英汉电视访谈节目主持人话语介入资源对比研究

发布时间：2018-02-28 19:20

本文关键词： 评价理论介入资源电视访谈对比分析　出处：《长安大学》2013年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：电视访谈节目已成为全球电视节目的主流形态之一。国外电视访谈节目经过半个世纪的发展已经比较成熟，而中国电视访谈节目还很年轻。自1993年中国大陆第一个电视访谈类节目诞生起，各类新闻、时政、社教、娱乐、体育节目均大量引入了谈话元素。尽管借鉴了国外电视访谈节目的形式以及成功经验，中国电视访谈节目并没有像国外电视访谈节目那样成功。迄今为止，国内外学者从很多方面对电视访谈节目做了研究。然而，很少有人从评价理论的角度研究访谈节目主持人的语言特征。因此，本文将从评价理论的分支之一——介入的角度对中西电视访谈节目主持人话语进行对比分析。本研究分别从中西电视访谈节目中选取了15篇电视访谈转录材料(英语语篇总字数39080，汉语语篇总字数40181)，以Martin和White的介入系统为理论框架，利用语言学统计软件Systemic Coder进行定量和定性分析。旨在总结每种介入资源分别在两个语料库中的分布情况，，对比分析其分布的异同，并试图解释产生异同的原因。本文通过对比研究发现，中西电视访谈节目主持人话语中介入资源的分布情况既有相同点，也存在很多差异。其中二者的共同点主要表现在：1.英汉电视访谈节目主持人都偏向于使用收缩资源；2.在收缩资源中，英汉主持人均倾向于拒绝资源；3.宣称资源中的认同资源在英汉主持人话语中出现的频率均比较小；4.在扩展资源中，承认资源和情态资源在主持人话语中所占的比重都很大。由于两国社会结构，文化价值观，以及人生哲学的不同，在介入资源的使用方面也出现了很多差异，主要表现在以下两个方面：1.在扩展系统中，英汉电视访谈主持人在使用承认资源方面存在显著差异；2.在收缩系统中，虽然Counter资源在整个介入系统中所占比例不高，但在使用频率上存在显著差异。本研究运用评价理论尝试性地对英汉电视访谈节目主持人话语的介入资源进行了比较，以期对评价理论在访谈语篇分析中的应用做出贡献，也希望为其他语篇中评价资源的研究提供方法。此外，通过对访谈语篇的分析,本研究希望能对电视访谈节目有一定的指导意义。
[Abstract]:TV talk shows have become one of the mainstream forms of global television programs. After half a century of development, foreign TV talk shows have been relatively mature. Since the birth of the first TV interview program in mainland China in 1993, all kinds of news, political affairs, social education, entertainment, Sports programs have introduced a large number of talk elements. Although drawing on the form and successful experience of foreign TV talk shows, Chinese TV talk shows have not been as successful as foreign TV talk shows. Scholars at home and abroad have studied TV interview programs from many aspects. However, few people have studied the language characteristics of talk show hosts from the perspective of evaluation theory. This paper makes a contrastive analysis of TV talk show host's discourse from the perspective of intervention, one of the branches of evaluation theory. In this study, 15 TV interview transcripts were selected from Chinese and Western TV interview programs (total words in English text 39080 and Chinese words 40181). The theoretical framework of this study is based on the intervention system of Martin and White. Quantitative and qualitative analysis is carried out by using the linguistic statistical software Systemic Coder. The purpose of this paper is to summarize the distribution of each intervention resource in the two corpora, to compare and analyze the differences and similarities of the distribution, and to explain the reasons for the differences and similarities. Through comparative study, this paper finds that the distribution of interventional resources in the discourse of TV talk show hosts in China and the West has some similarities and differences. There are also many differences. The main common points between the two are: 1.The anchormen of English-Chinese TV interview programs tend to use contractile resources. 2. In contractile resources, Both English and Chinese hosts tend to reject resources. It is claimed that the frequency of identifying resources in English and Chinese hosts is relatively small. 4. In expanding resources, Acknowledging that resources and modal resources account for a large proportion of the host's discourse. Because of the differences in the social structure, cultural values and philosophy of life between the two countries, there are also many differences in the use of intervening resources, In the extended system, there are significant differences in the use of recognized resources between English and Chinese TV interview hosts. 2. In the contractile system, although the proportion of Counter resources in the whole intervention system is not high, But there is a significant difference in the frequency of use. The present study makes a tentative comparison of the intervention resources between English and Chinese TV talk show hosts by using the evaluation theory in order to contribute to the application of the evaluation theory in the discourse analysis of interviews. In addition, through the analysis of interview discourse, this study hopes to provide some guidance to TV interview programs.
【学位授予单位】：长安大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2013
【分类号】：G222;H315;H15

【引证文献】