用系统功能语法分析文学语篇的可行性，扩展了人际意义的研究范围。其次，本研究从人际意义角度解读荒诞剧的人物形象创作和主题，为荒诞剧的研究提供了新的语言学和文学阐释视角，能够帮助读者从多层次多角度解读荒诞剧的艺术形式和表现力。最后，本研究用语言学的理论分析文学作品，对语言学和文学的教学有一定的启示意义。关键词：荒诞剧；《等待戈多》；语气系统；人际意义；对话 ⑧硕士学位论文MASTER‘STHESISAbstractThreemetafunctionsarerecognizedinSystemicFunctionalGrammar,theyareideational，interpersonalandtextualmetafunctions．TheinterpersonalmetafunctionmeansthatlanguageiSusedtointeractwithotherpeople．toestablishandmaintainrelationswiththem，toinfluencetheirbehavior,toexpressourownviewpointonthingsintheworld，andtoelicitorchangetheirs．，nleconceptoftheinterpersonalmetafunctionprovidesanewtheoreticalframeworkforresearchesonlinguistics，literature，translation，etc．andthetheoryiSwidelyappliedtothestudiesofliterature．TIliSthesisalmstoexploretheinterpersonalmeaningofdialoguesintheabsurdistplayWaitingforGodot．TheinterpersonalmeaningismainlyrealizedthroughMoODsystem，MODALITYsystemandkey．mMOODsystemismainlyrealizedthroughspeechroles，MoodtypesandMoodstructures．Basedonthecombinationofquantitativeanalysisandqualitativeanalysis，thisthesishascountedandcalculatedthenumbersandpercentagesofMoodtypesandspeechrolesofdialoguesinthefirstactoftheplay．IthasanalyzedtheinterpersonalmeaningofdialoguesbetweenthecharactersandprobedintothefunctionstheirMOODchoiceshaveplayedindepictingthepersonalitiesofcharacters，showingtheirproblematicinteractiverelationsandrevealingtheabsurdistthemeoftheplay．ByanalyzingtheinterpersonalmeaningofdialoguesinWaitingforGodot,thisthesishasfoundthatdifferentchoicesofMoodtypesandspeechrolesbythecharactershaveplayedanimportantroleincharacterizingthepersonalitiesofcharacters．Thetwotrampshavecomplementaryandconspicuouspersonalities；Pozzoisarrogantandseldomconcernedaboutothers；theBoyiSveryshyandcoward．111eirdifferentchoicesinMOODstructuresalsoreflecttheirproblematicrelationships．111etwotrampsCan，tbeartheexistenceofeachother,norCantheybeseparatedfromeachother．Pozzo’Sarroganceandcoldness，Vladimir’SindifferenceandEstragon’Sgreedmaketheirinteractionsunsuccessful．TheshortanswersofferedbytheBoyandthe丘equentsilencesbetweentheBoyandthetwotrampsalsoresultinthefailureoftheircommunication．T1lepersonalitiesofthecharacters，theirfragilerelationshipsandtheirproblematicinteractionsallcontributetotheabsurdistthemeofthisplay．ThisstudyhastestifiedthepossibilityofapplyingSystemicFunctionalGrammartotheanalysisofliterarydiscoursesandexpandedtheresearchscopeofinterpersonalmeaning．Moreover,thestudyhasprovidedanewlinguisticaswellasliterary ⑧硕士学位论文MASTER’STHESISperspectivefortheinterpretationofabsurdistplaysbyanalyzingtheinterpersonalmeaningoftheircharacterizationandthemes．Besides，thestudymayshedsomelightsonthelinguisticsandliteratureteachingbyapplyinglinguistictheorytotheanalysisofliteraryworks．Keywords：absurdistplay；Waitingfo，-Godot；MOODsystem；interpersonalmeaning；dialogues ContentsAcknowledgements⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯i摘要⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯．．iiAbstract⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯．iii1Introducti011⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯．11．1Researchbackground⋯．．⋯．⋯．⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯．．⋯⋯⋯．⋯⋯⋯⋯．⋯．⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯．．⋯．．⋯．．11．2Purposeandsignificance．．．⋯⋯．⋯⋯⋯⋯．⋯⋯．．⋯．．⋯⋯．⋯．⋯．．．⋯．⋯⋯．⋯⋯⋯．⋯⋯⋯．．⋯⋯21．3Datacollectionandmethodology⋯⋯⋯．⋯．⋯．⋯⋯．⋯⋯．⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯．⋯⋯⋯．⋯．⋯⋯．．⋯．31．4Layoutofthethesis．⋯．⋯．⋯．⋯．⋯．．⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯．．⋯⋯⋯．⋯．⋯⋯⋯．⋯⋯⋯⋯．⋯．⋯⋯⋯⋯．．．．42LiteratureReview⋯⋯．⋯．．⋯．⋯．⋯⋯．⋯⋯．⋯．．⋯．⋯．．⋯．⋯⋯．⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯．⋯⋯．⋯．⋯．⋯⋯．．⋯．．52．】【TheTheateroftheAbsurd．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．52．1．1Backgroundanddevelopment⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯．52．1．2Maincharacteristics．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．62．2IntroductionofWaitingforGodot⋯⋯．⋯．．⋯．⋯．．⋯．⋯．⋯．⋯．．⋯．⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯．⋯．⋯⋯．．⋯72．2．1SummaryofWaitingforGodot⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯一72．2．2SignificanceofWaitingforGodot⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯．82．3PreviousstudiesonWaitingfo，‘Godot．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．92．3．1Studiesabroad．⋯⋯．．．⋯．⋯．⋯⋯．⋯．⋯．⋯⋯．⋯．．．⋯⋯．⋯．⋯⋯⋯．⋯⋯⋯⋯．⋯．⋯⋯⋯．．⋯．．92．：；．2Studiesathome⋯⋯．．⋯．⋯⋯．⋯．⋯⋯．⋯．⋯⋯．⋯．⋯．⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯．⋯⋯．⋯⋯⋯．⋯⋯⋯⋯．．．103TheoreticalFramework．⋯．．⋯⋯．⋯．⋯⋯⋯⋯．⋯⋯．⋯．⋯．⋯．⋯．．．⋯．⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯．⋯．⋯．．⋯．．．．12：；．1IntroductiontoSystemicFunctionalGrammar⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯．123．1．1Languageasasemioticsystemandthethreemetafunctions⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯123．1．2Studiesoninterpersonalmeaningabroad⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯133．1．3Studiesoninterpersonalmeaningathome⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯．143．2MOOD⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯一163．2．1Fourspeechrolesandspeechfunctions⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯。163．2．2nlestructureofMOOD⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯．．174AnalysisofMooDinWaitingforGodot⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯．204．1M00DanalysisofPartOne⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯一204．1．1Analysisofdeclarativeclauses⋯⋯⋯⋯．⋯．．⋯⋯⋯．⋯⋯．．．⋯．⋯⋯⋯．⋯⋯．⋯⋯．．⋯⋯．214．1．2Analysisofyes／no—interrogativeclauses⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯．244．1．3Analysisof、VH—interrogativeclauses⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯．．254．1．4Analysisofimperativeclause⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯274．1．5Analysisofexclamativeclauses⋯．⋯⋯．⋯．⋯．⋯⋯⋯．⋯．．．⋯．⋯⋯．⋯．⋯⋯．⋯⋯⋯⋯．．294．2MOODanalysisofPartTwo⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯．．294．2．1Analysisofdeclarativeclauses⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯．30 4．2．2Analysisofyes／no—interrogativeclauses⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯·j44．2．3AnalysisofWH-interrogativeclauses⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯”jo4．2．4Analysisofimperativeclauses⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯·j，4．2．5Analysisofexelamativeclauses⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯··jy4．3MOODanalysisofPartThree⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯一jy4．3．1Analysisofdeclarativeclauses⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯-404．3．2Analysisofyes／no—interrogativeclauses⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯·4Z4．3．3AnalysisofWH—interrogativeclauses⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯一qj4．3．4Analysisofimperativeclauses⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯·鹌4．3．5Analysisofexclamativeclause⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯·445Conclusion⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯一475．1MajorFindings⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯“q，5．2L砌ta矗ons⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯”485．3Implicationsandsuggestions⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯·49Bibliography⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯“Ju ⑨硕士学位论文MASTER’STHESIS1IntroductionThispartisageneralintroductiontotheresearchbackground，thepurposeandsignificanceofthestudy．Italsointroducesthedataandmethodologyofthestudyandthethesislayout．1．1ResearchbackgroundSamuelBackett’SWaitingforGodotisanabsurdistmasterpieceoftheTheateroftheAbsurd．Intheplay,twocharacters，VladimirandEstragon，waitedendlesslyandinvainforthearrivalofanevevappearedpersoncalledGodot．Sinceitspremiere，ithasbeguntochangethewaypeoplethoughtabouttheartofthestageandhaschallengedalltheacceptedconventionsofthetraditionaltheaterofhisday．Therefore，itWasregardedas“oneofthedefmingworksoftwentieth-centuryEuropeanculture”(Bradby,2001：1)．rnleplayWaspopularwiththeaudienceatthattimenotonlybecauseofitsabsurdistthemethatlifeWasfullofsenselessnessanddevaluation，whichreflectedthementalstateofpeopleduringthepost-warperiod，butalsobecauseofitsanti-theaternature，includingitslackofwell-organizedplot,exquisitecharacterization，imitationofrealscenesandactions，etc．Manyscholarshavedoneresearchesontheplayfromtheperspectivesofitstheme，symbolicmeanings，metaphoricalmeaningsandtheillogicaldialoguesbetweencharacters．HoweveLtheyhaveseldomanalyzedtheplayfromthelinguisticperspective，nottomentionfromthatofSystemicFunctionalGrammarapproach．M．A．KHalliday(2000)haspointedoutinhisbookAnIntroductiontoFunctionalGrammarthatthepurposeofdevelopingfunctionalgrammaris‘'toconstructagrammarforpurposesoftextanalysis：onethatwouldmakeitpossibletosaysensibleandusefulthingsaboutanytext,spokenorwritten，inmodemEnglish'’(Halliday,2000：F41)．AccordingtoHalliday,languageisstructuredtomakethreemainkindsofmeaningssimultaneously,i．e．，theideationalmeaning，theinterpersonalmeaningandthetextualmeaning．Theyhavethreecorrespondingmetafunctions：theideationalmetafunction(whichiscomposedofexperientialandlogicalmetafunctions)，theinterpersonalmetafuntionandthetextualmetafunction．IdeationalmetafunctioniSthefunctiontoconstruehumanexperience，whileinterpersonalmetafunctiontocaterforOurpersonalandsocialrelationshipswithothers，andtextualmetafunctiontobuildupsequencesofdiscourse，toorganizethediscursiveflowandtocreatecohesionandcontinuityasitmovesalong(Halliday,2008：29)．Halliday’Sfunctionalgrammarhasbeenprovedtobeaveryusefultheoryin1 ⑧硕士学位论文MASTER’STHESISpracticalanalysis．ManyscholarshaveanalyzedliteraryworksfromtheperspectiveofSystemicFunctionalGrammarsuccessfully,especiallyfromtheinterpersonalperspective．Asdramaisalsoanimportantformofliterature．itispossiblethatwecananalyzedramawithintheframeworkoffunctionalgrammar．Asatypicalabsurdistplay,WaitingforGodothasthebasicdramaticform：conversationsbetweencharactersarethemajorpartsoftheplay．ThusitispossibleforUStoanalyzetheinterpersonalmeaningoftheplayandfurtherexplorehowinterpersonalmeaninghelpsrealizeitsthemeandcharacterization．HallidayhasrecognizedMOOD．MODALITYandkeYasthemainrealizationformsofinterpersonalmeaning．DifferentchoicesofMOOD．MODALITYandkeyCanshowtheattitudes，motivationsandjudgmentsofspeakers．Asoneofthemostimportant、ⅣorksintheTheateroftheAbsurd，Waitingfo，．Godotshowsavarietyofanti-theaterfeaturesinthedialoguesbetweencharacters．BasedonthetheoryofSystemicFunctionalGrammar,thisstudytriestorevealhowtheinterpersonalmeaningisrealizedviathechoicesofMOODbyanalyzingdialoguesintheplay．1．2PurposeandsignificanceThereasonsforchoosingthistopicareasfollows：firstly,theauthorwantstoprovethatSystemicFunctionalGrammarcanbeusedtoanalyzeWaitingfo厂GodotandthatthecarefullyselectedMoodstructuresaredesignedforitsabsurdistthemeandpersonalitiesofthecharacters．Theauthoralsowantstorevealhowtheinterpersonalmeaningisrealizedthroughdialoguesbetweencharacters．Secondly,byanalyzingtheinterpersonalmeaningoftheplayfromtheperspectiveofSystemicFunctionalGrammar,theauthorintendstoprovideanewanglefortheinterpretationofthisplay．MostofthestudiesonWaitingfo，．Godothavebeendonebyliterarycritics．Thisstudyhiestoprovethepossibilityofanalyzingabsurdistplaysbyusingalinguistictheory．Scholarsathomeandabroadhavedonealotofresearchesonanalyzingtheinterpersonalmeaningofnovels，autobiographies，news，speeches，advertisementsetc．withintheframeworkofSystemicFunctionalGrammar,butfewofthemhasappliedthetheorytotheanalysisofdrama,letaloneabsurdistplays．PreviousstudieshavedemonstratedthatSystemicFunctionalGrammarisverypracticalinanalyzingbothwrittenandspokentexts，SOitisofgreattheoreticalandpracticalsignificancetostudytheinterpersonalmeaningofdialoguesinWaitingfo，．Godot．Ontheonehand，asfewpeoplehasexploredtheinterpersonalmeaningofthisplay,particularlytheinterpersonalmeaningofdialoguesbetweenthecharacters，thisstudyCantestifytheapplicabilityofusingSystemicFunctionalGrammartoanalyzeabsurdistplays．Ontheotherhand,by2 analyzingtheinterpersonalmeaningofMOODstructuresofthisplay,onecaninterpretitfromadifferentperspectiveandhaveabetterunderstandingofitstheme，characterization，relationshipsbetweencharactersandtheintentionoftheplaywright．Finally,applyingthelinguistictheorytotheanalysisofdramaticdialoguesCanprovideausefulpracticefortheteachingofliteratureandlinguistics．ReadersCanappreciateabsurdistworksbytheinterpersonalmeaningofthedialoguesanddeepentheirunderstandingofthethemesandtheattitudesoftheplaywrights．1．3DatacollectionandmethodologyAsaworldfamousplay,Waitingfo厂Godothasbeenperformedonthestageformanyyears．However,thefocusofthisstudyisnottheperformanceonthestage，butthetextonpaper,namely,thetextofthisdrama．Itisalongplay(with20，186wordsintotal)withonlytwoactsandfivecharacters．Thesecondactisalmostthesameasthefirstonewithonlyafewchanges．Fortheconvenienceofanalysis，theauthoronlychoosesthefirstactasthedata．Exceptforthosedescriptionsofthebehaviorsofcharacters，thelion’Sshareoftheplayaredialoguesbetweenthecharacters．Theywillbechosenasthedataofthethesis．Thereareonlyfivecharactersintheplay：Vladimir,Estragon，Pozzo，Lucky,andtheBoy．AsforGodot，heneverappearedintheplay．Inordertoanalyzethedialoguesmoreconvenientlyandclearly,thisstudydividesthedialoguesoftheseprotagonistsalongthreelines：(1)thedialoguesbetweenVladimirandEstragon；(2)thedialoguesbetweenVladimir,EstragonandPozzo；(3)thedialoguesbetweenVladimir,EstragonandtheBoy．Thereasonsforthedivisionaleasfollows：atthebeginningoftheplay,onlyVladimirandEstragonaretalking、析tlleachotherbeforetheymeet、析mPozzoandLucky．TheirdialoguesCanreflecttheirpersonalitiesandthethemeoftheplayinoneaspect．ThenPozzoandLuckycometotheplaceandPozzoslartstotalkwithVladimirandEstragon．TheirdialoguesCancharacterizethethreeprotagonistsandreflecttheabsurdistthemeinanotheraspect．Finally,whenPozzoandLuckyleavethestage，theBoycomesandstartsnewconversationswimVladimirandEstragon．Bydividingthecharactersintothreegroups，theirpersonalities，attitudesandrelationshipsCallbeseenclearlyandorderly．