本文選題：元話語 + 短語��； 參考：《江南大學(xué)》2014年碩士論文

【摘要】：元話語是指作者組織語篇、吸引讀者、表示對命題內(nèi)容和對讀者的態(tài)度的顯性語言手段，體現(xiàn)交際參與要素之間的互動關(guān)系，基于這一理念，Hyland將元話語分為引導(dǎo)元話語和互動元話語。近些年的研究顯示，元話語的研究不管是在方法、內(nèi)容還是研究對象都變得日益豐富、深入、細致。總體來說，可以用“厚”與“薄”兩個字來概括當前元話語的研究：“厚”這一層面對元話語的研究更加具體，關(guān)注語言本體的研究；而“薄”則相對來說更加寬泛，注重研究對象中元話語數(shù)量分布的探討。 目前有關(guān)元話語的研究主要從心理語言學(xué)角度、社會語言學(xué)角度、認知功能角度和自然語言處理角度等這些方面來進行。隨著計算機技術(shù)在語言研究領(lǐng)域的運用，大批量的文本處理成為可能，這也促進了語料庫語言學(xué)的研究。同時，運用語料庫軟件對大量文本的處理所收集的數(shù)據(jù)也在一定程度上使元話語的定性分析有據(jù)可依、更科學(xué)。作為一種聯(lián)系作者與語篇，作者與讀者，讀者與語篇的重要手段，元話語對作者表達觀點、實現(xiàn)語篇的評價至關(guān)重要。而語篇評價這一概念實質(zhì)上表達的是人際意義。但長期以來，有一個重要的特點卻容易被學(xué)者忽略，即元話語作為語言的本質(zhì)特點。既然元話語對作者的態(tài)度、實現(xiàn)語篇的評價功能有影響，那么這種影響究竟是如何產(chǎn)生的？是不是所有的元話語都有評價功能？這種評價是顯性的還是隱性的？它的表達方式有哪些？鑒于這些疑問，本文主要針對以下問題進行了具體的研究分析： (1)元話語在新聞評論中的頻率分布情況如何？ (2)元話語在新聞評論中的典型的短語形式是什么？這些短語形式具有什么樣的評價功能？ (3)元話語短語如何實現(xiàn)其在新聞評論中的評價功能？ 為了解決上述三個問題，本文參考《哥倫比亞新聞評論》周刊對新聞評論的分類，自建語料庫，共收集了政治、經(jīng)濟、科技、文化四個方面的120篇新聞評論，均來自英美主流媒體（《華盛頓郵報》、《路透社》、《衛(wèi)報》、《觀察家報》），時間跨度為2010年10月至2013年12月，試以語料庫短語理論視角，在Martin和White(2005)評價理論背景下，從元話語的形式、意義與評價功能入手，通過定性分析為主、定量分析為參照的研究方法，并借助計算機軟件Antconc3.2和Wordsmith6.0嘗試對語料中出現(xiàn)的典型且含有元話語的語塊進行較全面、多角度的分析，以求了解元話語實現(xiàn)評價功能的潛在原因。 通過研究發(fā)現(xiàn)： 1）在本研究中，語料庫內(nèi)出現(xiàn)的元話語形式共計為183個，引導(dǎo)元話語和互動元話語出現(xiàn)的次數(shù)分別為6417次和4234次。出現(xiàn)頻率較高的為轉(zhuǎn)換標記語、框架標記語與模糊標記語,占元話語總數(shù)的百分比別為42.1%，18.9%和16.1%，出現(xiàn)頻率最少的元話語為語碼標注語，為0.4%。 2）本語料中，高頻元話語短語，即出現(xiàn)在4篇語篇以上的語塊形式為27組。27組短語形式中包含不同類型的元話語分類，如轉(zhuǎn)換標記語according to、模糊標記語seem to和seem like、證據(jù)標記語X says和自我提及語I think, I suspect等。 3）作者在同一語境中會同時使用兩種或兩種以上的元話語資源來表達觀點、構(gòu)建、緩和并完善作者-讀者關(guān)系，來實現(xiàn)對客體的評價功能，，以此完成語篇的勸說功能，典型的即為模糊語和強調(diào)語在評論中的交替使用。 4）元話語的評價功能體現(xiàn)在其對作者態(tài)度的影響程度方面：證據(jù)標記語、框架標記語可以增強語篇的正面評價；轉(zhuǎn)換標記語在不同的語境中既可以增強語篇的正面評價也可以增強語篇的負面評價；模糊標記語既可以削弱語篇的正面評價又可以緩和語篇的負面評價；轉(zhuǎn)換標記語、自我提及語、關(guān)系建立語則被作者用來進行假設(shè)、建立并完善作者-讀者關(guān)系，進而完成語篇的評價、勸說功能。 以上研究在理論上為元話語的意義、形式與評價功能的實現(xiàn)進行了一定的探索和總結(jié)。在實踐方面為元話語的研究提供了一個新的視角，同時為英語寫作在謀篇布局、論點闡述層面提供了一定的借鑒。因此，這些發(fā)現(xiàn)對語言形式、意義與功能的探析有重要的意義。
[Abstract]:Meta discourse refers to the explicit language means by which the author organizes the text, attracts the readers, expresses the propositional content and the attitude to the reader, and embodies the interactive relationship between the elements of the communicative participation. Based on this idea, Hyland divides the meta discourse into the guiding and interactive meta discourse. In recent years, the research shows that the research of meta discourse is in the method, within the method. In general, the two words of "thick" and "thin" can be used to summarize the research of the current meta discourse: the "thick" layer is more specific to the research of the meta discourse, and pays more attention to the research of the language noumenon, while the "thin" is relatively broader and pays more attention to the research object. The discussion of the quantity distribution of language.
At present, the research on meta discourse is carried out mainly from the perspective of psycholinguistics, sociolinguistics, cognitive function and Natural Language Processing. With the application of computer technology in the field of language research, large volume text processing is possible, which also promotes the research of corpus linguistics. The data collected by the corpus of a large number of texts can also make the qualitative analysis of the meta discourse to some extent feasible and scientific. As an important means to link the author and the text, the author and the reader, the reader and the text, the meta discourse is very important to the author to express his views and to evaluate the text. But for a long time, there is an important feature that is easily ignored by scholars, that is, the essential characteristics of the language. Since the meta discourse has an influence on the author's attitude and the evaluation function of the text, how does this effect come into being? Is all the meta discourse has the merit of evaluation. Can the evaluation be explicit or recessive? What are the ways of its expression? In view of these questions, this paper mainly studies and analyses the following questions.
(1) what is the frequency distribution of Metadiscourse in news commentary?
(2) what are the typical phrase forms of Metadiscourse in news commentary? What are the evaluation functions of these phrase forms?
(3) how do metadiscourse phrases achieve their evaluation function in news commentary?
In order to solve the above three problems, this paper, referring to the classification of news commentary by the Columbia news review, collected 120 news reviews in four aspects of politics, economy, science and technology, and culture, all from the mainstream media in Britain and America (< Washington Post > < Reuters >, < Guardian >, < observer >), with a span of October 2010. To December 2013, in the perspective of corpus phrase theory, under the background of Martin and White (2005) evaluation theory, starting with the form, meaning and evaluation function of meta discourse, the research method which is based on qualitative analysis and quantitative analysis as reference, and with the help of computer software Antconc3.2 and Wordsmith6.0 to try to appear in the corpus and contain the typical examples. The chunks of metadiscourse are analyzed in a comprehensive and multi perspective way in order to realize the potential reasons for the evaluation function of Jie Yuan discourse.
Through the study, it is found that:
1) in this study, the total number of meta discourse in the corpus is 183, and the number of leading element discourse and interactive meta discourse appear 6417 times and 4234 times respectively. The higher frequency is the conversion marker, the frame marker and the fuzzy marker, the percentage of the total amount of the total discourse is 42.1%, 18.9% and 16.1%. Discourse is a code tagging language, which is 0.4%.
2) in this corpus, the high-frequency meta discourse phrase, that is, in the form of the block above the 4 discourse, contains 27 groups of.27 group phrases, including the different types of meta discourse classification, such as the conversion marker according to, the fuzzy marker seem to and the seem like, the evidence marker X says and the I think of the self reference, I consultants and so on.
3) in the same context, the author will use two or more than two kinds of meta discourse resources to express their views, construct, alleviate and improve the author reader relationship, to realize the evaluation function of the object, so as to finish the persuasive function of the text, which is the alternately used of the vague language and the emphasis in the comment.
4) the evaluation function of meta discourse is reflected in the degree of its influence on the author's attitude: evidence markings, frame markers can enhance the positive evaluation of the text, which can enhance both the positive evaluation of the discourse and the negative evaluation of the text in different contexts; the fuzzy markup can weaken the positive of the text. Face evaluation can also mitigate the negative evaluation of discourse; conversion markers, self references, and relationship establishment are used by the author to assume assumptions, establish and improve the relationship between the author and reader, and then finish the evaluation and persuasive function of the text.
The above research has made a certain exploration and summary for the meaning of meta discourse, the form and the realization of the function of evaluation. In practice, it provides a new perspective for the study of meta discourse, and provides some reference for the layout of English writing and the exposition of the argument. The analysis of function is of great significance.

