中美英语社论中介入资源的对比研究

发布时间：2018-10-17 09:25

【摘要】：社论作为新闻语篇的一种次语体，是报纸编辑部就国内外重大事件发表的及时评论，意在表明报纸的态度和立场，进而引导公众舆论或呼吁读者采取相应的行动。国内外许多学者对其进行了深入研究，，但他们更多地是从社论的结构特点或文体特征角度进行阐释。本文试图从评价理论角度对中美英语社论中的介入资源进行对比分析，尝试为中美英语社论的对比分析提供新的研究视角。本研究以马丁和怀特等人提出的评价理论中的多声介入系统为理论框架。多声介入系统主要研究作者如何通过词汇、语法等资源表明自己的观点和立场，并且与读者形成不同的对话。为了对比分析中美英语社论中的介入资源，探讨中美英语社论介入策略的异同，本研究从《中国日报》和《纽约时报》的官网上精心选取了30篇有关国际政治和经济的社论，在专业语言学文本标注软件（UAMCorpus Tool V2.8.7）的帮助下，通过细致的定量和定性研究后发现：中美英语社论都采用了各种多声介入资源表明自己的观点和立场，而且两者在介入次系统资源选择上存在相同的偏好，但中国的英语社论更倾向使用较多的对话收缩资源，特别是否认资源和宣告资源，而美国英语社论更喜欢使用对话扩展资源，尤其是接纳资源和承认资源。这表明中国英语社论喜欢压缩对话空间，倾向更多的主观介入，对于相反声音采用直接否认的方式以强调自己的观点和立场，因此有较强的舆论引导倾向。美国英语社论则倾向打开对话空间，喜欢摆事实，强调自己的观点只是一种可能，允许对话性的存在。相比之下，美国英语社论对于舆论引导相对温和。本研究认为，中美英语社论属于同一语体，有相同的目的，而且多声介入系统本身也有自己一致的运作体制，但由于中美文化价值观、传媒运行体制以及中美在国际事务中的立场有所不同，必然导致中美英语社论介入策略既有相同点又存在差异。虽然本研究存在一定的局限性，但为中美英语社论的对比分析提供了新的研究视角，而且对于二语教学，尤其是英语报刊阅读有一定启示作用。
[Abstract]:As a sub-style of news discourse, editorial is a timely comment made by the editorial department of a newspaper on major events at home and abroad. It is intended to indicate the attitude and position of the newspaper, and then to guide public opinion or appeal to readers to take corresponding actions. Many scholars at home and abroad have deeply studied it, but they explain it from the angle of editorial structure and stylistic features. This paper attempts to provide a new perspective for the contrastive analysis of Chinese and American English editorials from the perspective of evaluation theory. This study is based on the multi-acoustic intervention system proposed by Martin and White et al. Multi-tone intervention system mainly studies how the author expresses his views and positions through lexical, grammatical and other resources, and forms a different dialogue with the reader. In order to compare and analyze the intervention resources in Chinese and American English editorials and to explore the similarities and differences of intervention strategies, 30 editorials on international politics and economy were carefully selected from the official websites of China Daily and the New York Times. With the help of (UAMCorpus Tool V2.8.7), a detailed quantitative and qualitative study shows that Chinese and American English editorials use a variety of multi-tone intervention resources to express their views and positions. Moreover, they have the same preference in the choice of subsystem resources, but English editorials in China tend to use more conversational contractionary resources, especially denial resources and declarative resources. American English editorials prefer to use dialogue to expand resources, especially to accept and acknowledge resources. This indicates that Chinese English editorials prefer to compress the dialogue space and tend to have more subjective intervention. They tend to direct denial to emphasize their own views and positions, so they have a strong tendency to guide public opinion. American English editorials tend to open up the space for dialogue, like to make facts, and emphasize that their views are only a possibility and allow the existence of dialogue. By contrast, American English editorials are relatively moderate in guiding public opinion. The present study holds that Chinese and American English editorials belong to the same language style and have the same purpose, and that the multi-tone intervention system itself has its own operating system, but due to the cultural values between China and the United States, The differences of the media operation system and the positions of China and the United States in international affairs will inevitably lead to the similarities and differences in the intervention strategies of English editorials in China and the United States. Although this study has some limitations, it provides a new perspective for the contrastive analysis of English editorials between China and the United States, and has some implications for the teaching of second language, especially the reading of English newspapers and periodicals.
【学位授予单位】：吉林大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2012
【分类号】：H052

【相似文献】