ThestudywillanalyzetheinterpersonalmeaningofdialoguesinWaitingfo，．GodotintermsofMOOD．Themethodologyisacombinationofthequantitativeperspectiveandthequalitativeperspective．IntheanalysisofMOODsystem,thenumbersandpercentagesoftheMoodtypeswillbecountedandtheircorrespondingspeechroleswillalSObecounted．3 ⑧硕士学位论文MASTER’STHESIS1．4Layoutofthethesis111ereodefivepartsinthisthesis．Partoneisallintroduction．Itincludestheresearchbackground，purpose，significance，dataandmethodologyofthestudyandthethesislayout．Parttwoistheliteraturereview．Itintroducesthebackgroundanddevelopmentofthe111eateroftheAbsurd．ItalsointroducesWaitingforGodotbrieflyandreviewssomeinfluentialstudiesonthisplayathomeandabroad．Partthreeisthetheoreticalframework．ItintroducesthethreemetafunctionsinSystemicFunctionalGrammarbriefly．ItalsointroducessomebasicconceptsandclassificationsofM00Dsystemindetail．Finally,itreviewssomepreviousstudiesontheinterpersonalmeaningathomeandabroad．PartfourfocusesontheinterpersonalmeaningrealizedthroughMOODsystem．111enumbersandpercentagesoftheMoodtypesandspeechrolesofcharactersinthethreepartshavebeencountedandcalculatedrespectively．111ecorrespondinginterpersonalfunctionsofM00Dchoiceodeanalyzedindetail．Partfivedrawsaconclusiononthisthesis．Itsummarizesthemajorfindingsanddiscussestheimplicationsandlimitationsofthisstudy．Finally,itgivessomesuggestionsforfuturestudies．4 ⑧硕士学位论文MASTER’STHESIS2LiteratureReviewThispartprovidesabriefintroductionoftheTheateroftheAbsurd，theabsurdistplayWaitingforGodot．Italsoreviewssomerelevantstudiesontheplayathomeandabroad．2．1TheTheateroftheAbsurd2·1．1BackgroundanddevelopmentPeopleexperiencedtwounprecedentedworldwarsinthefirsthalfofthe20thcenturyandwitnessedthedisastersaccompanied、析mthewars．Survivorswerethrownintotheabyssofspiritualcrisisandtheybegantodoubtwhattheyhadbelievedbefore．Theybegantobelievethattheexistenceofhumanbeingswas砌lofabsurdityandsenselessnessandthewholeworldWasfilledwithlies．illogicandempty．，nledevelopmentofscienceandtechnologydrovepeopleintoahopelesssituationthathumanbeingsbegantobecontrolledbythosemachineswhichwereinventedbythem．nlerelationshipsbetweenmen,manandsociety,manandnature，mallandhimselfwerenolongerinharmony．Peoplehadtofacethefactthattheirtraditionalbeliefandvaluehadcollapsedwithoutanytrace．nlehopelesslivingstateofhumanbeingswasreflectedinliteratureintheformsofsymbolism，super-realism，novelsofstreamofconsciousness，existentialism，theTheateroftheAbsurd，etc．OnMay11，1950，theBaMSopranowrittenbytheRomanlanplaywrightEugeneIonescoWasfirstperformedinParis．Therewereonlythreespectatorswhowereallsuper-realistsinthetheater．Theplayhadnobeginning，ending，orplot．Eventhedialoguesbetweenthecharactersweresenseless．11leaudiencefeltratherpuzzledandfrustrated．EugeneIonescoreferreditasan“anti-theater'’playbecausethelanguageintheplaycouldnotbeusedtocommunicatewithothers．UnacceptedasitWas．theperformanceofBaldSopranostiUmarkedthebirthofthe111eateroftheAbsurd．WhenWaitingforGodot,writtenbySamuelBeckett,Wasperformedin1953，itachievedgreatSUCCESSandwonworldwideattractionfortheTheateroftheAbsurd．，nleplaywastranslatedintomanylanguagesandcausednumerousinterpretations．In1961，MartinEsslin，anEnglishtheatricaltheorist，wroteabookentitled砀eTheatreoftheAbsurdandgroupedthoseplaywrightswhosharedthesameideasabouthumanconditionandadoptedsimilardramaticwayofperformance．111esewritersincludedSamuelBeckett，EugeneIonesco，JeanGenet,ArthurAdamov,etc．Theystrovetoexpressthesenseofmeaninglessnessofthehumanconditionandtheinadequacyof5 therationalapproachbyopenlyabandoningrationaldevicesanddiscursivethought．2．1．2MaincharaeteristiesneTheaterofAbsurdiSadrasticrevolutionforWesterndra／nain2吣century．Thethemesofabsurdistplaysareoftenexplorationsofintrinsicsituationofhumanexistence．111eplaysaresostrangeandpuzzlingaswellasclearlydevoidoftraditionalattractionsofwell—madedramathatcriticsoftenfeelembarrassedwhentheytrytoanalyzeabsurdistplaysbyusingtraditionaldramatictheories．Theycannotusedramaticprinciplestoanalyzetheseplayswithoutfullyunderstandingtheirmeaningsinformduetotheiranti-theaternature．However,absurdistplaywrightsacclaimedthattheirplays，whicharesooftenregardedassenselessormystical，havesomethingtosayandCanbeunderstood．111ereasonforincomprehensionofabsurdistplaysisthattheyarestillapartofanewconventionwhichhasnotbeenfullydefined．Iftheyarejudgedbystandardsandcriteriaoftraditionaldrama,misunderstandingisinevitable．Compared诵tllSO-calledgoodtraditionalplays，absurdistplayshavenowell—organizedstory,plot，recognizablecharacters，theyevenhavenobeginningorending．AsEsslinpointedout，agoodplayisto“holdmirroruptonatureandportraymannersandmannerismsofageinfinelyobservedsketches”，yetabsurdistplaysCanonly‘'bereflectionsofdreamsandnightmares”．11ledialoguesofcharactersarealso‘‘incoherentbabblings’’(Esslin，1968：22)．Therearesomeobviousfeaturesinabsurdistplays．First,thecharactersareeitherdisabledorinadesperatesituation．WeCanhardlyfindanyrealpersoninreality．Thesepeoplearejustsymbolsofhumanbeingswithoutanyidentities．Thesecharactersmakeaudiencerealizethattheyhavelosttheirtrueselfnessinrealworld．Second，compared、Ⅳitlltraditionalplays，absurdistplayshavenoprelude，beginning，development,climax，solutionorending．Theseelementsareessentialinattractingaudience，buttheyarenotdisplayedcompletelyinabsurdistplays．Theydon’tintendtotellpeoplewhathashappened，becausenothinghashappened．删，theactionsofcharactersinabsurdistplaysareoftenmechanicallyrepetitive，whichstandformeaninglessnessofpeople’Slife．rnlepropertiesaresometimesevenmoreimportantthancharacters，andaplayCallbeactedoutbypropertieswithoutanymaninit．Finally,whatimpressesaudiencemostisminimizationoflanguageinabsurdistplays．Intraditionaldrama,languageisusedtohelpaudienceunderstandbackgroundinformationofplay,torevealthought,personalitiesandemotionsofcharacters，andtopromotedevelopmentofplot．However,inabsurdistplays，dialoguesbetweencharactersareoftenillogicalandmeaningless．Theirtalksaremorelikesoliloquies、Ⅳitllsilencesandinterruptionsatintervals．Languagehaslostitsbasic6 functionincommunication．2．2IntroductionofWaitingfo，GodotWaitingforGodotisBeckeR’StranslationofhisoriginalFrenchversion,EnattendantGodot,andissubtitled(inEnglishonly)“atragicomedyintwoacts”．moriginalFrenchversionwaswrittenbetweenOctober9，1948andJanuary29，1949．OnNovember19，1957，theplaywasplayedinfrontofagroupofaudiencewhowerefourteenhundredconvictsattheSanQuentinpenitentiary．Facedwimthetoughestaudienceintheworld，theplayreceivedunexpectedcomprehension．Theprisonersfounditnothardtounderstandthisabsurdistplay．Sincethen,WaitingforGodothasbeenwidelyacceptedallaroundtheworldandacquiredanexcellentreputation．2．2．1SummaryofWaitingforGodotWaiting，2胪GD如fconsistsoftwoacts，andthesecondactiSalmostarepetitionofthefirstact晰mseveraldifferences．Twotramps，VladimirandEstragon，waithopelesslyforamancalledGodotbyatreeonacountryroad．W1lilewaiting，thetwomenkeepontalkingwitheachotheranddoingvarioustrivialthings．Theyrepeatmechanicallytheiractions：EstragonalwaystakesoffhisbootsandVladimiroftentakesoffhishatandpeersinsideit．111eirtalksarealsofullofemptiness：theykeeponbickering，recallingthepast,wonderingwhattheyaredoing，quarrelingforthesequenceoftheirsuicideandSOon．啊1eirpersonalitiesarealsocomplementary．VladimirremembersthepasteventswhileEstragonalwaysforgetsthemassoonastheyhavehappened；EstragonlikestalkingabouthisdreamswhileVladimircan’tbearhearingit；Estragonwillbefedup、ⅣitllthethingsheeatswhileVladimirCangetusedtothem；EstragonclaimshimselftobeapoetwhileVladimirismoreawareoftheirpoverty—strickensituation．Duringthewaiting，theycomeacrosstwopassersbyPozzoandhisslaveLucky．Pozzotalkswiththetwotrampsandhasamealinfrontofthem．HealsomaltreatsLuckywhoistiedattheendofarope，andforceshimtodanceandthink．ButtheLucky’Swordsareprovedtobealoadoflongmeaninglessvocabulary．AfterPozzoandLuckyleavetheplace，VladimirandEstragonstayinthesameplaceandbegintochatagain．ThenaboyarriveswithamessagethatGodotwillnotcometoday,butheissuretocometomorrow．Whennightfalls．thetwotrampsdecidetoleavebutneitherofthemmoves．InActII，thebaretreeinthefirstacthasseveralleavesandthetwopassersbycomeagain．ButPozzoisblindandLuckyisdumb．Aftertalkingwiththetwotramps，theymoveontheirjourneyandleaveEstragonandVladimirwaitinginthesameplaceagain．111esameboycomesagainandtellsthemthesamemessagefromGodot．Thetwotrampsdecidetolcave，buttheystiU7 ⑨硕士学位论文MASTER’STHESISdonotmove．AftertheperformanceofWaitingfo，．GodotatSanQuentin，peopleareanxioustoknowwhoGodotmaybe．鼢enAlanSchneideraskedBeckeawhoorwhatWasmeantbyGodoLheWasreplied“IfIknew,1wouldhavesaidSOintheplay”(Esslin，1968：43)．HisrefusaltodefineGodotmotivatespeopletointerprettheplayfromvariousperspectives．2．2．2SignificanceofWaitingforGodotAsoneofthebestabsurdistplays，WaitingforGodothasshownsometypicalfeaturesofabsurdistplays．Itssignificanceismanifestedinthefollowingtwoaspects．Firstly,theplayisofgreatartisticsignificance．Ithasreflectedtheabsurdistthemeinmanyaspects．Thereisnobeginning，developmentorendingintheplaybecausetheessentialdramaticelementsarenolongerSOimportant．Althoughtheplayhastwoacts，butforthoseminordifferences，audiencewouldfailtofeelthepassageoftime．nebehaviorsofcharactersaremechanicalrepetitiousandhavenouseinpromotingthedevelopmentoftheplotorfiguringtheirpersonalities．砀elanguageintheplayhaslostitsfunctionofcommunication．Comparedwiththetraditionaldramalanguage，itisdull，boring，andmeaningless．Allthesehavechallengedtheorthodoxofdramaticconventionsandbroughtnewinnovationstodrama．WaitingforGodotabandonsthepreachingthemeofconventionaldramaandtriestorevealtheabsurdnatureofhumanlife．Bvusingartisticdevices，itunifiesitsformandcontentinanexcellentway．Exceptforitsartisticsignificance，WaitingforGodotalsoshowsitsvalueinthesocialaspect．Asthemostinfluentialabsurdistplay,themostremarkablesocialsignificanceofthisplayshouldbeitsepitomeoftheWesternsocietyaftertheWbrldⅥ协II．ThisWardisillusionedthetraditionalvaluesandbelievesofpeopleatthattime．nleoldsocialordercollapsedwhilethenewoneWasnotcoming．PeoplefeUintodeepanxietiesanddepressionthattheonlythingtheycouldfeelWastheabsurdityoflifeandirrationalityofthesociety．TheyurgentlyneededonewayoutfortheirspiritualemptinessandWaiting扣Godotatthistimebecameaventfortheirsufferings．Intheplay,theycouldseethereflectionsoftheirdepressedandalienatedlife，justlikeseeingitinamirror．WaitingforGodotisofgreatimportancebothinartandsociety．Itsanti．theaterformbroughtgreatshocktoaudiencesanditsconcemforthelivingstateofhumanbeingsforcedpeopletobemoreconsciousoftheirsocietyandthemselves．111eplayhasbecomeamilestoneoftheTheateroftheAbsurd．8 ⑧硕士学位论文MASTER’STHESIS2．3PreviousstudiesonWaitingforGodotAsanabsurdistmasterpiece，Waitingfo，．Godothasattractedtheattentionofnumerousscholarsathomeandabroad．Theyhavedonetheirresearchesfromdifferentperspectives．Astherearesomanystudies，itisimpossibletolistallofthemhere．Onlythoserepresentativeoneswillbementioned．23．1StudiesabroadSinceitspremiereatSanQuentin，Waitingfo，．Godothasbecomethefocusofmanyscholarsabroad．Theymainlystudiedtheplayfromtheperspectiveofliterarycriticism．Whattheytriedtorevealweretheintegrationofformandcontent，philosophicalmeanings，religiousmetaphorsandsymbolicimplicationsoftheplay．Seldomhavetheydonetheresearchesfromthelinguisticperspective，letalonestudiedtheinterpersonalmeaningoftheplaybyusingthetheoryofSystemicFunctionalGrammar．ThebookentitledTheTheateroftheAbsurd,writtenbyMartinEsslin(1968)，WasthemostinfluentialstudyofWaitingfo，Godot．Inthebook,EsslintracedthetheoreticaloriginfortheTheateroftheAbsurdandexplainedthemeaningof“absurd”．HealsogaveadefinitiontotheTheateroftheAbsurdandcarefullyanalyzedWaitingforGodotbyinterpretingitscharactersandcomparingitwithEndgame，anotherworkofBeckett．HeconcludedthatBeckett’Sworksrevealed‘'hissenseofthetragicdifficultyofbecomingawareofone’SownselfinthemercilessprocessofrenovationanddestructionthatOCCurSwithchangeintime；ofthedifficultyofcommunicationbetweenhumanbeings；andofthetragicnatureofallloverelationshipsandtheself-deceptionoffriendship’’(Esslin,1968：69)．InBeckett,Waitingfo，．Godot,DavidBradby(1976)studiedthehistoryofWaiting．加rGodotandgaveadetailedtimetableforthedevelopmentoftheplayindifferentcountries．HealsointroducedvariousversionsofWaitingfo，．Godotandcommentedonmostofthem．DanielStempel(1976)studiedtheplayfromfourlevelsofmeaningsofscholastichermeneutics：theliteralorhistoricallevel，theallegoricallevel，themorallevelandtheanagogicallevel．Intheessay,heexplainedtheallegoricalmeaningsofthecharacters’namesbycomparingitwiththeBibleandpresumedtheactualhistoricaltimeoftheplay．Heexploredtheanagogicalreferencesintheplayandregardedtheplayasamoralparadox．NormaKroll(1995)interpretedtheplayfromthereligiOUSperspective．HethoughtthatBeckettbasedhisrepresentationofexistenceanddestinyintheplayonhisrevisionofBerkeley’StheoryofGodasthecosmicimaginer(Kroll，1995：530—531)．Contrastto9 ⑨硕士学位论文MASTER’STHESISBerkeley’SbeliefthatGodhaschosentofocusfullyandetemallyontheuniverse，hebelievedthatBeckettheldtheoppositeviewandregardedGodasunsympatheticwhopaidlittleattentiontohiscreation,namelyhumanbeings．ForKroll．PozzoandLuckyrepresentedthedestinyofmankind，whileVladimirandEstragonstoodforthehumanbeings．111eplayprobedintotherelationshipbetweenmen’sdestinyandthemselves．Afteranalyzingthelivingconditionofthetwotramps，DanO．Via,Jr．(1962)inhisessaysuggestedthatthethemeoftheplaywasmen’sunfulfilledsearchforcommunity．Bystudyingthedialoguesofcharacters，heconcludedthattheirmonologicalwayofcommunicationimpliedtheirrefusaltoengageinothers’life．11lerefore．itwasimpossibleforthemtofindatruecommunity．ThewaitingofVladimirandEstragonhadsomesimilaritieswithChristians’waitingforthecomingofJesusChrist．nedifferencewasthatChristiansknewwhotheywerewaitingfor,whilethetwotrampsdidn’t．Therearemanyotherstudiesonthisplay．LawrenceE．Harvey(1960)consideredtheplayasanartwhichwascontrarytomostcriticswhoregardedWaitingforGodotasananti-卸rtwork．HeprovedhisviewbyinterpretingthemeaningofGodotandfurtherexploringtheexistentialismfromthephilosophicalperspective．