【學(xué)位授予單位】：江南大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號】：H315

【參考文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 徐赳赳;;關(guān)于元話語的范圍和分類[J];當代語言學(xué);2006年04期

2 付曉麗;徐赳赳;;國際元話語研究新進展[J];當代語言學(xué);2012年03期

3 穆從軍;;中英文報紙社論之元話語標記對比分析[J];外語教學(xué)理論與實踐;2010年04期

4 于建平;;元話語的語體特征及互動[J];中國科技翻譯;2007年04期

5 李戰(zhàn)子;龐超偉;;外交評論話語中的語言學(xué)因素——以奧巴馬訪華的6篇述評為例[J];外語研究;2011年04期

6 閆濤;張麗云;;基于語料庫的高校英語教師課堂元話語多維功能機制研究[J];解放軍外國語學(xué)院學(xué)報;2013年02期

7 唐青葉;書評的語類結(jié)構(gòu)及其情態(tài)的力量動態(tài)闡釋[J];外語學(xué)刊;2004年01期

8 曹鳳龍;王曉紅;;中美大學(xué)生英語議論文中的元話語比較研究[J];外語學(xué)刊;2009年05期

9 宮軍;;元話語研究:反思與批判[J];外語學(xué)刊;2010年05期

10 李書倉;孫一鳳;;元話語與英語專業(yè)基礎(chǔ)階段的口語教學(xué)[J];山東外語教學(xué);2008年04期

本文編號：1798906