语类视角下汉英金融网络时评的对比评价分析

发布时间：2018-06-15 15:46

本文选题：评价理论 + 语类结构潜式　；参考：《鲁东大学》2012年硕士论文

【摘要】：在哈桑（1985）的语类理论和马丁（2003）的评价理论的激励之下，越来越多的学者根据语类和人际功能对各种不同类型话语开展了研究。然而，一种语篇的新形式———网络时评——却少有人问津。本研究依据评价理论和语类理论，试通过分析汉英金融网络时评，研究中国作者和英语本土作者使用评价资源的相同点和不同点，揭示其影响因素，并探讨金融网络时评的语类结构潜式。对研究结果的对比分析表明，汉英金融网络时评在评价资源的使用方面共同点和差异共存。汉英运用的总频率几乎相同（1378:1363），最大的差异在于情感（Affect）的使用，中国作者用了21次，但是英语本土作者却一次未用。对鉴别（appreciation）的次系统分析表明，与英语本土作者相比，中国作者使用审美鉴别（Aesthetic appreciation）的频率较高，非审美鉴别（Unaesthetic appreciation）较低。对判定（Judgment）的分析可发现，，虽然英语本土作者似乎比中国作者较少使用了判定，但是所占比例比中国作者要大。对其次系统进一步分析结果显示，在汉语金融网络时评中，社会尊严（Social esteem）的使用频率几乎是英语中的两倍(158:81)。相反在社会许可（Social sanction）的使用频率上，英语本土作者用了356次，占总频率的81.46%，而中国作者用了307次，占总频率的66.02%。从对介入（Engagement）次系统的分析可见,汉英金融网络时评的最大差异在声明（Proclaim），既表现在总频率上(106:35)，也反映在所占比例上(19.34%:6.31%)。汉英在引发（Entertain）也表现出较大不同(103:66)。对否认（Disclaim）的进一步分析结果表明，虽然否认的总频率基本一致，但是汉英两者在否定（Deny）和对立(Counter)的使用频率上出现大的差异，比例分别为56:76和87:67。对摘引（Attribute）的细致观察可见，距离（Distance）在使用频率和比例两方面汉英都存在较大差别（7:14和7%:12.73%)。汉英金融网络时评作者在使用评价资源的差异可归因于受两种不同文化的影响而形成的不同写作风格和思维方式。经研究发现，金融网络时评的语类结构潜式（generic structure potential）的必要元素出现的顺序是题目^(经济事件的背景)^经济事件^作者的观点^论证^(其他一些对该经济事件的评论)^结语。
[Abstract]:Inspired by Hasan's category theory and Martin / 2003's theory of evaluation, more and more scholars have studied different types of discourse according to genre and interpersonal function. However, a new form of discourse, Internet time Review, is rarely followed. Based on the evaluation theory and the category theory, this study attempts to study the similarities and differences between Chinese authors and native English authors in the use of evaluation resources through the analysis of Chinese-English financial network reviews, and to reveal the influencing factors. This paper also discusses the subtlety of the current evaluation of financial network. The comparative analysis of the results shows that the similarities and differences in the use of resources in the evaluation of Chinese and English financial network are coexisting. The total frequency of Chinese and English use is almost the same as that of 1378: 1363. The biggest difference lies in the use of affect.The Chinese writers have used it 21 times, but the native English writers have not used it once. The subsystematic analysis of aesthetic identification shows that Chinese writers use aesthetic preciciation more frequently than native English writers, while non-aesthetic preciciations are less frequently used. An analysis of judgment shows that although native English authors seem to use judgments less than Chinese authors, they account for a larger proportion than Chinese authors. Further analysis shows that social dignity and social dignity are almost twice as frequently used in Chinese financial network reviews as in English. On the contrary, native English writers used 356 times, accounting for 81.46% of the total, while Chinese writers used 307 times, accounting for 66.02% of the total frequency. From the analysis of the interventional engagement subsystem, it can be seen that the biggest difference between Chinese and English financial network reviews is in the statement Proclaimer, both in the total frequency of 106: 35 and in the proportion of 19.34: 6.31. Chinese and English also showed a big difference in triggering Entertain-103: 66. A further analysis of disclaimer shows that although the total frequency of denial is basically the same, there is a big difference between Chinese and English in the frequency of negation (denial) and opposites (the proportions are 56:76 and 87: 67, respectively. From the careful observation of Attribute, we can see that there are great differences between Chinese and English in the frequency and proportion of the use of distance) 7: 14 and 7: 12.73. The differences in the use of evaluation resources between Chinese and English financial network writers can be attributed to the different writing styles and thinking styles formed by two different cultures. Through the study, it is found that the order in which the necessary elements of the generic structure potentialstructure of the current financial network review appears is the conclusion of the author's opinion on the topic ^ (the background of the economic event) ^ the author's opinion ^ (some other comments on the economic event) ^.
【学位授予单位】：鲁东大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2012
【分类号】：H146;H314

【参考文献】