RichardScheehner(1967)analyzedthedialogues，stageproperties，actionsofcharactersandsomesymbolicarticlesintheplay,concludingthatwaitingWasthebehaviorwhiletimeWasthetheme．StephaniPofaldSmith(1974)madeacomparisonbetweenGodotandPozzo．HethoughtthatGodotWasthesymbolofGodandPozzoWastheclownishdeformationofGodot．HewasthetrueimageofGodotinreality．2．3．2StudiesathomeWiththeintroductionofabsurdistplays，domesticscholarsalsobegantoconcentrateonthisnewformofdrama．Asoneoftherepresentativeworks，WaitingforGodofdoubtlesslybecametheirresearchfocus．Mostofthemhavestudieditsthemes，symbolicmeaningsofcharacters，religiOIlSmeanings，metaphoricalmeaningsandSOon．ZengHongliu(1996)arguedthatthesuccessofWaitingforGodotliesintheintegrationofitslanguageandcontent．Byanalyzingthelanguagestyleoftheplay,hefoundthatlanguagehadlostitsfunctionofdescribingthings，exchangingemotionsandexpressingthoughts．Instead，itisusedtorepeatclichdswithoutanymeanings．111erhythmoflanguagepromotedthedevelopmentoftheplay；themeaninglessnessoflanguagerepresentedtheemptinessoflifeandtheuncertainreferenceof‘‘Godot'’impliedtheambiguousbeliefinGod．ShuXiaomei(1998)alsostudiedthelanguagefeaturesintheplayfromthreeperspectives：languageforms，languagestructuresandlanguageconnotations．Inheropinion,WaitingforGodotwascharacterizedbyitspoem—like，symmetricalandabsurd】0 ⑨硕士学位论文MASTER’STHESISlanguage．Thesharpcontrastbetweentheabsurdistlanguageandthetraditionaldramalanguagemadetheabsurdityofhumanexistencemoreimpressive，enforcingpeopletotakeadeeperconsiderationontheirlivingsituation．XiaoSixin(2001)exploredtheimpliedthemesofWaitingfo，．Godot．Accordingtohim，theplaywasmoreatragedythanacomicplayinthatitnotonlyexpressedtheabsurdandembarrassinglivingsituationofhumanbeings，butalsogaveahopewhichcalledfortherestoreofChristianbelief．WangShanshan(2005)focusedonthe‘‘waiting’’intheplayandanalyzedtheimpliedmeaningof‘'waiting’’fromthesubject,objectandinteriorelementsof‘"waiting”．Byprobingintotherelationshipsbetweenwaitingandthetwotramps，waitingandGodot,sherevealedhowthetwotrampsandGodotweregraduallyalienated．SheconcludedthatwaitinghadbecomealinkconnectingthetwotrampsandGodot．Moreover,ithasbecometheirwayofexistence．YangJunxia(2009)analyzedsomefeaturesoftheplay,includingitsplot,languageandcharacterization．Accordingtotheauthor,theanti-theaternatureoftheplaymadeitdifficulttointerpretitbyusingtraditionalstandards．Thedissolutionofplotbroughtuncertaintytothedevelopmentofcharacters，whichimpliedtheuncertaintyoffuturelife；thedissolutionofpersonalitiesofcharactersbroughtuncertaintytotheirredemptions，whichimpliedtheuncertaintyofmen’slivingcondition；thedissolutionoflanguagebroughtuncertaintytomeaning，whichimpliedtheuncertaintyofhumanexistence．Therearealsomanyotherstudies．PengGuodong(2006)exploredthehumanismandexistentialisminWaitingfo，Godotbyanalyzingitsultimatecareforhumanbeings．LiLun(2009)probedintothepessimismexpressedbytheplay．HearguedthatevenifWaitingfo，．Godotprovedtheabsurdityoflife，itstillcalledonpeopletobehopefulinthedesperatesituation．YangFengjun(2012)heldtheviewthatthereWasahiddennarratorintheplaywhospokeouttheviewsofBeckett．Hethoughtthatthisnarratorreconciledtheabsurdityandrationalityoftheplayandmadeitbefilledwithpracticalmeaning．ThestudiesdonebyscholarsathomeandabroadhavehelpedpeoplehaveabetterunderstandingofWaitingforGodotandappreciateditmoreeffectively．However,mostofthescholarshavestudiedtheplaybyusingliterarytheories，fewofthemhasdonetheresearchfromlinguisticperspective，especiallyfromtheperspectiveofSystemicFunctionalGrammar．ThisthesistriestoexploretheinterpersonalmeaningofWaitingfo，Godot,whichwillprovideanewinterpretationforthisabsurdistplay．11 ⑧硕士学位论文MASTER’STHESIS3TheoreticalFramework3．1IntroductiontoSystemicFunctionalGrammarModemlinguisticsisusheredbyFerdinanddeSaussure．Variouslinguisticschoolsspringoutunderhisinfluence，includingPragueschool，Londonschool，AmericanStructuralism，Transformational．GenerativeGrammarandSystemicFunctionalGrammar．Basedondifferentapproachestolanguage，theselinguisticschoolsCanbedividedintotwocategories：formalgrammarandfunctionalgrammar．Opposedtoformalgrammarwhichpaysmuchattentiontothelinguisticcompetenceoftheidealspeaker,functionalgrammarconcentratesmoreonhowlanguageisusedineverydayactivities．3．1．1LanguageasasemioticsystemandthethreemetafunctionsHalliday(1978)interpretedlanguageasasemioticsystem．Hedefineditfromthesociolinguisticviewpointas“afunctionalorfunction-orientedmeaningpotential；anetworkofoptiOilsfortheencodingofsomeextralinguisticsemioticsystemorsystemsintermsofthetwobasiccomponentsofmeaningthatwehavecalledtheideationalandtheinterpersonal”(HaUiday,2001：79)．TllissemioticinterpretationofthelanguagesystemmakesitconvenientforUStoconsidertheappropriacyorinappropriacyinmakingvariouslinguisticchoicesaccordingtodifferentcontexts，andtoseelanguageasaresourcefromwhichwecanchoosetomakecontextualmeanings．Hallidayproposedthatlanguagehasthreemetafunctions：ideational，interpersonalandtextualmetafunctions．Ideationalmetafunctionmeansthat‘'weuselanguagetotalkaboutOurexperienceoftheworld，includingtheworldsinourownminds，todescribeeventsandstatesandtheentitiesinvolvedinthem”(Thompson，2008：30)．111egrammaticalsystemsbywhichtheideationalmetafunctionismainlyachievedaretransitivityandvoice．Interpersonalmetafuntionmeansthat‘"weuselanguagetointeract埘motherpeople，toestablishandmaintainrelationswiththem，toinfluencetheirbehavior,toexpressOurownviewpointonthingsintheworld，andtoelicitorchangetheirs’’(Thompson,2008：30)．Hallidaydepicteditas‘'theparticipatoryfunctionoflanguage’’throughwhichthespeakerintrudeshimselfintotheconte)(tofsituation(I-Ialliday,2001：112)．TheinterpersonalmetafimctionismainlyrealizedthroughMOODsystemandMODALITYsystem．Textualmetafunctionmeansthat“inusinglanguage，weorganizeOurmessagesinwaysthatindicatehowtheyfitin、析tlltheothermessagesaroundthemandwiththewidercontextinwhichwearetalkingorwriting”(Thompson,2008：30)．111etextual1， meaningcallbeactualizedwhencombinedwithideationalandinterpersonalmeaning．nlegrammaticalwaysofrealizingtextualmetafunctionarethemesystem，informationsystemandcohesionsystem．TllisthesismainlyfocusesontheinterpersonalmetafunctionanddoestheresearchundertheframeworkofSystemicFunctionalGrammar．3．1．2StudiesOilinterpersonalabroadInordertomakehistheoryeasiertohandle，HallidaychoseMOOD，MODALITYandkeyasthemainresearchperspectives．BasedonHalliday’Stheory,manyscholarsathomeandabroadhavetriedtoexpandtheapplicationsoftheinterpersonalmeaning．Someofthemhavemadegreatachievementsinlinguisticfieldandcontributedalottothestudiesofinterpersonalmeaning．Appraisaltheory,developedwithintheframeworkofSystemicFunctionalGrammar,WasputforwardbyJ．RMartinandagroupofhiscolleaguesinthe1990s．ItCanberegardedas“aninterpersonalsystematthelevelofdiscoursesemantics”(Martin&W1lite，2005：33)．Itismainlyconcemedwiththelanguageofevaluation,attitudeandemotionalfeelings，and、Ⅳimasetoflanguageresourcesexplicitlypositioningthepropositionsandproposalsofatextinterpersonally．Itcontainsthreeinteractingdomains：attitude，engagementandgraduation．111eAppraisaltheoryhasprovidedamoresystemicandcomprehensiveframeworkfortheanalysisofinterpersonalmeaning．Thompson(1996)designedaframeworktoanalyzebothspokenandwrittendiscourses．Hepointedoutthatinterpersonalcanberealizedintwoways：participantandinteraction．，nleformerCanbeexpressedbymodalityandappraisal；thelattercanbeexpressedbyroleplayandprojection(quotedinHanShuying，2010：19)．Halliday(1982)analyzedtheinterpersonalofMOOD，MODALITYtimeandpolari砖inthedramaAnInspectorcQllswrittenbythefamousEnglishplaywrightJ．B．Prestley．Healsoprobedintothelimitationofdiscoursekeyandthecommunicationintensiononthedialoguesintheplay．Hefoundthatthede—automatizationofwordsandgrammaticalstructuresprojcctsideologicalconstructsintothemicrosemioticencountersofprotagonistsonthestage(Halliday,2007：148)．11圮complexinterrelationshipsofobligation，personalityandtimearepresentedbytheforegroundingoftheseelementsofinterpersonalmeaning．Halliday’Sstudyhassetagoodexampleforotherresearcherswhotendtoanalyzeliteraryworl【sfromtheperspectiveofSystemicFunctionalGrammar．Durey(1988)analyzedtheattitudesoftheauthorbyinvestigatingGeorgeEliot’SnovelMiddlemarch．ShefoundthatthecommentadjunctsusedbytheauthorcouldexpressEliot’Ssarcasticattitudestowardsthecharactersinthenovel．Shebelievedthat1芎 commentadjunctswererealizedonlybyadverbialgroups．Herpointofviewisnotexactifwelookintoitnowadays．EgginsandSlade(1997)exploredthemajorgrammaticalresourceinEnglishformerealizationoftheinterpersonalmeaning：theclausesystemofMOOD．ByanalyzingthechoicesofMOODandMODALITYincasualconversations，theyrevealedthetensionbetweenequalityanddifferencewheninteractantsenactandconstructrelationsofpowerthroughtheirtalks．，nleiranalysisisaninspiringendeavorforinvestigatingtheinterpersonalmeaningintermsofMOODchoices．Martinand缪勘据(2005)studiedtheinterpersonalmeaningsofacommentarypiecefromDailyExpressandaneditorialfrom月KMagazinebyusingAppraisaltheory．ThetwoarticlesareaboutthereactionsofpeopleaftertheattackontheW．orldTradeCenter．Afteranalyzingtheaft'eeLjudgment，appreciationandgraduationofthetwotexts，theyconcludedthatbyusingproperappraisaldevices，theauthorcallmakethereaderstakethesamestancewithhimunconsciouslyandsharehisfeelings，tasteandvalues，orabhorthem．3．1．3StudiesoninterpersonalmeaningathomeAftertheintroductionofSystemicFunctionalGrammarintoChina,domesticscholarshavefocusedonthistheoryindifferentwaysandmanyofthemhavemadegreatcontributionstothedevelopmentofthistheoryinChina．TheiraehievementshavepromotedthepopularizationoffunctionalgrammaramongChineseresearchers．111efollowingaresomerepresentatives：HuangGuowen(2002)probedintotheinterpersonalmeaningofDuMu’Spoem“QingMing'’bycomparingthesixdifferentversionstranslatedintoEnglish．HeanalyzedtheMoodstructuresofthepoemandexploredtheimpliedquestioner,responder,narratorandhearer．Hefoundthatreaderscanunderstandtherelationshipbetweencharactersbyinterpretingtheinterpersonalmeaningofthepoem．111einterpretationwouldmakethetranslationmoreaccurate．HisresearchhasprovidedsomeguidelinesfortranslatorstouseSystemicFunctionalGrammarintranslationpractice．ZhengYuanhui(2008)studiedhowMOODsystemconstructstheinterpersonalmeaningintranslationandsummarizedsomebasicprinciplesincross—culturetranslation．HefoundthatMOODsystemhasprovidedtherealizationofinterpersonalmeaningwithmeaningpotentialinthreeaspects：MOODreflectsthepowerrelationshipofspeakers，showsthecommunicativeintentionandtheinteractiveattitudesofspeakers．Inordertorealizetheinterpersonalmeaningoftheoriginalwork，thetranslatorshouldtakeboththeoriginalauthorandthetargetreaderintoconsiderationbasedonthechangesofinteractantsandcontext．1d ⑨硕士学位论文MASTER’STHESISKangJunying(2012)studiedtheinterpersonalmeaningofMOODandMODALITYsystemsbyanalyzingtheconversationsbetweentheheroineandherointhenovelTheInvisibleJapaneseGentlemen．ShefoundthatdifferentchoicesofmodaloperatorsandMoodtypescanreflectthepersonalities，attitudesandjudgmentofcharactersandshowthedelicatechangesintheirrelationships．LiuShisheng(1996)exploredtherealizationofinterpersonalcommentinliterarynarration．AfteranalyzingthenarrativepartsanddialoguesinDubliners，hedrewtheconclusionthatnoungroups，verbalgroups，andsetphrasesCanrealizetheinterpersonalcommentalongwithadverbialgroupsandprepositionalphrases．HealsofoundthatsetphrasesandadverbialgroupsCanrealizepureinterpersonalfunction，whileothersyntacticunitsCanrealizebomtheinterpersonalfunctionandtheideationalfunction．Thisdoublefunctioniscalled‘‘narrativeinterpersonal--ideationalfunction'’．LiZhanzi(2000，2002)studiedtheinterpersonalfunctionofsecondpersonandpresenttenseinautobiographicaldiscoursesintheveinoffunctionalgrammar．Sheclassifiedtheuseofyou，arguingthatthegrammaticalcategory“secondperson'’inautobiographyCanbemanipulatedinacomplexwaywhichwillhelpreadersexperiencedifferentrolesandstrengthentheconnection、析tlltheautobiographer．Byexaminingthepasttensenarration、)l，itlltheintermittentuseofpresenttense，sheconcludedⅡlatthepresenttenseinthiseaseshowedparticularinterpersonalmeaningofcreatingconsonance，cancelingretrospectivityandmakinginternalevaluation．KangXiangying(2008)studiedtheinterpersonalfunctionandtextualfunctionofhedgesinHemingway’SshortnarrationTheG驴basedonHalliday’Stheoryofmodalityvalueandmodalityorientation．HepointedoutthathedgesCanobjectify,depersonalizeandconcealtheoffensiveideasandattitudesoftheauthorwhenmakingcommentsonsensitivetopics．Theinterpersonalfunctionservesthetextualfunctioninthefiction．CaoJunandWangJunju(2008)probedintotheinterpersonalfunctionofevaluativeattitudeexpressionsinlinguisticbookreviewsbyusingAppraisaltheory．Afteradown-to·earthanalysisoftwentybookreviews，theyarguedthatreviewersprefertouseappreciationdevicetopersuadereadersandtonegotiatewiththebookauthorandotherscholarspolitely．JiHongqin(2011)choseTheBibleastheobjectofstudyandmadeadetailedanalysisofmodalityintheconversationbetweenGod，God’Schosenpeopleandotherpeople．ShefoundthatmodalityinBiblicallanguagehasdirectlyorindirectlyhelpedshortenthegapbetweenGodandHispeopleandconstructspositiveinterpersonalrelationships，whichaddstremendouscharmtoTheBible． 3．2MooDHallidayhasrecognizedMOODsystem,MODALITYsystemandkeyasthemalll母卸nmaticalresourcesfortherealizationofinterpersonalmetafunction．ThisthesiswillmainlyfocusonMOODsystemfortheconvemenceofanalysls’3．2．1FourspeechrolesandspeechfunctionsOneofthemainfunctionsoflanguageistointeractwithothers．Thattosay,weuselanguagetotalkwithothersonthepurposeofexchangingmeanings：wemaywanttopmvideIlewiIlfonnationforthemorgetthemtoprovideuswithinformationwedon’t勋D蹦orinfluencetheirattitudesorbehaviorandSOon．AccordingtovariousrolesaDarticipantmayplayintheinteraction，heCanbecategorizedintospeakerorwriter,andaudienceorlistener．Intheactofspeaking，thespeakeradoptsforhimselfaparticularspeechrole，andinSOdoingassignstothelisteneracomplementaryrolewhichhewisheshimtoadoptinhisturn(Halliday,2000：68)．Therearetwomostfundamentaltypesofspeechroles：givinganddemanding·Ininteractions，thespeakeriseithergivingsomethingtothelistenerordemandingsomethingfromhim．