中美英语社论语篇介入资源比较研究

发布时间：2018-03-04 06:45

本文选题：社论语篇　切入点：介入资源　出处：《长安大学》2014年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：社论属于新闻评论的一种，作为报纸的核心和灵魂，社论是代表编辑部或者报纸对国内外重大事件或问题进行及时解释和评论，旨在表明报纸或媒体的态度和立场，从而起到引导公众舆论，感染和说服观众的作用。作为一种新闻语篇，社论更多是新闻学所研究的对象，直到20世纪90年代，国内外许多学者才试图从语言学角度对社论进行研究。同时他们的研究多数是倾向于对社论文体特征或结构特点的阐释，很少有人从评价理论的角度分析社论的语言特征，而英英社论的比较研究就更加少见。因此，本文尝试从评价理论的分支之一—介入的角度对中美英语社论进行比较分析。为了对中美英语社论中的介入资源进行比较分析，本研究分别从《中国日报》和《华盛顿邮报》的官网上精心选取了70篇有关国际政治的社论（美英社论31篇总字数为21098，中英社论39篇总字数20754），以Martin和White的介入系统为理论框架，利用专业语言学文本标注软件(UAM Corpus Tool V2.8.12)进行定量和定性分析。旨在总结各种介入资源分别在两个语料库中的分布状况，对比分析其分布的异同，并尝试对产生异同的原因给出合理的解释。本文通过细致的定量和定性研究发现，中美英语社论中介入资源的分布情况既有很多相同点，又存在一些差异。其中二者的共同点主要表现在：1.在收缩资源中中美英语社论都偏向于使用否认资源；2.在否认资源中，中美英语社论均倾向于反预期资源；3.宣称资源中的宣布资源在中美英语社论中出现的频率均比较大；4.在扩展资源中，情态资源和承认资源在中美英语社论中所占的比例都很大。由于两国不同的文化价值观，以及对国际事件不同的立场和态度，中美英语社论在介入资源的使用上也存在一些差异，主要表现在：1.中国英语社论偏向于使用对话收缩资源，而美国英语社论则倾向于使用对话扩展资源；2.在扩展资源中，承认资源在使用频率上存在显著差异；3.在收缩系统中，虽然Endorse资源在所有介入资源中所占比例不高，但在使用频率上任然存在差异。本研究利用评价理论尝试性地对中美英语社论的介入资源进行了比较分析，以期对评价理论在社论语篇分析中的应用做出贡献，也希望对中美英语社论的比较分析提供新的研究视角。此外，本研究通过对社论语篇的对比分析希望能对二语教学，尤其是英语报刊阅读有一定的指导意义。
[Abstract]:Editorials belong to a kind of news commentary. As the core and soul of a newspaper, editorials represent the editorial department or the newspaper to interpret and comment on important events or problems at home and abroad in a timely manner, in order to show the attitude and position of the newspaper or the media. As a kind of news discourse, editorials were more the object of journalism, until 1990s, Many scholars at home and abroad have tried to study editorials from the linguistic point of view. At the same time, most of their studies tend to explain the stylistic or structural characteristics of editorials, and few people analyze the linguistic characteristics of editorials from the perspective of evaluation theory. Therefore, this paper attempts to make a comparative analysis of English editorials in China and America from the perspective of intervention, one of the branches of evaluation theory. In order to make a comparative analysis of the intervention resources in English editorials between China and the United States, In this study, 70 editorials on international politics were carefully selected from the official websites of the China Daily and the Washington Post. (the total number of editorials in the United States and Britain is 21098, and the total number of Chinese and English editorials is 207544.The theoretical framework is based on the intervention system of Martin and White. The purpose of this paper is to analyze quantitatively and qualitatively the distribution of various kinds of interventional resources in the two corpora, and to compare and analyze the differences and similarities of the distribution of these resources by using the professional linguistic text tagging software (UAM Corpus Tool V2.8.12). And try to give a reasonable explanation to the reason of producing similarities and differences. Through careful quantitative and qualitative studies, this paper finds that there are many similarities in the distribution of interventional resources between Chinese and American English editorials. There are also some differences. The common points between the two are mainly manifested in: 1. In shrinking resources, Chinese and American English editorials tend to use denial resources. 2. In denial resources, Chinese and American English editorials tend to be counter-expected resources 3.Proclamation that the declared resources in the resources are more frequent in CEE editorials. 4. In the expansion of resources, Modality resources and recognition resources account for a large proportion of Chinese-American English editorials. Due to the different cultural values of the two countries, as well as their different positions and attitudes towards international events, There are also some differences in the use of intervention resources between Chinese and American English editorials, mainly in the following aspects: 1. China English editorials tend to use conversational contractile resources, while American English editorials tend to use conversational expansion resources. It is acknowledged that there are significant differences in the frequency of use of Endorse resources. 3. Although the proportion of Endorse resources in all involved resources is not high, there are still differences in the frequency of use. The present study attempts to make a comparative analysis of the intervention resources between Chinese and American English editorials by using the evaluation theory in order to contribute to the application of the evaluation theory in editorial discourse analysis. It also hopes to provide a new perspective for the comparative analysis of English editorials between China and the United States. In addition, through the comparative analysis of editorial texts, the present study hopes to provide some guidance to the teaching of second language, especially the reading of English newspapers and periodicals.
【学位授予单位】：长安大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：H315;H15

【相似文献】