Whenconsideredfromtheviewofaspeakerinaverbalexchange，thecommoditythespeakermaybegivingordemandingisinformation(Thompson，2008：46)．Inthiscase，thespeakerCanonly,orprimarily,uselanguagetoassurethesuccessottheexchange：heCangiveinformationoraskaquestionforitbymakingastatementonoccasion廿lattlleIlearerreceivestheinformationorprovidesthespeakerwithit．Iftheexchangewillonlybesuccessfulbycarryingoutanon。verbalaction，thecommodi够beingexchangediscalled‘goods—and—services’．Here，languagehasamoreancillaryfunction：to‘helps’theSuccessoftheexchange，butatleastpartoftheexchangeneednotiIlvolvelanguage(Thompson，2008：47)．Therefore，fourbasicspeechrolesareformed·Theyaregivinginformation，demandinginformation,givinggoods—and。servicesanddemandinggoods—and-services．Theyhavefourcorrespondingspeechfunctions：s翻f伽f厕￡question!offerandcommand．Therelationshipisshowninthefollowingtable：16 ⑨硕士学位论文MASTER’STHESISTable3．1GivingorDemanding，Goods-and-servicesorInformationcommodityexchangeroleinexchange(a)goods-and-services(b)information(i)giving‘offer’‘statement’Wouldyoulikethisteapot?He’Sgivinghimtheteapot．(ii)demanding‘command’‘question’Givemethatteapot!Whatishegivingher?(Halliday,2008：107)Whenaninteractionisinitiated，thespeakerpositionshisaudienceinaplacetogivehimtheexpectedresponsewhichisoftenasupportingone．However’theaudiencemayalsogivehimanunfavorableone．Theusualresponsesofthehearerinanexchangemaybeheacceptsorrejcotsanoffer；obeysorrefusesacommand；acknowledgesorcontradictsastatement；answersordisclaimsaquestion．Thesespeechfunctionpairsareshowninthefollowingtable：Table3．2SpeechfunctionsandresponsesinitiationexpectedresponsediscretionaryalternativeofferacceptancerejectioncommandcompliancerefusalstatementacknowledgmentcontradictionquestionanSWerdisclaimer(Halliday,2000：69)Whenlanguageisusedtoexchangeinformation，theclausetakesontheformofaproposition．Whenlanguageisusedtoexchangegoods—and—services，theclausetakesontheformofaproposal(Halliday,2008：110)．3．2．2ThestructureofMOODnleMoodelementofaclauseconsistsoftwoparts：theSubject,whichisanominalgroup；andtheFiniteoperator,whichispartofaverbalgroup(Halliday,2008：111)．mSubjecthereisnotquitethesameasthetermintraditionalgrammarwhichisdefinedas“nounorpronounthatisinpersonandnumberconcord、丽tlltheverb”．InSystemicFunctionalGrammar,itreferstosomethingthroughwhichapropositioncanbeaffirmedordeniedandaproposalCanberealized(Halliday,2008：117)．Thompsondefineditas‘'theemitythatthespeakerwantstomakeresponsibleforthevalidityofthe】7 propositionbeingadvancedintheclause”(Thompson，2008：53)．TheFiniteelementisoneofasmallnumberofverbaloperatorsexpressingtense(‘be’，‘have’and‘do’，plus‘be’asthemarkerofpassivevoice)ormodality('can’，‘may’，‘could’，‘might’，‘must’，‘will’，‘would’，‘should’，‘shall’，‘oughtto’)andfunctionstomakethedefinite．TheFinitemakesitpossibletoargueaboutthevalidityoftheproposition．TherealethreefundamentalclaimssignaledbythespeakerwhenheusestheFinite，i．e．，tense，polarityandmodality．Theycarlimplyhowvalidamaybe(Thompson，2008：53)．Asisstatedabove，thefourspeechroleshavefourbasiccorrespondingfunctions．Thesefunctionsarecloselyassociated、Ⅳimparticulargrammaticalstructures：declarativesclausesmostnaturallyexpressstatements；modulatedinterrogativesexpressoffers；interrogativeclausesexpressquestions；andimperativeclausesexpresscommands．However，thecorrespondingrelationsarenotabsolute，ascommandsCanalsobeexpressedbydeelarativesormodulatedinterrogatives，offersbyimperatives，questionsbymodulateddeclaratives，statementsbytaggeddeclaratives(Eggins，2004：148)．TherelationshipsCanhedepictedasfollows：Table3．3SummaryofdialoguespeechfunctiontypicalclauseMoodnon-typicalclauseMoodcommandimperativemodulatedinterrogative／declarativeO仃ermodulatedinterrogativeimperative／declarativestatementdeclarativetaggeddeclarativequestioninterrogativemodulateddeclarative(Eggins，2004：148)Declarativeclausesaretypicallyusedtoinitiateconversationalexchangesbyprovidinginformationforarguingandconstructthespeakerasplayinganactiveroleintalking．Interrogativeclausesareoftenusedtoinitiateexchangebydemandinginformationfromthehearerandmakethespeakerdependontheanswersprovidedbyothers．Therearetwokindsofinterrogativeclauses：oneisyes／nointerrogativeclause，theotherisWH-interrogativeclause．Inyes／nointerrogatives，thespeakerwantsthelistenertospecifythepolarityoftheinformation．InWH-interrogativeclauses，thespeakerwantsthehearertofillinamissingpartoftheinformation,whichwilloftengiveanactiveandsuperiorroletothespeaker．Exclamativesareusedtoexpressdifferentemotionslikehappiness，anger,surpriseetc．andtoshowtheattitudesandevaluationsofthespeaker．Imperativeclausesareusuallyusedtogivecommandsandimplyanunequal ⑧硕士学位论文MASTER’STHESISrelationshipbetweenthespeakerandthehearer．Inpracticalcontext,theyCanalsobeusedtonegotiate，suchasofferadvice．Basedonthetheoreticalframeworkmentionedabove，thisthesiswillexploretheinterpersonalmeaningofdialoguesinabsurdistplayWaitingforGodotbyanalyzingtheMoodstructures．Itwillalsotrytorevealpersonalitiesofcharacters．relationshipsbetweencharactersandtheabsurdistthemeoftheplay． ⑨硕士学位论文MASTER’STHESIS4AnalysisofMOODinWaitingforGodotInthispart,theinterpersonalmeaningofdialoguesinWaitingforGodotrealizedthroughMOODsystemwillbeanalyzed．Thisthesiswillonlyfocusonthefirstactoftheplay．Fortheconvenienceofanalysis，dialoguesbetweencharacterswillbedividedintothreepartsaccordingtotheappearanceofdifferentcharacters．PartOnewillanalyzethedialoguesbetweenVladimirandEstragon，PartTwowillprobeintothedialoguesbetweenVladimir,EstragonandPozzo，andPartThreewillanalyzethedialoguesbetweenVladimir,EstragonandtheBoy．TheMoodstructuresandspeechfunctionsofeachpartwillbeanalyzedrespectively．IntheanalysisofMOODsystem，theMoodtypes，speechrolesandspeechfunctionsineachcharacter’Sutterancesinthethreepartswillbestudiedrespectively．Inordertomaketheanalysismorescientific，thenumbersofMoodtypesandspeechroleswillbecountedandthepercentagesofeachMoodtypeandspeechrolewillbecalculated．Theresultwillbeshownintables．WhentheMoodtypesandspeechrolesarecounted，onlyindependentclauseswillbeincluded，becauseinEnglishonlyindependentclauseshaveMoodstructures．4．1MOODanalysisofPartOnePartOneiStheconversationbetweenEstragonandVladimirwhentheyarewaitingforGodotbesideabaretree．Theystarttotalkwhentheymeeteachother．珊lilewaiting．theytalkaboutthetwothievescrucifiedatthesametimeasJesusChrisLrecalltheirolddays，argueforwhethertheyarewaitingforGodotornot,commentonthetasteofturnipsandquarrelovertheorderofhanging．Estragoncontinuouslytriestotakeoffhisbootandpullsitwithhishands．whileVladimircontinuouslytakesOfrhishatandpeersintoitasifthereWassomethinginside．Thereareseveralcommunicativepatternsbetweenthetwo．ThefirstpattemiSwhentheytalkwitheachother,onewouldeasilygetconfusedduetothefrequentchangesoftopicsoftheother．Thechangeswouldoftenbringsilencetotheirconversation．111esecondiswhenoneistalkingaboutsomething，theotherwouldignorehiswordsandkeepontalkinghisownbusiness，whichmaycausecommunicativeproblems．111ethirdtypeisone’SresponsestothepropositionsorproposalsadvancedbytheothermaynotbeSOsatisfactory,whichalsoresultsinthefailureoftheirconversation．Thefollowinganalysesintendtotestifythecommunicative ⑧硕士学位论文MASTER’STHESISpatternsabove，revealthepersonalitiesofEstragonandVladimir,andshowtheabsurdthemeoftheplay．ThedetailedstatisticsonMoodtypesandspeechrolesusedbyVladimirandEstragonareshowninthefollowingtable：(Dec．=declarative，Imp．=imperative，W-inter．=WH-interrogative，Y-inter．=yes／no-interrogative，Excl．=exclamation，Stat．=statement,Ques．=question，Comm．=command，Oft．=offer)Table4．1NumbersandpercentagesofMoodtypes&speechrolesinPartOneEstragonVladimirMoodtypesSpeechrolesMoodtypesSpeechrolesDec．90(60．4％)Stat．70(48．6％)Dec．109(67．7％)Stat．100(63．3呦Imp．19(12．7％)Qu鹤．57(39．6％)Imp．15(9．3％)Ques．40(25．3％)W-inter．25(16．8)Comm．17(11．8％)W-inter．24(14．9％)Comm．18(11．4％)Y-inter．15(10．1％)O仃．OY-inter．12(7．5％)O仃．0Excl．0Excl．1(0．6％)TDtaI：149’I'0taI：144Total：161T-otaI：1584．1．1Analysisofdeclarativeclauses111etableaboveshowsthatVladimirusesmoredeclarativeclausesthanEstragondoes．ItsuggeststhatVladimirhasprovidedmoreinformationthanEstragonandhasplayedamoreactiveandinitiatoryroleintheirconversation，asdeclarativeclausesaretypicallyusedto“constructthespeakerastakingonanactive，initiatoryroleinthetalk'’(Eggins，1997：85)．111enumbersandpercentagesofdeclarativeclausesintheirconversationarequitedifferent．VladimiruRers109declarativeclauseswhichtakeup67．7％ofallofhisutterances；whileEstragonuRers90declarativeclauseswhichtakeup60．4％ofallofhisutterances．Accordingtothetheoreticalframeworkmentionedabove，Moodtypesandspeechroleshaveaverycloserelationship．Declarativeclauseisthemostnaturalgrammaticalstructuretorealizethespeechroleofstatement．However,thepercentageofEstragon’Sstatementis48．6％andthatofVladimir’SiS63．3％．whichsuggeststhatsomedeclarativesalenotfunctioningasstatement．AccordingtoEggins(2004)，thehearerinaconversationCanexpresseitherhisacknowledgmentorcontradictiontothestatementutteredbytheaddresser,whichwillguaranteethesmoothnessofthedialogue．However,indialoguesbetweenVladimirandEstragon，somestatementsareneitheracknowledgednorcontradicted，whichhascausedproblemsintheircommunication．111efollowingare21 sometypicalexamples：(1)VLADIMIR：Ithurts?ESTRAGON：(angrily)．Hurts!Hewantstoknowifithurts／VLADIMIR：(angrily)．Nooneeversuffersbutyou．Idon’tcount．I'dliketohearwhatyou’dsayifyouhadwhatIhave．ESlRAGON：Ithurts?VLADIMIR：(angrily)．Hurts!Hewantstoknowifithurts／(2)ESTI认GoN：(despairingly)．Ah!You'resureitwashere?VLADIMIR：Ⅵmat?ESTRAGON：Thatweweretowait．VLADIMIR：Hesaidbythetree．Doyouseeanyothers?(3)ESTRAGON：You'resureitwasthisevening?VLADIMIR：珊lat?ESTRAGON：Thatweweretowait．VLADMIR：HesaidSaturday．Ithink．(4)VLADIM瓜：There’Smanalloverforyou,blamingonhisbootsthefaultsofhisfeet．砸sisgettingalarming．(Silence．Vladimirdeepinthought，Estragonpullingathistoes)．Oneofthethieveswassaved．(Paused．)It’Sareasonablepercentage．(Paused)．Gogo．ESTRAGON：Ⅵmat?VLADIMIR：Supposewerepented．ESTRAGoN：Repentedwhat?VLADIMIR：Oh⋯耽wouldn}havetogointothedetails．ESTRAGON：Ourbeingborn?VLADIMIR：Onedaren}evenlaughanymore．ESTRAGoN：Dreadfulprivation．VLADIMIR：Merelysmile．filesmilessuddenlyfromeartoear,keepssmiling，ceasessuddenly．)It'snotthesamething．Nothingtobedone．(Pause)．Gogo．ESTRAGoN：(irritably)．Ⅵmatisit?VLADIMIR：DidyoueverreadtheBible?(5)VLADⅡ订瓜：It'llpassthetime．(Paused)．Twothieves,crucifiedatthesametimeasourSaviour．ESTRAGoN：0aTwhat?VLADIMIR：OurSaviour．Twothieves．Oneissupposedtohavebeensavedandtheother．．．damned． ⑧硕士学位论文MASTER’STHESISES。I’RAGON：Savedfromwhm?VLADIMIR：Hell．ESTRAGON：I'mgoing．InExample(1)，Estragontriestotakeoffhisbootsbutfailedforseveraltimes，SOheasksVladimirforhelp．However,Vladimirdoesn’tdohimafavor．Instead，heasksEstragonaquestion“Ithurts?”byusingadeclarativeclause．EstragonbecomesangrywhenhehearswhatVladimirhassaid．Buthedoesn’tanswerVladimir’Squestiondirectly．Onthecontrary,healsousesadeclarativeclausetoexpresshisgreatanger．HisbehaviorirritatesVladimirandhecomplainsthatEstragonisnottheonlyonewhosuffersfrompain．Surprisingly,EstragonshowsgreatinterestinhissufferingsandasksVladimirthesamequestionbyusingthesamedeclarativeclause．Thistime，it’SVladimir’Sturntoexpresshisstrongemotionbyusingadeclarativeclause．Inthisexample，thedeclarativeclausesusedbyVladimirandEstragonarenotfunctioningasstatements．Theyareusedtoaskquestionsandexpressstrongemotions．Fromthisexample，weCallseethattheirrelationshipisnotSOharmonious．InExamples(2)and(3)，thetwotrampsaretalkingaboutwhethertheyarewaitingintherightplaceattherighttimeornot．Estragonusesdeclarativeclausestoaskquestions．ButVladimirdoesn’tansweranyofthem．Instead，eachtimeVladimirasksEstragonaquestion‘‘What?’’ashisresponse，asifhedidn’thearhisquestionata11．Hisreactionmakesitdifficultfortheirconversationtocontinue．WhenEstragonexplainswhathewantstoknow,Vladimirstilldoesn’tmakeitclearwhetherheissureoftheirwaitingtimeandwaitingplace．AlthoughheclaimsthatGodottellshimtowaitbesidethetreeonthatday,yetheisnottellingthetruth．Becauseaccordingtothefollowingplot,wecanseethathehasn’tmetGodotbefore，andthereisnowayforhimtoknowthoseinformation．Therefore，asenseofabsurdityiscreated．InExample(4)，theirconversationfallsintosilenceafterVladimirmakessomecommentsonEstragon’Sbehavior．Inordertobreakthesilence，Vladimirsuddenlychangesatopicandbeginstotalkaboutthethieves．AshechangesthetopicSOsuddenly,Estragonhastoaskaquestiontoshowthathedoesn’tunderstandhisintention．ButVladimirignoreshisquestionandkeepsontalkingabouthisownbusiness，whichmakesEstragonevenmoreconfused．WhenVladimirrefusestogointodetails，Estragoncontinuestoguesshisintention．Onceagain，Vladimirchangesthetopicandstartstotalkaboutlaughing．Atlast,whenEstragonistiedofguessingandbeginstofeelangry,Vladimirchangeshistopicforthethirdtime．Inthisexample，we咖seethatVladimirexpectsnoresponsefromEstragonforthedeclarativeclausesutteredbyhim．HegivesnotimeforEstragontoacknowledgeorcontradicthisstatements．Hekeepsontalkingasthathecan’tbearthesilencebetweenthem．Hedoesn’tcareaboutEstragon’Sresponses23 ⑧硕士学位论文MASTER’STHESISbecausewhatheneedsistoshowhisexistencebyspeaking．Thustheproblemsintheircommunicationaremanifested．ThisiSalsotrueinExample(5)whenVladimirtalksaboutthethievesandmakesEs仃agongetconfusedtwice．ItseemsthatEstragoncall’tunderstandwhatVladimiristalkingabout．neirconversationendsup丽tllfailurewhenEstragonusesastatement“I'mgoing’’withoutgivinganyresponsetoVladimir’Swords．ItshowsthathehasnointerestinVladimir’Stopic．TheexamplesabovehaveprovedthatthecommunicationbetweenVladimirandEstragoniSnotsuccessful．‰ntheytalk、析tlleachother,theyareeasytofallintoconfusion．Thedeclarativeclausesusedbythemhaveservedtoaskquestionsandexpresss仃ongemotions．Bothofthemtendtoignorethestatementsutteredbytheother．Theirinteractiveattitudescausecommunicativeproblemsbetweenthem．4．1．2Analysisofyes／no—interrogativeclausesYes／no—interrogativeclausescanbeidentifiedasclauseswheretheFiniteelementoccursbeforetheSubject．Fullyes／no-interrogativeclausesaretypicallyusedtoinitiateanexchangebyrequestinginformationfromothers．Theyconstructthespeakerasdependentontheresponseofotherinteractants(Eggins，1997：85)．Asisshowninthetableabove，Es仕agonutters15yes／no—interrogativeclauses，whileVladimirutters12ones．Inyes／no—interrogativeclauses，thespeakerprimarilywantsthelistenertospecifythepolarityofhismessage．Ifthelistenerrefusestoofferhisanswerorgivesanunfavorableone，theirconversationmaynotgoonsmoothly．Inthatcase，thecommunicativeproblemsareinevitable．WhenVladimirandEstragonuseyes／no-interrogativeclausestoaskquestions，botllofthemtendtoofferunsatisfactoryanswers．Herearesomeexamples：(6)ESTRAGON：Takingoffmyboot．DidthatneverhappenfDyou?VLADIMIR：Bootsmustbetakenoffeveryday,I'mtiredtellingyouthat．Whydon'tyoulistentome?(7)VLADIMIR：DoyouremembertheGospels?ESTRAGON：IrememberthemapsoftheHolyLand⋯11lcDeadSeawaspaleblue⋯That’Swherewe’11go，Iusedtosay,that'swherewe’11goforourhoneymoon．We’11swim．We’11behappy．VLADIMIR：Youshouldhavebeenapoet．ESTRAGON：IWas．Isn'tthatobvious?(Silence)(8)VLADIMIR：Ahyes，thetwothieves．Doyourememberthestory?ESTRAGON：No．VLADIMIR：册棚Itell订toyou?ESTRAGoN：No．’4 VLADIMIR：ItwiUpassthetime．(9)ESTRAGON：(veryinsidious)．ButwhatSaturday?And函itSaturday?IsitnotratherSunday?(pause．)orMonday?(Pause．)OrFriday?VLADIMIR：It'snotpossible!ESTRAGON：OrThursday?VLADIMIR：珊lat’11wedo?InExample(6)，whenEstragonasksVladimiraquestion，Vladimirdoesn’tansweritdirectly．Instead，hejustsayssomethingthatisirrelevanttothequestion,asifheWasamanofwisdom．撇’Smore，whenhefindsthatEstragonisnotlisteningtohim，heshowsgreatangertowardshim．InExample(7)，Estragondoesn’tgiveapositiveornegativeanswertoVladimir’SquestionwhenVladimiraskshimwhetherheremembersthestoryoftheGospelsornot．Instead，herecallstheHolyLandandimaginesthattheywillvisittheDeadSeaoneday．HedeliberatelyignoresVladimir’Squestionandisabsorbedinhisimaginaryworld．WhenVladimirsuggeststhatheshouldbeapoet,hereplieswithaquestionandtheconversationendsupwithsilence。场esilenceimpliesthattheycail’tfindanyinterestingtopictomaketheirconversationcontinue．Inthisdialogue，thecommunicationbetweenthetwoisnotpossible．EstragoncareslittleaboutthetopicadvancedbyVladimirandhetakestheignoranceforgranted．111eirrelationshipisfragilebecausetheycanhardlyengage、^，imaconversationbetweenthem．InExample(8)，VladimirasksEstragontwoyes／no-interrogativequestions，buttheyaredisclaimedbyEstragonwithoutgivinganyfurtherexplanations．ItshowsthatEstragonhasnointerestinVladimir’Stopic．ButVladimirpaysnoattentiontohisdisclaimersandgoesonwithhistalk．nereasonforhisbehavioristhattlleyCanpassthetimebytalking诵meachother．Therefore，theirabsurdlivingsituationisdepicted．InExample(9)，whenthetwotrampsarearguingaboutthetimeforGodot’Sarrival，Estragonasksaseriesofyes／no—interrogativequestions，butnoneofthemareapprovedordeniedbyVladimirbecauseheisbusythinkingabouthisownbusiness．However,Estragonalsoignoreshisreactionsandproceedswimhisguessing．Itseemsthattheywerelivingintwoparallelchannelswithnointersection．Thecommunicationbetweenthetwoisproblematic，whichdemonstratestheabsurdlivingsituationofthetwo．4．1．3AnalysisofWH—interrogativeclauses11leWH．interrogativeclausesconsistofaWH—wordsuchaswho,what,when,where,andhow．砀epurposeofusing孵interrogativesistoaskforthemissinginformationoftheclause．RespondentsCanalsouseWH-interrogativestochallengepriortalkorgivecommandstothelistener(Eggins，1997：87)．Intheirdialogues，VladimirandEstragonutteralmostthesamenumberof、ⅣH—interrogatives．Vladimirutters24，与 ⑨硕士学位论文MASTER‘STHESISWH-interrogativesandEstragonutters25ones．OnefeatureoftheseinterrogativesisthatbothVladimirandEstragontendtorefusetoofferthemissinginformationfortheclauses．WhenaWH—interrogativeclauseisadvanced，itisoftenignoredbythehearerornotgiventhesupposedmissinginformation．髓efollowingalesometypicalexamples：(1o)ESTRAGON：Takingoffmyboot．Didthatneverhappentoyou?VLADIMIR：Bootsmustbetakenoffeveryday,I'mtiredtellingyouthat．Whydon'tyoulistentome?ESTRAGON：(feebly)．Helpme!(11)VLADIMIR：(musingly)．Thelastmoment⋯(Hemeditates．)Hopedeferredmakeththesomethingsick，whosaidthat?ESTRAGON：Whydon'tyouhetpme?VLADIMIR：SometimesIfeelitcomingallthesame．ThenIgoallqueer．(12)VLADIM瓜：Oneoutoffour．Oftheotherthree，twodon’tmentionanythievesatallandthethirdsaysthatbothofthemabusedhim．ESTRAGON：F场D7VLADIMIR：≯场讲7ESTRAGoN：陟7z口f台allth括about?Abusedwho?VLADIMIR：111eSavior．ESTRAGON：Why?VLADIMIR：Becausehewouldn’tsavethem．ESTRAGON：Fromhell7VLADIMIR：Imbecile!Fromdeath．ESTRAGON：Ithoughtyousaidhell．VLADIMIR：Fromdeath，fromdeath．AlltheexampleslistedabovehavecontainedWH-interrogativeclauses，butnoneofthemaleprovided、Ⅳitlltheexpectedmissinginformation．InExample(10)，whenVladimirasksEstragonwhyheisnotlisteningtohim，Estragongivesnoanswertohimasifhedidn’thealthequestion．Instead，heblamesVladimirfornothelpinghimtakeoffhisboots．InExample(11)，whenVladimirasksEstragonwhoutterstheproverb，Estragonignoresthequestionagainanddoesn’tofferthesupposedmissinginformation．Contrarily,heasksVladimiraquestion．AsforVladimir,hepaysrioattentiontothereactionofEstragonandcontinuestotalkabouthistopic．Inthisdialogue，thetwotrampshavenointeractionata11．InExample(12)，whentheydiscussthestoryoftheGospels，EstragonseemstohavenoideawhatVladimiristalkingabout．Theyaskeachother‘what’and‘who’andgetnoanswerfortheirquestions．EstragonkeepsonaskingVladimirquestionstofollowhistopic，buttheyalejustgivenveryshortanswers．111e26 answersofferedbyVladimirhaveshownhisimpatiencebecausehejustwantstospeakoutwhathe’dliketosayandexpectsnoresponsefromEstragon．111eabsurdityisshownwhenheclarifiesthatthetwothievesweresavedfromdeath，becauseinthepreviousdialogueheclaimedthattheyweresavedfromhell．Fromhisutterances，wecanseethathedoesn’tcarewhatheistalkingabout．Theonlythingthatmattersishecantalkaboutsomethingtopassthetime．Thusasenseofabsurdityiscreated．Fromtheexamplesabove．wecanseethatthecommunicationbetweenthetwoiSnotsuccessful，whichiSausualinteractivestateofspeakersinthisabsurdistplay：wheninteractingwithothers，aspeakerwouldeasilyfallintoasituationwherenooneislisteningtohimorunderstandwhatheistalkingabout．111echaractersintheplaytendtoignoretheutterancesofothers．They’reevenunconcernedabouttheindifferentattitudesofothers，andtheytakethiskindofcommunicativestateforgranted．Theircommunicationpatternrepresentstheabsurdlivingsituationofhumanbeingsandthetragicrelationshipamongpeople．4．1．4AnalysisofimperativeclauseImperativeclausestypicallydonotcontaintheelementsofSubjectorFinitebutconsistofonlyaPredicatorplusanyofthenon—coreparticipantsofComplementandAdjunct．Theyareoftenusedtomakecommand，butincasualtalltheycanalsobeusedtogiveadviceO三ggins，1997：88)．Inthispart,Estragonutters19imperativeswhichtakeup12．7％ofallhisutterances；whileVladimirutters15oneswhichtakeup9．3％ofallhisutterances．However,thepercentagesoftheircommandsare11．8％and11．4％．ThetworatiosofEstragonarequiteclose．butthetworatiosofVladimiraredifferent,whichimpliesthatsomeimperativeclausesarenotfunctioningascommands．AccordingtoEggins(2004)，ifaspeakergivesacommand，thehearertakesuparolethathecancomplywiththecommandorrefusetocarryitout．Ifthehearerchoosesneitherofthem，communicativeproblemsareinevitable．111efollowingaresometypicalexamples：(13)ESTRAGON：Ihadadream．VLADIMIR：Don}tellme!ESTRAGoN：Idreamtthat—一VLADIMIR：DDⅣ’TTELL朋E，ESTRAGON：Tllisoneisenoughforyou?(Silence)．Itisnotniceofyou．(14)VLADIMIR：Calmyourself．ESTRAGON：(Voluptuously)．Calm⋯calm⋯TheEnglishsaycawm．(Pause)．YouknowthestoryoftheEnglishmaninthebrothel?(15)ESTRAGON：Te／／ittome．VLADIMIR：Ahstopit!ESTRAGON：AnEnglishman．．．GoOn．27 ⑨硕士学位论文MASTER’STHESIS＼L氏DIMIR：SlUPn?!neMoodstructuresinExamples(13)and(15)areimperativeclauses，buttheirspeechfunctionisnottogivecommandoradvice．Instead，theyaremorelikewarnings．Inthetwoexamples，Vladimirshowshisfurybyusingimperatives．He’11beangryiftheirconversationendsupwithsilenceormeaninglessconclusion．Sohetendstoavoidthesituationbystoppingtotalk．WhenEstragontriestostartanothermeaninglesstopic，hewillbecomefuriousandgivesomewarningstoEstragon．Iflliswarnings，asisshowninExamples(13)and(15)，donotwork，hewillbecomeevenmoreraging．InExample(13)，whenEstragonwantstotellVladimirhisdream，Vladimirshowsnointerestandrequireshimtostoptalking．ButEstragonignoreshisrequestandproceeds、Ⅳitllhistalkasifhedidn’theartherefusalata11．蹦sisalsotrueinExample(15)whenEstragonwantstotalkaboutthestoryoftheEnglishman．111ecapitalizedimperativesexpressstrongeremotionsthanthenormalones．111epersonalityofVladimirisshowninthesetwoexamples．111etwotrampsneedthesetalkstopassthetime，butwhentheirtalksbecomemeaningless，Vladimiroftenfeelsworriedandurgestoendthem．111eimperativesaresignsofhiscomplicatedemotions．Fromtheseexamples，wecanalsoseethatheismoreawareoftheirabsurdlivingsituation．InExample(14)，VladimiradvisesEstragontocalmdown．ButEstragondoesn’tcarryitout’nordoesherefusetodoSO．HejustignoresVladimir’Sadviceandfocusesonthewordcalm，associatingitwithanotherEnglishword．ThenhefurtherconnectstheEnglishword、ⅣitllthestoryoftheEnglishman．Therefore，theirtalkhasbeenquicklychangedtoanothertopicandtheirconversationCangoonforamoment．Inthisexample，thepersonalityofEstragonisdepicted：heiseasytofocusonthetrivialthingswhichareirrelevanttotheirtopic．Hisfrequentchangesintopicssometimesprovidethemwithsomethingtotalkaboutandmaketheirconversationcontinue．However,mostofthetime，theirconversationwillcometoanendforchangingthetopicstoooften，becausethechangesoftenmakethemfeelconfusedandlosetheirinterestininteraction．Thus，theproblemsintheircommunicationaremanifested：bothVladimirandEstragonneedtotalkaboutsomethingtopasstheirtime，buttheircommunicationoftenfallintofailure．nlefailureresultsfromthefactthatoneoftenignorestherequirementoftheotherandonlycaresabouthisownbusiness．Bothofthemhasacceptedtheircommunicativepatternandnevergiveasecondthoughtfortheproblemsthatlieinit．nleimperativesabovealsoprovethedesperatelivingsituationofthetwotramps：theircommunicationisfullofproblems，becausetheyCan’tmaketheirdialoguesgoonsmoothly；theyseldomcareaboutthefeelingsoftheother,buttheytakethiskindoflivingwayforgranted．Theirlivingsituationstandsforthedesperatelivingsituationofhumanbeings． 4．1．5AnalysisofexclamativeclausesExclamativeclauseshavetheSubjectbeforeFiniteandoftenbeginwith‘what’and‘how’．Theyaretypicallyusedtoexpressjudgmentorevaluationofevents．111espeakermusttakeontheroleofjudge，whichpositionsotherinteractantsaslikelytoagreewiththejudgment．Theycanalsobeusedtochallengetheunequalstatusofthespeakers(Eggins，1997：89)．Therearenotmanyexclamativeclausesinthisplay,andthereisonlyoneutteredbyVladimirinthispart．Itisshownasfollows：(16)VLADIMIR：Buttowhom?Bywhom?ESTRAGoN：Toyourman．VLADIMIR：ToGodot?TiedtoGodot!F砀讲anidealNoquestionofit．(Pause．)Forthemoment．ESTRAGON：HisnameisGodot?VLADIMIR：IthinkSO．111edialoguehappenswhenthetwotrampsareeatingcarrots．Es仃agonsuddenlyasksVladimiraquestionthatiftheyaretiedtosomeone，andVladimkgiveshimhisassumptionthattheyaretiedtoGodot．M1enhethinksofthisidea,hefeelsexcited．Theexclamativeclausejustshowshisexcitement．Fromtheexample，weCanseethatEstragonalmostforgetsthenameofGodoLthemantheyarewaitingfor．ButheisnotconcernedaboutthejoyofVladimir．Onceagain,hepayshisattentiontothenameGodotandgivesnoresponsetotheexclamativeclauseutteredbyVladimir．HeissupposedtoshowhisagreementordisagreementonthejudgmentofVladimir,buthedoesn’t，whichmakestheircommunicationlookwekd．Fromthisexample，wecanseethatEstragoniSamanwhoiSonlyconcernedabouthisownaffairs．4．2MooDanalysisofPartTwoInPartTwo，thewaitingofthetwotrampsisinterruptedbythepassingthroughofPozzoandhisheavily．1adenslaveLucky．LuckyiStiedbyaropearoundhisneckandfrequentlycalledbyPozzoas‘'pig'’．PozzotreatsLuckyunmannerly,butheisciviltothetwotramps．EstragonandVladimirmistakePozzoforGodotandtreathimpolitely．WhenPozzodecidestohavearestandbeginstoenjoyhischickensandwine，EstragoniSeagertoaskforthebonesofthechickens．HisdeedsembarrassVladimiralot．Whelltheytalkwitheachother,manythingshavehappened：thetwotrampsargueaboutwhyLuckydoesn’tputdownhisburden；PozzocomplainsaboutthepainLuckybringstohim；LuckycriesforPozzo’Sideaofsellinghim；EstragontriestowipeLucky’StearsawaybutheiSkickedbyLucky．Beforeleaving．PozzoasksifheCandoanythingforthetwo ⑧硕士学位论文MASTER’STHESIStrampsinexchangeforthecompanytheyhaveofferedtohimduringhisrest．Estragontriestoaskforsomemoney,whichembarrassesVladimiragain．ThentlleygetLuckytodanceandthink．111espeechofLuckyisprovedtobenothingbutaloadofillogicalwords．AtlastPozzopackshisthingsandleaves．PartTwoisthemainpartofActI．11leconversationsmainlyinvolveEstragon．VladimirandPozzo．Luckydoesnottakepartintheirdialogues．SothispartwillmainlyfocusontheMoodtypesandspeechfunctionsofdialoguesbetweenEstragon,VladimirandPozzo．Whenanalyzingthispartasawhole，wecanseethattherearealsothesamethreecommunicativepaRemsintheirdialogues．Inthispart,thesilencesoccurmoreoftenwhenPozzositarsintheirinteractions．Thepaaemthatoneoftenoffersunsatisfactoryresponsestoothersismoreobviousinthispart．缪加ntheycommunicate、析theachother,theyaremoreawareoftheirowntopicsandneglecttheutterancesofothers．Andeveryoneshowssomefeaturesintheinteractions．11lestatisticalresultisshowninthefollowingtable：Table4．2NumbersandpercentagesofMoodtypes&speechrolesinPartTwoEstragonVladimirPozzoMoodtypesSpeechMoodtypesSpeechMoodtypesSpeechrolesDec．Star．Dec．StatDec．Stat．72(70．6％)56(57．1％)68(73．1％)47(56．6％)201(67％)169(59．7％)Imp．Ques．Imp．Ques．Imp．Ques．10(9．8％)30(30．6％)12(12．9％)16(19．3％)43(14．3％)64(22．6％)W-intenComm．W-inter．Comm．W-inter．Comm．11(10．8％)12(12．3％)5(5．4％)16(19．3％)28(9．3％)48(17％)Y-inter．of￡Y-inter．off．Y．inteLof￡9(8．8％)06(6．4％)4(4．8％)27(9％)2(0．7％)Excl．02(2．2％)1(0．3％)Totah102TDtaI：98，11Dtal：93TDtaI：83Total：300Total：2834．2．1AnalysisofdeclarativeclausesFromthetable，wecanseethatPozzouRersmuchmoredeclarativeclausesthanEstragonandVladimirsinceheappearsonthestage，whichimpliesthatheplaysamore activeroleandprovidesmuchmoreinformationintheirdialogues．Inthispart，Pozzoutters201declarativeclauseswhichtakeup67％ofallhisutterances．Thenumberofhisstatementis169andthepercentageis59．7％．UnlikeVladimirandEstragon，thedeclarativeclausesusedbyhimfunctionasquestionsandexpressstrongeremotions．ThedeclarativeclausesutteredbyEstragonandVladimirarefewercomparedwiththosetheyhaveutteredinPartOne．Estragonutters72declarativeswhichtakeup70．6％ofllisutterancesandthecorrespondingstatementstakeup57．1％ofallspeechroles．VladimiruRers68declarativeclauseswhichtakeup73．1％ofallhisutterancesandthestatementstakeup56．6％，whichiSclosetoEstragon．ButunlikeEstragonwhoseemstoshowgreatinterestinPozzo．heiScomparativelymorerational．Heusesdeclarativesmoreoftentoexpresshisangeranddoubt．111esedeclarativeclausesplayavitalroleincharacterizingtheirpersonalitiesandreflectingtheabsurdistthemeoftheplay．AsisthesamewithPartOne，somedeclarativeclausesarenotfunctioningasstatements，butusedtoexpresssurprise，questions，angerandwonder．Inothercases，evenifsomedeclarativesaleusedtogivestatements，theyarenotgiventhesupposedacknowledgmentsorcontradictions．Therefore，thecommunicativeproblemsbetweencharacterscomeup．Thefollowingalesometypicalexamples：(17)POZZO：(terrifyingvoice)．IamPozzo!(Silence．)Pozzo!(Silence．)Doesthatnamemeannothingtoyou9(Silence．)ESTRAGON：Bozzo⋯Bozzo—VLADIMIR：IonceknewafamilycalledGozzo．Themotherhadtheclap．(18)POZZO：Soyouwerewaitingfo，．him?ESTRAGON：Wellyouse卜POZZO：Here?Onmyland?(19)ESTRAGON：Excuseme，Mister,thehones，youwon'tbewantingthebones?LuckylookslongatEstragon．POZZO：Mister!Reply!(20)VLADIMIR：(Scandalized)．Youcouldn'thavewaited?EATRAGON：Mister⋯excuseme⋯Mister⋯(21)POZZO：⋯Butperhapsyoudon'tsmoke?Yes?No?It’Sofnoimportance．(Silence)⋯．Perhapsyoudidn'tspeak?(Silence)．It’Sofnoimportance．(22)VLADIMIR：Whotoldyou?POZZO：Hespeakstomeagain!lfthisgoeson．．．31 (23)VLADIMIR：Youwanttogetridofhim?POZZO：Hewantstocodme，buthewon’t．VLADIMIR：Youwanttogetridofhim?POZZO：Heimaginesthat．．．ESTRAGON：YOU'vehadenoughofhim?POZZO：Inrealityhecarrieslikeapig．．．VLADIMIR：Youwanttogetridofhim?POZZO：Heimaginesthat．．．VLADIMIR：Youwanttogetridofhim?(24)ESTRAGON：Eventenfrancswouldbeahelp．VLADIMIR：Wearenotbeggars!POZZO：IsthereanythingIcaIldo，that’SwhatIaskmyself．。ESTRAGON：Evenfive．VLADIMIR：That'senough[ESTRAGON：Icouldn’tacceptless．POZZO：Isitenough?Nodoubt．ButIanlliberal．．．(25)POZZO：ICan’tfindmypulvefizerlESTRAGON：Myl够l硼gisveryweaklButmyrightlungiSassoundasabell!POZZO：Nomatter!WhatwasIsaying．InExample(17)，Pozzoshowshisangerbyusingadeclarativeclause诵t}1anexclamationmarkwhenEstragonmistakeshimforGodot．Heexpresseshisfurybyemphasizinghisnameforseveraltimes．Buteachtimehisemphasisisfacedwithsilence．Therearethreesilencesinhisutterance．TheyhaveshownthatneitherVladimirnorEstragonisconcernedabouttheemphasisofPozzo．Theydon’tgiveanyresponsetohimbecausethey’rejustbusyfiguringouttherightnameofPozzo，andVladimireventalksaboutthefamilyofGozzo．WhattheyaretalkingabouthasnothingtodowithPozzo’Sutterance．Theircommunicationisinchaosfromthebeginning．InExample(18)，thedeclarativeclauseusedbyPozzoisaquestionratherthanastatement．ButheexpectsnoanswersfromEs仃agonandVladimirandinterruptsEstragonrudely．ThisisalsothecaseinExample(21)whenPozzobeginstotalkabouthisaffairs．Heusesdeclarativeclausestoaskquestions，butneitherofthemisansweredbyVladimirandEstragon．Eachquestionadvancedbyhimisfaced、析msilenceasifheWastalkingtonobody,whichcreatesasenseofabsurdityfortheirconversation．However,Pozzodoesn’tregardthisignoranceandsilenceasanythingthatusual，becausehethinksthattheirresponseisofnoimportance．InExample(19)，Estragonusesadeclarativeclausetoaskaquestion． WhenPozzohasfinishedhismeal，Estragonwantstogetthebonesofthosechickens．SoheasksLuckypolitelyifheneedsthebones，asPozzodeclaimsLucky’Sownershipofthebones．Buthedoesn’treceiveanyanswerfromLuckybecauseLuckyneverspeakstoanyoneintheplay．HistonealsoshowshishumblenessbeforeheknowsanythingaboutLucky．InExample(20)，VladimirbecomesfuriouswhenEstragonbegsforthosechickenbones．TheclauseiSaquestionratherthanastatement．ButEstragonjustignoreshisembarrassmentandkeepsonaskingforthebonesasifhedidn’thearthatquestionata11．InExample(24)，VladimirexpresseshisembarrassmentagainwhenEstragonasksPozzoformoney．HeusestwodeclarativesendingupwithexclamationmarkstoshowhisangertowardsEstragon．ButEstragonjustignoreshiswordsandkeepsonbargainingwithPozzo．AsforPozzo，healsopaysnoattentiontothetwotrampsandcontinuestospeaktohimself．Thethreehavenorealinteraction晰meachother．InExample(22)，PozzopretendstobesurprisedwhenVladimiraskshimaquestion,becausehethinksnoonecouldrefusetolistentohimwhenhespeaks．Hisreactionshowshispersonalityofarrogance．However，heignoresVladimir’Squestionandkeepsontalkingabouthisowntopic．Thecommunicationbetweenthetwoisnotsmooth．TheirproblemsincommunicationareespeciallyobviousinExample(23)whenPozzobeginstotalkabouthisdesiretosellLuckyforagoodprice．Intheirdialogue，EstragonshowsgreatinterestinreplacingLuckywhenheknowsPozzo’Splan．SoheasksPozzoaquestiontoco山!inntheplan．Thedeclarativeclauseusedbyhimservesasaquestionratherthanastatement．ButPozzoignoreshisquestionandgoesonwithhisownaffairs，asifEstragondidn’texistbyhisside．Atthesametime，VladimiralsoasksPozzosomequestionsbyusingaseriesofdeclarativeclauses．HeasksthesamequestionfivetimesbutgetsnoresponsefromPozzo．ItisnotbecausePozzodoesn’twanttoanswertheirquestions，butthathedoesn’tnoticethesequestionsata11．Thisisausualcommunicationstatebetweenthethree：Pozzoisbusytalkingabouthisownbusinessandignoresreactionsofothers．InExample(25)，theutteranceofEstragonisabsurdbecausewhathesayshasnothingtodowitllwhattheyaretalkingabout．WhenPozzosayshelosthispulverizer,Estragonassociatesitwithhislungs．HejusttriestosaysomethingtoshowhisexistencebecauseallthethreecharactershavenotopictotalkaboutbeforePozzoleaves．Hisutteranceismeaningless，butheshoutsitoutasifheWassayingsomethingimportant．However,hereceivesnoresponsefromPozzo．Ithascausedasharpcontrastbetweenhissituationandhiswords，whichdemonstratestheabsurdsituationheisin．TheabsurdityisespeciallyobviouswhenPozzoandVladimirpaynoattentiontohiswordsandproceed、^，iⅡlthethingstheyaledoing．Thecommunicationbetweenthethreeisproblematicandnotsmooth，whichisafeaturethatgoesallthroughtheplay． ⑧硕士学位论文MASTER‘STHESISCompared、)l，imPartOne，thisparthassomedeclarativesusedtogiveoffer．MostofthemarecarriedoutbyVladimir．Forexample：(26)VLADIMIR：I'llgiveittohim．ESTRAGON：(ToPozzo)．Tcllhimtogoandfetchit．POZZO：It’Sbeaertogiveittohim．VLADIMIR：，'llgiveittohim．POZZO：Youmustputitonhishead．VLADIMIR：』'llputiton办括headESTRAGON：What’Shewaitingfor?AccordingtoEggins(2004)，ifaspeakergivesanoffer,hepositionsthehearertosupportit．ButthehearerCanalsoconfronttheoffer,whichisnotfavorable．Inthisexample，VladimirtriestohelpEstragonseveraltimes，becausePozzoasksEstragontowipeoutthetearsofLucky．WhenEstragonrefusestodoSO，Vladimirgiveshimsomehelp．Vladimirusesdeclarativeclausestogiveoffersforthreetimes．ButnoneofthemaresupportedorconfrontedbyEstragon．BothPozzoandEstragongivenoattentiontohisoffersandke印ontalking．AsforVladimir,hedoesn’tcareabouttheirignoranceasifhisofferhadbeenacceptedwillinglybythem．Theseofferstakeupaverysmallpartintheplay,buttheycharacterizeVladimirasamanwhosometimesshowssomekindnesstoEstragon．Buttheyalsoprovetheproblematicrelationshipbetweenthecharacters：theutterancesofonepersonareeasilytobeignoredbyothers；however,theyseldomregardthiskindofignoranceasunusualreactions．4．2．2Analysisofyes／no-interrogativeclausesInPartTwo，Pozzostilluttersmostofyes／no—interrogativeclauses．Thenumberis27andthepercentageis9％．Es仃agonandVladimirhavesmallernumbers．Estragonutters9yes／no-interrogativeclausesandtheytakethepercentageof8．8％whichisclosetoPozzo．Vladimirutters6yes／no—interrogativeclausesandthepercentageis6．4％．Inmostcases，yes／no—interrogativeclausesadvancedbyEstragonandVladimiralegivenpositiveornegativeanswers，whichmeansthatthepropositionsgivenbythemareapprovedordenied．删letheyes／no—interrogativesadvancedbyPozzoaremorethanpropositions，becausesomeofthemCan’tbedeniedorapprovedeasily．ThusthepersonalityofPozzoisdepicted．Thefollowingaresometypicalexamples：(27)POZZO：Good．ISeverybodyready?Iseverybodylookingatme?Willyoulookatme,P／g，Good．Iamready．Iseverybodylistening?Iseverybodyready?Hog!Idon'tliketalkinginavacuum．Good．(28)POZZO：⋯⋯ShallI纪llyou?(Silence．Estragonisfiddling、Ⅳimhisbootagain,34 Vladimirwithhishat．)Ican’trefuseyou．(29)ESTRAGON：Icouldn’tacceptless．POZZO：／sitenough?Nodoubt．ButIamliberal．It’Smynature⋯(30)POZZO：⋯⋯I'dverymuchliketositdown，butIdon’tquiteknowhowtogoaboutit．ESTRAGON：CouM1beofanyhetp?POZZO：Ifyouaskmeperhaps．ESTRAGON：珊l棚POZZO：Ifyouaskmetositdown．ESTRAGON：Wouldthatbeahetp7POZZO：IfancySO．OnefeatureofPozzo’Syes／no-interrogativeclausesisthatheoftenuttersayes／no．interrogativequestionandanswersithimself．InExample(27)，Pozzoasksaseriesofquestionsbyusingyes／no—interrogativeclauses．However’heexpectsnoresponsefromothersandactsasheisspeakingtohimself．WhenhespeakstoLucky,heusesayes／no．interrogativeclausetoshowhisangerbecauseheiSthemasteranddoesnothavetospeakpolitelytowardsLucky．HisutterancesmakehimlooklikeagreatmanwhoWasdeliveringapublicspeech．Infact,VladimirandEstragonpaynoattentiontohiswordsandLuckyisdozing．Nooneislisteningtohim，butheignorestheseandkeepsontalking．Hiswordsandthesurroundingenvironmentformasharpcontrastandmakethesituationfullofabsurdity．Thecommunicationbetweenthesethreecharactersisnotsmooth．Theycarelittleaboutothersandtakethesituationforgranted．ThisisespeciallyobviousinExample(28)，whenPozzoasksthemthequestion“ShallItellyou'’，Estragonandaredoingtheirownthingswithoutlisteningtohim．Butheignorestheirmannersandimaginesthattheyarewillingtoknowhisstory．InExample(29)，heasksthetrampsiftheywantsomethingasarewardforkeepinghimcompany．Buthegivesthemnotimetoanswerthisquestionandcontinueshisspeech．EventhoughEstragonaskshimforsomemoney，heignoreshisrequestanddoesn’tgivehimanyresponse．BecausehethinksthatwhathehasgiventothemiSenoughfortherewardandthereiSnoneedforhimtowaitfortheirresponses．InExample(30)，whenPozzoCan’tfindagoodreasontositdown，Estragonusesayes／no—interrogativeclausetoprovideanoffer．Thenheusesanotheryes／no—interrogativeclausetomakesurethathecallhelphim．However，theresponsesgivenbyPozzoarenotsatisfactory,becausehejustgivessomevagueanswers．HisfirstresponsemakesEs仃agonfeelconfused，thesecondoneisalsouncertain．Theconversationisabsurdandmeaninglessduetothethingstheyaretalkingabout．Fromtheseexampleswecanseethatinmostcases，Pozzoinclinestoadvancea yes／no—interrogativequestionandignoresthereactionsfromothers．Whathedoesshowshispersonalityofheingarrogant．What’Smore，hisbehaviorCanalsoreflecttheabsurdistthemeoftheplaythatthecommunicationbetweenpeopleisimpossible．4．2．3AnalysisofWH—interrogativeclausesTheuseofWH—interrogativeclausesintlliSpartissimilartothepreviousones．Pozzoutters28WH—interrogativeclauses，Estragonutters1onesandVladimirutters5ones．ComparedwithVladimir,EstragonusesmoreWH-interrogativesbecauseheismoreuncertainabouttheirsituationandtendstoforgetthingseasily．WhentheyaskWH—questions，themissinginformationneededtofilltheslotisnotalwaysoffered．ThisisespeciallytruewhenPozzoisaskedWH—questionsadvancedbyVladimirandEstragon．Heoftenignoresthosequestionsandkeepsontalkingabouthisownaffairs．Thecommunicationbetweenthethreeisproblematic，andthepersonalityofeachcharacterisdepicted．Herearesometypicalexamples：(31)POZZO：Whatwasitexactlyyouwantedtoknow?VLADIMIR：Whyl卜POZZO：(angrily)．Don’tinterruptme!(Pause．Calmer．)Ifweallspeakatoncewe’11nevergetanywhere．(Pause．)WhatWasIsaying?(Pause．Louder．)WhatWasIsaying?(32)POZZO：ICan’trefuseyou．Alittleattention，ifyouplease．(VladimirandEstragoncontinuetheirfiddling，Luckyishalfasleep．Pozzocrackshiswhipfeebly．)What'sthematterwiththiswhip7．．．WhatwasIsaying?VLADIMIR：Let’Sgo．(33)POZZO：Ah!晰砂couldn'tyousaySObefore?(34)ESTRAGON：聊砂doesn}heputdownhisbags?POZZO：Itoowouldbehappytomeethim．，nlemorepeopleImeet⋯evenyou’whoknows，willhaveaddedtomystore．ESTRAGON：Whydoesn}heputdownhisbags?POZZO：Butthatwouldsurpriseme．VLADIMⅡ己：You’rebeingaskedaquestion．POZZO：Aquestion!‰?珊lat?AmomentagoyouwerecallingmeSir⋯VLADIMIR：(toEstragon)．Ithinkheislistening．ESTRAGON：、7l，hat?VLADMIR：YouCanaskhimnow．He’Sonalert．ESTRAGoN：Askhimwhat?InExample(31)，whenVladimirpreparestoanswerPozzo’Squestion,heisrudely36 ⑧硕士学位论文MASTER’STHESISinterruptedbyPozzo．ThenPozzocomplainsthattheirconversationcan’tgoanywhereiftheyspeakatonce．Atthesametime，heagainforgetswhathewassayingandaskshimselfthesamequestiontwice．Actually,Pozzohasnointerestinlisteningtoothersandcareslittleabouttheaffairsofothersbecausehejustwantshisaudiencetolistentohim．Hisattituderesultsfromhisarroganceandindifferencerootedinhispersonality．However,whatheistalkingaboutisnotinteresting．Nowonderheoftenfeelslostandforgetsthetopicadvancedbyhimself．Thustheabsurdityandsenselessnessoftheirlivingsituationismanifested．Thisdialoguealsoshowsthatthecommunicationbetweenthemisimpossible．Example(32)showsPozzo’Sfrequentchangeintopics．It’StheresultofhisboredomwhenthetwotrampsandLuckydonotlistentohim．SoheusesaWH—interrogativeclausetomakehimselffeellessembarrassed．ThepurposeofusingthisWH-interrogativeisnottoaskforthemissinginformation,buttoundothenegativeeffectoftheirunsuccessfulcommunication．Here，onceagain,heaskshimselfthequestion‘'whatWasIsaying”．ItisnotthatheCan’trememberthethingsheistalkingabout,butthatheCan’tfindanythinginterestingtosaytomakehisspeechcontinue．Whatheistryingtodeliverisofnoimportanceandlo西c．ThusheoftenfeelslostwhennobodyiSlisteningtohim．TheattitudeofhislistenersiSmanifestedinVladimir’Sreaction．Heisn’tconcernedaboutPozzo’Swordsandiustwantstoleavewithom#vinganycommentorresponsetoPozzo’Squestion．InExample(32)，theWH—interrogativeclausedoesnotfunctionasaquestion，butasakindofsmtememtoshowhisblameonVladimir．ButPozzo’Sblameisgroundlessbecauseheignorestheirquestionsandrefusestogivethemanychancetospeakoutwhattheywanttoknow．HejustadvancestheseWH—interrogativeswithoutexpectinghislistenerstogivehimthemissinginformation．Hisbehaviorresultsinthefailureoftheircommunication．InExample(34)，EstragonaskedPozzothesamequestiontwice，butheanswersneitherofthembecauseheisbusytalkingabouthisownbusiness．ItiSnotuntilVladimirremindshimofthosequestionsthathebeginstonoticethesituation．Hisresponseshowshisunconcernaboutothers．TheabsurdityismoreobviouswhenVladimirtellsEstragonthatPozzoislisteningtohimandadviseshimtoaskPozzothequestionagain．Estragonlooksconfusedbecausehehasforgottenhisquestionalready．Obviously,whenheasksPozzoaquestion，hemayexpectnoresponsefromhim，orhejustdoesn’tcarewhattheansweris．Theirunsuccessfulcommunicationmirrorsthelivingsituationofhmanbeingsthattheinteractionbetweenpeopleisdifficult．4．2．4AnalysisofimperativeclausesThenumbersofimperativeclausesusedbyEstragonandVladimirdoesnotchangetoomuch．Estragonutters10imperativesandVladimirutters12ones．Thepercentagesof17 ⑨硕士学位论文MASTER’STHESIStheirimperativesare9．8％and12．9％，whichaleclosetothosemPartOne．。11leimperativesusedbyPozzoalemuchmorethanthetwotramps．111enumberis43andthepercentageis14．3％．Exceptforthoseclausesthatgivecommandoradvice，therealemanyimperativesusedtofunctionasstatementsortoexpressotheremotions，likeangerorfrustration．Forexample：(35)VLADIMIR：(vehemently)．Let'sgo／(36)VLADLMIR：Let'sgo．ESTRAGON：Buttaketheweightoffyoufeet,Iimploreyou，you’11catchyourdeath．POZZO：True．鼢fisyourname?(37)POZZO：Guesswhotaughtmeallthesebeautifulthings．MyLucky!VLADIMIR：(Lookingatthesky)．Willnightnevercome?POZZO：Butforhimallmythought，allmyfeelings，would⋯(38)ESTRAGON：Beseated,Sir,Ibegofyou．POZZO：Nono，1wouldn’tthinkofit!Askmeagain．InExample(35)，Vladimirgetsangrywhenhefindsthattheconversationbetweenthemcannotcontinueanylonger．Hejustwantstoescapethissituation，SOheexpresseshisdesireinastrongwaybyusinganimperativeclausewithanexclamationmark．InExample(36)，ashehasnointerestintheconversationbetweenPozzoandEstragon，hesuggestsleavingagain．ButneitherPozzonorEstragonpaysattentiontohisadvice．Theyjustproceed、析t11theirownthings．Intheplay,Vladimiradvancesthesamesuggestionmanytimeswhenthecommunicationofthethreeendsupwithsilence．ButPozzoandEstragonnevergivehimthesupposedresponse．Theynevercomply诵mhisadvices，nordotheyrefusetoCalTythemout．TheirattitudesthrowVladimirintoanabsurdsituation．InExample(37)，Pozzousesanimperativeclausetoadvisethetwotrampstohaveaguess．ButbeforeVladimirandEstragongivinghimanyresponse，herevealstheanswer．Actually,neitherVladimirnorEstragonGalesabouthisadvice，especiallyVladimir．Hejustlooksattheskyandisconcernedaboutthefallingofnight．ButPozzodoesn’tcareabouttheirresponsesatall，ashekeepsontalkingwithoutstopping．InExample(38)，whenVladimirleavesthestage，EstragonandPozzoonceagainfindnothingtotalkabout．Inordertobreakthelongsilencebetweenthem，PozzoasksEstragontohavehimsitdowninanacceptedandfavoredmanner．刀圮imperativeclauseusedbyEstragonisnotacommandoradvice，butakindofplea．EvenEstragonuses“Ibegyou'’toshowhishumbleness，PozzorefusestositdownandrequiresEstragontoaskhimagain．Theirdialogueisfullofnonsenseandabsurdity．Whattheyhavedoneismeaninglessandridiculous．TheabsurdityoftheircommunicationiSareflectionoftheirabsurdliving situation．whichinturndemonstratestheabsurdlivesofthewholehumanbeings．4．2．5Analysisofexclamativeclauses11lenumberofexclamativeclausesiSstillthesmallestintheplay．Inthispart,therearethreeexclamativeclauses；twoareutteredbyVladimirandonebyPozzo．Herearetwotypicalexamples：(39)VLADIMIR：(ToLucky)．Howdareyou!It’Sabominable!Suchagoodmaster!Crucifyhimlikethat!AfterSOmanyyears!Really!POZZO：(Sobbing)．HeusedtobeSOkind．．．SOhelpful．．．ES删GON：(ToVladimir)．Doeshewanttoreplacehim?(40)POZZO：⋯Oh!He’Sgone!Withoutsayinggoodbye!Howcouldhel⋯ESTRAGON：Hewouldhaveburst．InExample(39)，whenPozzocriesforthepainLuckybringstohim，Vladimirusesanexclamativeclausetoexpresshisanger．However，hisreactionisgroundlessbecauseheknowsnothingaboutPozzoandLucky．However,hestiIImakescommentontheirrelationshipwithstrongemotionasifheisrighteoustosaySO．Thusasenseofabsurdityiscreated．Butnooneexpressesanyagreementordisagreementonhisexclamation,theyjustignoreit．PozzoisbusytalkingabouthissufferingsandEstragononlycaresaboutwhetherPozzowantstoreplaceLuckyornot．Thereisnorealcommunicationbetweenthethree．InExample(40)，PozzofeelsangrywhenVladimirleavesthestagewithouttellinghim，asifnobodycoulddoanythingwithouthispermission．However,Estragondoesn’tsayheagrees、析tllPozzo’Sideaorhedisagrees、析thit．HejustgivesareasonforVladimir’Sleaving．HisresponsemakesPozzolookabsurd．TllisexclamativeclauseusedbyPozzoalsoshowshisarrogancewhichliesinhispersonality．4．3MooDanalysisofPartThreeInPartThree，whenPozzoandLuckyleavetheplace，EstragonandVladimirkeeponwaitingbesidethetree．AboycomesandclaimsthatheissentbyMr．GodottodeliveramessagethatGodotwillnotcx)metoday,butheisStiletocometomorrow．VladimiraskstheBoyaseriesofquestionsand，together谢tllEstragon,decidestokeeponwaitingforGodotuntilhecomes．Thetwotrampsdeterminetoleavetheplacebuttheydon’tmove．Inthispart,thearrivaloftheBoyindicatesthattheirwaitinghastobecontinuedwithoutanend．Inthispart,thecommunicativepatternsofthethreearecharacterizedbytheshortanswersofferedbytheBoyandthecontinuoussilencesbetweenthem．而estatisticresultoftheirMOODchoicesisshowninthefollowingtable： ⑨硕士学位论文MASTER’STHESISTable4．3NumbersandpercentagesofMoodtypes&speechrolesinPartThreeEstragonVladimirtheBoyMoodtypesSpeechMoodtypesSpeechMoodtypesSpeechrolesDec．stat．Dec．stat．Dec．Stat．27(54％)25(52．1％)48(56．5％)33(40．7％)11(91．7％)10(90．9％)Imp．Ques．Imp．Ques．Imp．Ques．8(16％)14(29．2％)10(11．8％)34(42％)O1(9．1％)W-inter．Comm．W-intel'．Conto．W-inter．Comm．10(20％)9(18．7％)13(15．3％)14(17．3％)1(8．3％)0Y-inter．o纯Y-inter．of￡Y-inter．Of￡5(10％)O13(15．3％)O0Excl．01(1．1％)0Total：50Total：48Total：85Total：81Total：12Total：114．3．1AnalysisofdeclarativeclausesInthispart，Vladimira里面nuttersmostofthedeclarativeclauses．Heutters48declarativeswhichtakeup56．5％ofallhisutterances．Estragonutters27onesandtheBoyutters11ones．TheirdeclarativesaremuchlessthanVladimir’S．whichimpliesthattlleyofferlessinformationthanVladimirandaresituatedinalessinitiatoryposition．Afteranalyzingthestatementsintheirutterances，wecanseethatthenumbersandpercentagesofthestatememsutteredbyEstragonandtheBoyarealmostthesamewitllthoseoftheirdeclaratives．Itmeansthattheyusedeclarativeclausestoofferinformationmostofthetime．AsforVladimir,hehasonly33statementswhichtakeupthepercentageof40．7％ofallspeechroles．ThereasonforthedifferenceiSthatheusesmanydeclarativestoexpressotherspeechroles，whichinturnreflectshisrole·changinginPartThree．ThereiSanobviousfeatureinthedialoguebetweenVladimirandtheBoy：whenVladimirusesdeclarativeclausestoaskquestions，theanswersgivenbytheBoyareoftenshort．Moreoften,theirconversationwouldendup谢thsilence．111eircommunicativepatterncausestheinteractiveproblemsbetweenthem．Herearesometypicalexamples：(41)ESTRAGoN：Forgetit．‰weneed⋯Owl(Vladimirdoesnotreact)．Ow!VLADIMIR：(tohimself)．U11lessthey’renotthesame⋯ESTRAGoN：Didi!It§theotherfoot／40 VLADIMIR：Unlessthey’renotthesame⋯(42)VLADIMIR：YouhaveamessagefromMr．Godot?BOY．YesSir．(43)VLADIMm：Youdon}knowme?BOY．NoSit．VLADIMIR：／twasn}弘“cameyesterday?BOY．NoSir．VLADIMIR：刀l括isyour佛ftime?BOY．YesSir．Silence．VLADIMIR：Wbrdswords．(Pause)．Speak．BOY：(haarush)．Mr．Godottoldmetotellyouthathewon’tcomethiseveningbutsurelytomorrow．Silence．VLADIMIR：Isthatall?BOY．YesSit．Silence．VLADIMIR：YouworkforMr．Godot?BOY．YesSir．(44)VLADIMIR：Youareafraidofthewhip?BOY．YesSir．(45)VLADIMIR：You'renotunhappy?(TheBoyhesitates)．Doyouhearme?BOY．YesSir．(46)VLADIMIR：Hemustbeveryfondofyou．BOY：Idon’tknowSir．Silence．(47)VLADIM瓜：Butyoucan}gobarefoot／ESTRAGON：Christdid．VLADIM瓜：Christ!WhathasChristgottodo、^，iⅡ1it．You'renotgoingtocompareyourselftoChirst／ESlRAGoN：AUmylifeI'vecomparedmyselftohim．VLAD肼IR：Butwhereheliveditwaswarm,豇Wasa-y／IIlExample(41)，EstragonshowshisboredomwhenhefailstoattractVladimir’Sattentionbymakingstrangenoise，SOheturnshisattentionbacktohisbootsagain．nledeclarativeclauseusedbyhimisnotmereasmtemem．EstragonjustwantsVladimirtolistentohim，buthiseffortisfacedwithfailurebecauseVladimirpaysnOattentiontohis41 weirdshoutandhigh-pitchedvoice．ThecommunicationbetweenthemisblockedwhenVladimirrefusestotalk、析thEstragon．WhenthetwotrampsaletalkingwiththeBoy,Vladimirplaysamajorroleinaskinghimquestions，asisshowninExamples(42)，(43)，(44)and(45)．Intheseexamples，thedeclarativeclausesusedbyVladimirarefunctioningasquestions．AsheknowsnothingaboutMr．Godot，hekeepsonaskingtheBoyquestionsinordertogetmoreinformationaboutGodotfromhim．111equestionsheaskscontainmanyaspectsoftheBoy,includinghiswork，hisbrother,whetherhelivesahappylifeornot,ete．mostofthesequestionshavenothingtodowiththeirwaiting．Thereasonforhisbehavioristhattheconversationbetweenthemoftenendsupwithsilence．ThesilenceresultsfromtheshortanswersgivenbytheBoy．Fromtheseexamples，wecanseethattheBoyneverprovidesmoreinformationforVladimir,exceptfor“YesSir'’and‘'NoSir'’．EveninExample(46)，Vladimiruttersastatementbyusingadeclarativeclause，buttheBoyjustcontradictsitandgivesnomoreinformation．Heissupposedtosaymoretomaketheirconversationcontinue，buthedoesn’t．HisresponseforcesVladimirtoke印onaskingquestionsinordertoavoidthesilence．ButtheBoystilldoesn’tmakeanychangewhenheoffersanswers．Thusproblemsgrowintheircommunication．What’Smore，fromthequestionsadvancedbyVladimir,wecanseethathedoesn’tknowanythingaboutGodotatall，whichformsasharpcontrastbetweenwhathehassaidbeforeandwhatheisdoingnow．BecauseheandEstragonhasdiscussedwhatGodotwillgivetheminthepreviouspart，asiftheykneweverythingaboutGodot．Therefore，asenseofabsurdityisshown．WhenheandEstragonareleftonthestageagain，heCannolongercontrolhisangerandshoutstoEstragonafterEstragonclaimsthathewantstogobarefootandcompareshimselftoChrist．InExample(47)，thedeclarativeclausesutteredbyVladimirarenotfunctioningasstatements，butascommandsandawaytoexpresshisgreatangeeFromtheexamplesabove，wecanseethattheinteractionofthethreeisfullofproblems．4．3．2Analysisofyes／no-interrogativeclausesTherearealtogether18yes／no—interrogativeclausesinthispartandmostofthemareutteredbyVladimir．Mostoftheyes／no-interrogativeclauseshavebeengivenpositiveornegativeanswerswhenheaskstheBoyquestions．Buttheseanswersareshortandunsatisfactory,whichissimilartothesituationoftheformerpart．Therefore，interactiveproblemsareinevitable．AsforEstragon，mostofhisyes／no-interrogativeclausesarefunctioningasquestionsexceptone．Thefollowingaresometypicalexamples：(48)ESTRAGON：(Violently)．Willyouapproach?(TheBoyadvancestimidly)．(49)VLADIMIR：Willyoulethimalone?What’Sthematter谢thyou?4， (50)VLADIMIR：／sthatall?BOY．YesSir．(51)VLADIMIR：／shegoodtoyou?BOY．YesSir．(52)VLAD蹦瓜：You’renotunhappy?(7111eBoyhesitates)．Doyouhearme?BOY．YesSir．InExample(48)，EstragonfeelsannoyedwhentheBoydoesn’tcomeneartothem，SOhegivesacommandbyusingayes／no—interrogativeclause．InExample(49)，whenthetwotrampsasktheBoyquestionssimultaneously,VladimirisfuriousatEstragon’Sinterruption，SOheasksEstragontostoptalking．Healsousesayes／no—interrogativeclausetogiveacommand．Asforthoseyes／no-interrogativeclausesfunctioningasquestions，theyarenotansweredcontentedly．AsisshowninExamples(50)，(51)and(52)，thequestionsadvancedbyVladimirarejustansweredbytheBoywith“YesSir'’．InExample(52)，VladimiraskstheBoytwoquestionsatthesametime，buttheBoygivesonlyoneanswertothem．WeCan’ttellhechooseswhichonetoanswerandnordoeshegiveafurtherexplanation．nleBoyseldomoffersmoreinformationtothesequestions．Hisanswersmaketheirconversationgooninanunsatisfactorypaaem．4．3．3AnalysisofWH-interrogativeclausesInthispart,theBoyasksoneWH—interrogativethat“WhatamItotellMr．Godot，Sir'’andtheansweredisgivenbyVladimir．Asforthetwotramps，mostoftheWH-interrogativeclausesusedbythemfunctionasquestionsandthemissinginformationneededisgiven．However，therearestillsomeproblemslyingintheirconversation．Forexample：(53)ESTRAGON：Forgetit．砌口fweneed-Ow!(Vladimirdoesnotreact．)Ow!VLADIMIR：(tohimself)．Unlessthey’renotthesame⋯(54)ESTRAGON：(Violently)．Willyouapproach!聊衙keptyouSOlate?VLADIMIR：YouhaveamessagefromMr．Godot?BOY．YesSir．VLADIMIR：Whalisit?ESTRAGON：WhatkeptyouSOlate?VLADIMIR：(ToEstragon)．Lethimalone．InExample(53)，theWH—interrogativeclauseadvancedbyEstragonisnotcompletebecausehedoesn’tknowwhattosaytomaketheirconversationcontinue．SohehastomakemeaninglessandstrangenoisetoattracttheattentionofVladimirwhenVladimirisabsorbedinhisthought．TheWH—interrogativeclausehereisnotusedtoraiseaquestion,buttoexpressEstragon’Sboredom．InExample(54)，EstragonaskstheBoythesame43 ⑧硕士学位论文MASTER’STHESIS、ⅣH—interrogativequestiontwice．butneitherofthemisansweredbyhimbecauseVladimirisalsoaskingtheBoyaquestion．Intheirconversation，EstragoncaresaboutthereasonfortheBoy’Sdelay,whileVladimirismoreconcernedaboutthemessagefromGodot．AtfirsttheBoychoosestospeaktoVladimir,butwhenhenoticesthatthetwotrampsareaskinghimquestionsatthesametime，hegivesnoresponsetoanyofthem．SoVladimirhastoletEstragonstopasking．Fromthisexample，wecanseethedifferentpersonalitiesofVladimirandEstragon：Vladimirismorerational，whileEstragonismorecapricious．WeCanalsofmdthatcommunicativeproblemsdoexistinthispart．BothVladimirandEstragononlycareabouttheirownconcernsandseldompayattentiontotheneedsoftheother．4．3．4AnalysisofimperativeclausesmimperativeclausesinPartThreearenotasmanyasthoseinthepreviousparts，andthenumbersofimperativesusedbyEstragonandVladimirareveryclose．Theyare8and10．Someoftheseimperativeclausesaleusedtogivecommands；othersaleusedtogiveadvicesorsuggestions．SothespeechrolesofimperativeclausesinPartThreealeinaccordancewiththeirMoodstructures．砀eBoydoesn‘tutteranyimperativeclausesinthispartbecausehejustanswersthequestionsadvancedbytheothertwo．However，thefollowingisallexamplewhichCanimplytheabsurdistthemeoftheplay：(55)ESrn认GoN：W|eIl，shallwego?VLADIMIR：Yes，let'sgo．Theydonotmove．Inthisexample，whenEstragonsuggestionthattheyleavethatplace，Vladimirusesanimperativeclausetoshowhisagreement．nleimperativehereisfunctioningasanadvice，butitisnotcarriedoutbythetwotramps．Theirutterancesandtheiractionsformasharpcontrast,whichimpliesthattheirwaitingwillneverendandtheirlifeCanneverbechanged．111eirwayoflivingisavividreflectionofthehumanrace．4．3．5AnalysisofexclamativeclauseThereisonlyoneexclamativeclauseinPartThreeanditisutteredbyVladimir：(56)VLADIMIR：Howf办钞钆changed!ESlRAGON：、vho?VLADIMⅡ王：Thosetwo．ESTRAGON：That’Stheidea,let’Smakealittleconversation．VLADIMIR：Haven’tthey?ESlRAGoN：Wrhat?VLADIMIR：Changed． HeusestheexclamativeclausetoshowhiscommentonPozzoandLuckyevenifheiSnotStilewhetherhehasseenthembefore．Hisexclamationreflectstheabsurdlivingsituationofthetwo，becauseneitherofthemCanrememberwhethertheyhavecomeacrossPozzoandLuckyornot．Buttheybehaveasiftheyweregoodfriendswiththemandcouldmakecommentontheirchanges。晒enVladimirgivestheexclamation。Estragonasksaquestiontoshowhisconfusion．AfterVladimiransweringhisquestion，hefallsintoconfusionagain，asifheCan’tunderstandwhatVladimiristalkingabout．Hedoesn’tgiveanysupposedresponsetoVladimir’Sexclamationandhisresponsescauseproblemsintheircommunication．4．4Summary111e_analysisonM00DaboveshowsthatdifferentMoodtypesusedbydifferentcharactersindifferentpartsCanreflecttheirdifferentpersonalities，theirproblematicrelationshipsandtheabsurdistthemeoftheplay．InPartOne，Estragontendstousemoreinterrogativeclausesandlessdeclarativeclauses，whichimpliesthatheismoreuncertainaboutthesurroundingsituationandeasytoforgetthingsthatjusthappened．Healsousesmoredeclarativeclausestoexpressotherspeechroles，suchascommand，question,andotheremotionslikeangerandsurprise．HeusesmoreimperativeclausestobreakthesilencebetweenhimandVladimirandtomaketheirconversationcontinue．AsforVladimir,heuRersmoredeclarativeclauses，whichshowsthatheplaysamoreactiveandinitiateroleintheirdialogue．HisusesofotherMoodtypesarefewerbecauseheismorerationalandlogic．Hebehavesasawiserman,evenifheissometimesangryatEstragon’Squestions．TheconversationbetweenthemisnotSOsmoothbecauseeachofthemrefusestolistentotheother,andtheytakethiskindofcommunicativepa：ttemforgranted．乃efailureoftheircommunicationshowsthattheirrelationshipisfragile．11leexistenceofeachotherjustprovestheabsurdityandmeaninglessnessoftheirwaitingandlivingsituation．InPartTwo，whenPozzoappearsonthestage，hebringssomechangestothelifeofthetwotramps．OfallMoodtypes，heuttersmuchmoreutterancesthantheothertwoandplaysamoreinitiativeroleintheirconversations．Inthispart,theutterancesofVladimirandEstragondecreasesharply．Pozzousesmuchmoredeclarativeclausesthantheothertwo．whichmeansthatheoffersmoreinformationintheirdialogues．Heusesdeclarativestoprovideinformation，askquestions，showdissatisfactionsandgivecommands．Whenheusesinterrogativeclauses，heexpectsnoanswersfromhislisteners，andinterruptsthemrudelywhentheytrytoanswerhisquestions．OnefeatureofPozzo’Sutterancesisthathetendstoignoretheresponsesofothersandpayslittleattentiontothe45 ⑧硕士学位论文MASTER’STHESISwordsofothers．Hisfailureincommunicatingwithothersresultsfromhisarroganceandindifference．AsforVladimirandEstragon，theirMOODchoicesshowtheirdifferentpersonalities．Inthispart,EstragonuttersmoredeclarativeandinterrogativeclausesthanVladimir9whichmeansthathebehavesmoreactivelythanVladimir．HeisveryinterestedinPozzoandwantstoreplaceLuckybuthisquestiOIlSanddemandsareoftenignoredbyPozzo．Heismotetimidandgreedyofthetwo．VladimirislessconcemedaboutPozzo’Saffairs，buthecaresmoreaboutthearrivalofGodot．Heuseslessdeclarativesandprovideslessinformationintheirconversations。晒enPozzoasksquestions，itisEstragonratherVladimirthatoffersanswers．Heusesimperatives诵tllexclamationmarkstoshowthatheiseagertoleavetheplace．Hisuseofexclamativeclausesdemonstratesthatheoftenpretendstoknowwhatheactuallydoesn’t．，11lefailureoftheircommunicationresultsfromthefactthateveryonecareslittleabouttheaffairsofothers．Theirinteractivestatemirrorsthelivingsituationofthewholehumanbeings．InPartThree，Vladimiragainbecomesthemostactiveandinitiativeroleintheirdialogues．Heuttersmostofthedeclarative，interrogativeandimperativeclauses．HeplaysamajorroleinaskingtheBoyquestions．OnefeatureintheirdialoguesisthattheBoyneveroffersmoreinformationthanneeded，whichmakestheirconversationnotsmooth．乃econversationbetweenVladimirandEstragonisalsoproblematicbecausetheirdialoguesoftenbecomemeaninglessandendup、)I，ithsilence．珊Screatesasenseofabsurdityfortheircommunication． ⑧硕士学位论文MASTER‘STHESIS5ConclusionThispartconcludesthewholethesis．outtheimplicationsandlimitationsofthefuturestudies．5．1MajorFindingsItsummarizesthemajorfindingsandpointsstudy．ItalsoadvancessomesuggestionsforAsoneofthemasterpiecesintheTheateroftheAbsurd，WaitingforGodothasbeenstudiedbyscholarsathomeandabroadfromvariousperspectives．Mostofthemhavefocusedonitsabsurdisttheme，religioussymbolism，andpoeticlanguageetc．Seldomhavetheyinterpretedtheplayfromthelinguisticperspective．BasedonthetheoreticalframeworkofMOODsysteminSystemicFunctionalGrammar,thisthesishasexploredtheinterpersonalmeaningofthedialoguesinWaitingforGodot．ByprobingintotheMoodstructuresandspeechfunctionsinthespeakers’utterances，thepersonalitiesofthecharacters，theirinteractiverelationsandtheabsurdistthemeoftheplayhavebeenexplored．11lestudyhasprovedthatSystemicFunctionalGrammarcanbeappliedtoanalyzingabsurdistplaysandtheinterpersonalmeaninghasmadeagreatcontributiontothecharacterizationofthisplayandrealizationofitsabsurdisttheme．111emajorfindingsareasfollows：Firstly,theanalysesofinterpersonalmeaningrealizedthroughMOODsystemshowthatdifferentchoicesofMOODreflectdifferentpersonalitiesofthecharacters．，nletwotrampshavecomplementarypersonalities．EstragonismoretimidthanVladimirbutmorepronetofury．Heisalsogreedyandindifferenttotheaffairsofothers．HealwaysforgetswhathashappenedbeforeandCanhardlyrememberthenameofGodot．Sometimes，helikestoexaggeratehisemotionstoattractattentionfromothers．Butmostofthetime，hiseffortsreceivelittleresponse．Bycontrast，Vladimirismorerationalandpractical．HebehavescalmlyandpersistentlyandsometimesshowssomekindnesstoEstragon．ButhealsoreactscoldlytosomesuggestionsadvancedbyEstragon．UnlikeEstragon，heCanrememberthethingsthathavehappened．Moreover,heismilderandseldomexpresseshisattitudesrudely．乃eMOODchoicesofPozzoshowhisarroganceandinsouciancetoothers．HeisrudetoLuckyandpayslittleattentiontotheignoranceofotherswhenhedelivershisspeech．Hetendstoexpresshisattitudesandemotionsstronglyandcareslittleaboutthepossiblenegativereactionsfromothers．Whenhetalksaboutsomething，hetendstomakesurethateveryoneislisteningtohim，whichshowsthatheisaselfcenteredman．Butmostofthetime，nobodyisreallylisteningtohim．47 nleirresponsesoftenthrowhimintoanabsurdsituation．However,heseldomregardstheirreactionsasproblematicbecauseheisunconcernedaboutothers．111eBoyisshyandtimid．HeiSapttofeelfrightenedandalsotimidtospeakinfrontofothers．Hischaracteraddssomeobstaclestothesuccessofthecommunicationbetweenhimandthetwotramps．Secondly,theanalysesofinterpersonalmeaningrealizedthroughMOODsystemdemonstratetheproblematicinteractionsandrelationshipsbetweencharacters．MlenVladimirandEstragonstayalone，theyke印onbickeringovertrivialthings，andchangetheirtopicsfrequently．11leircommunicationwouldeasily蹦lintochaosorsilencewhenoneignoresthewordsoftheother．Buttheyneverthinkabouttheproblemsthatlieintlleirinteractionsbecausetheyhavegotusedtothiskindofcommunicativepattern．Theirfragilelinkmakesthemwanttoseparate，butneitherofthemCanbearthedeparmre．WhenPozzoarrives，hebroughtlittlechangetotherelationshipandthelifeofthetwotramps．Thecommunicationofthethreeisalso觚lofproblemsbecausetheyoft∞脚lintoasituationwherenooneislisteningtoothersattentively．TheirinteractionssoundabsurdespeciallywhenPolostrivestomakehimselfthecenterofthethreebutthetwotrampspaynoattentiontohisutterances．Theirinteractionsshowthatnoneofthemisreallyconcemedabouttheaffairsofothers．1f11eusualcommunicativestateofthethreeiSthattheyseldomgetengagedinthetopicsadvancedbyothersandtheytakethissituationforgranted，thustheirinteractiveproblemsareconspicuous．Sometimes，theirfailureininteractionmakesthemlookweirdasiftheywerelivinginthreedifferentchannelswithnointersectionsbetweenthem．1饧entheBoycomes，heservesasaninformationprovider．Buthisanswersareshortandheseldomgivesmoreinformationthanneeded，whichmakestheircommunicationunsmooth．Thirdly,theanalysesofinterpersonalmeaningrealizedthroughMOODsystemhelprevealthethemeofthisabsurdistplayclearly．rnleirpersonalitiesarethevividreflectionsofthoseofhumanbeings．Peopleareindifferenttothesufferingsofothersandtheirindifferenccmakestheircommunicationalmostimpossible．Theproblematicinteractionsofthesecharactersalsomigrorthelivingsituationandthementalstateofmankind．Peoplearenotwillingtolistentoothers，thusthecommunicationsbetweenthemaredifficult．，nleabsurdlivingsituationofthesecharactersshowsthatmenalelivinghopelessandmeaninglessandtheyCanneverescapefromthisdesperatesituation．5．2Limitationsofthisthesisarethree-fold．Firstofall，asthedataofthisthesisare gainedmanually,thereareboundtobesomeerrorsduetothecarelessnessoftheauthor．Asaresult,thevalidityoftheanalysismightbeunderminedinaway．Second，astherearesomanyclausestobecountedandcalculated，itisimpossibletoanalyzeallofthem．Therefore，onlysometypicalonesarechosentobeanalyzedindetails．Thirdly,asthespaceislimited，onlyMoodstructures，speechanalyzed．Butotheraspectswhichmayalsocovered．5．3ImplicationsandsuggestionsrolesandtheircorrespondingfunctionsarerealizetheinterpersonalmeaningarenotAlthoughtherearesomelimitationsinthisthesis，therearealsoimplications．First,thepresentstudyprovidesanewresearchperspectivefortllestudyofWaitingforGodot，whichcanhelpreadersunderstandandappreciatetheplaybetter．Second，thepresentstudyshowsthatSystemicFunctionalGrammarCallbeusedtoprobeintoabsurdistplays，whichmayprovidesomehintsforstudiesofotherworksofthe111eateroftheAbsurd．Third，thestudyshedssomelightonthelinguisticstudiesofliteraryworks，whichmayimprovethelanguageteachingthroughcombininglinguisticsandliteraturetogether．Basedonthelimitationsandimplicationsmentionedabove，herearesomesuggestionsforthefuturestudies．First,asthisthesisonlyfocusesontheinterpersonalmeaningofdialogues，futurestudiescanexploretheideationalmeaningandthetextualmeaningforabetterinterpretationofthisplay．Second，furtherstudiescanalsoexploreotherdevicesthatcanbeusedtorealizeinterpersonalmeaningofthisplay．砸rd，futurestudiesCanalsofocusontheincompleteclausesofthisplayandexploretheirinterpersonalmeaningaswell．49 ⑧硕士学位论文MASTER’STHESISBibliographyBrown，Gillian&Ⅵlle，George．DiscourseAnalysis[M】．NewYork：CambridgeUniversityPress，1983．Brown,Gillian．Speakers,ListenersandCommunication：ExplorationsinDiscourseAnalysis[M．NewYork：CambridgeUniversityPress，1996．Bradby,David．Beckett：WaitingforGodot[M】．NewYork：CambridgeUniversityPress，2001．Esslin，Martin．砀PTheateroftheAbsurd[M】．PenguinBooksLtd，1968．Eggins，Suzanne．AnIntroductiontoSystemicFunctionalLinguistics【阑．London：Continuum，2004．Eggins，S．&Slade，D．AnalysingCasualConversation【M】．London：Continuum，2004．Halliday,M．A．K．AnIntroductiontoFunctionalGrammar[M】．Beijing：ForeignLanguageTeachingandResearchPress，2000．Halliday,M．A．K．LanguageasSocialSemiotic：刃记SocialInterpretationofLanguageandMeaning[M】．ForeignLanguageTeachingandResearchPress，2001．London：EdwardArnoldLimited．Halliday,M．A．K．LinguisticStudiesofTextandDiscourse瞰】．PekingUniversityPress，2007．Halliday,M．A．K．AnIntroductiontoFunctionalGrammar【M】．Beijing：FomignLanguageTeachingandResearchPress，2008．Harvey,LawrenceE．ArtandtheexistentialinEnAttendantGodot阴．PMLA，1960，(1)：137．146．Herman，Vimala．DramaticDiscourse：Dialogueasinteraction加plays【M】．Taylor&Francise-Library,2005．Hutchings，W．uiam．SamuelBeckett'sWaitingforGodot：areferenceguide[M】．LibraryofCongress，2005．Hood，Susan．AppraisingResearch：TakingaStanceinAcademicWriting【D】．UniversityofTechnology,Sydney’2004．Jr．Dan0．Ⅵa．WaitingforGodotandman’ssearchforcommunity阴．JournalofBibteandReligion，1962，(1)：32-37．Kroll，Norma．Berkeleyinsideout：existenceanddestinyinWaitingfo厂Godot阴．砀PJournalofEnglishandGermanicPhilology，1995，(4)：530-553．M．Ball，Patricia．Browning’SGodot哪．VictorianPoetry,1965，(3)：245-253．Martin，J．R．&、^厂llite，P．R．R刀圮LanguageofEvaluation：Appraisal胁English[M】．NewYork：PalgraveMacMillan,2005．50 ⑧硕士学位论文MASTER’STHESISManin，J．R．&Rose，D．WorkingwithDiscourse：MeaningBeyondtheClause口咽．London：Continuum，2003．Palmer,ER．MoodandModality【M】．Cambridge：CambridgeUniversityPress，2001．P．Levy,Eric．“ToBeIstoBeDeceived”：TherelationofBerkeleyandPlatoto“WaitingforGodof’[J】．TheJournalofEnglishandGermanicPhilology，2002，(2)：222—237．Smith,StephaniPofahl．BetweenPozzoandGodot：existenceasdilemma阴．TheFrenchReview，1974，(5)：889-903．Stempel，Daniel．Historyelectrifiedintoanagogy：AreadingofWaitingfo，．Godot[J1．ContemporaryLiterature，1976，(2)：263—278．Thompson，Geoff．IntroducingFunctionalGrammar[M]．Beijing：ForeignLanguageTeachingandResearchPress，2008．曹军，王俊菊．英语语言学书评语篇中态度用语的人际功能分析[J]．山东外语教学，2008，(2)：40-44．常晨光．作为评价手段的情态附加语探析[J]．外语与外语教学，2008，(1)：1卜13．段汉武．《等待戈多》荒诞中的真实无意义的意义[J]．社会科学战线，2006，(3)：302-303．韩淑英．《都柏林人》人际意义研究[D]．上海外国语大学，2010．何伟．时态的情态用法：语法隐喻[J]．外语与外语教学，2008，(7)：6—10．胡壮麟，朱永生，张德禄，李战子．系统功能语言学概论[M]．北京大学出版社，2008．胡壮麟．语言学教程[M]．北京大学出版社，2006．胡壮麟．英汉疑问语气系统的多层次和多元功能解释[J]．外国语，1994，(1)：卜7．黄国文．《清明》一诗英译文的人际功能探讨[J]．外语教学，2002，(3)：34-38．季红琴．《圣经》语言情态的人际意义解读[J]．外语教学与研究，2011，(2)：230-238．康俊英．情态和语气系统的人际意义一以《看不见的日本人》中的对话为例[M]．山西师大学报(社会科学版)，2012，(6)：150-155．康响英．论模糊语言在《礼物》中的人际、语篇功能[J]．外语与外语教学，2008，(2)：10-20．李道增，傅英杰．西方戏剧·剧场史[M]．清华大学出版社，1999．李伦．在无望中坚守希望——解读贝克特的《等待戈多》[J]．戏剧文学，2009， ⑧硕士学位论文MASTER’STHESIS(9)：41-43．李战子．第二人称在自传中的人际功能[J]．外国语，2000，(6)：51—56．李战子．功能语法中的人际意义框架的扩展[J]．外语研究，2001，(1)：48—54．李战子．学术话语中认知型情态的多重人际意义[J]．外语教学与研究，2001，(5)：353-358．李战子刘润清刘世生现在时在自传话语中的人际意义[J]．外语与外语教学，2002，(1)：3—7．从语气、情态到评价[J]．外语研究，2005，(6)：14—19．西方语言学流派[M]．外语教学与研究出版社，1998．关于人际评论系统的体现[J]．外国语，1996，(5)：35—38．李杰，钟永平．论英语的情态系统及其功能[J]．外语教学，2002，(1)：9—15．卢艳玲．《等待戈多》反戏剧审美视阈下的意义构建[J]．名作欣赏，2011，(30)：119-120．马伟林．人际功能的拓展——评价系统评述[J]．语言学研究，2007，(6)：142-146．潘薇．欧美戏剧发展史[M]．大众文艺出版社，2011．彭国栋．《等待戈多》中的悲剧意识与终极关怀[J]．戏剧文学，2006，(9)：69—72．舒笑梅．诗化对称荒诞——贝克特《等待戈多》戏剧语言的主要特征[J]．1998，(1)：56—59．童慎效．戏剧与反戏剧——论贝克特的荒诞艺术特征[J]．国外文学，1992，(4)：36—48．王珊珊．《等待戈多》的“等待”[J]．外国文学研究，2005，(4)：88-92．王勇．在“是"和“不是”之间：归一性、情态和否定[J]．外国语文，2009，(4)：101—107．王霜梅．析索绪尔、乔姆斯基和韩礼德的意义观[J]．外语与外语教学，2006，(1)：54—56．肖四新．信仰的破灭与重建——论《等待戈多》的潜在主题[J]．当代外国文学，2001，(1)：127—131．严世清．论语篇功能思想的元理论意义[J]．外国语，2005，(5)：47—53．杨俊霞．写实的消解与荒诞的构建——论《等待戈多》中的种种不确定对理性的否定之否定[J]．戏剧曲艺学，2009，(1)：38-41．杨凤军．论《等待戈多》中叙述声音对荒诞与理性的调和[J]．时代文学，2012，(4)：163—165． ⑧硕士学位论文MASTER’STHESIS袁邦株，徐润英．社会科学论文中人际意义分析模式探索[J]．外语教学，2011，(6)：34-37．俞洪亮，朱叶秋．英国现代语言学与伦敦学派的发展历程[J]．外语教学，2003，(1)：43-47．曾洪流．《等待戈多》——语言形式和内容的高度统一[J]．外国语，1996，(3)：30-33．张雪，徐彬．从贝克特到品特：荒诞派戏剧之焦虑面面观[J]．外语与外语教学，2008，(4)"37—39．赵建成．系统语言学的背景[J]．国外语言学，1988，(3)：110—115．郑元会．语气系统和人际意义的跨文化构建[M]．外语学刊，2008，(4)：80—84．周宁．西方戏剧理论史[M]．厦门大学出版社，2008．