英汉文学学术书评中模糊限制语的比较研究:评价理论视角

A Comparative Study of Hedges in English and Chinese Academic Literary Book Reviews in Light of Appraisal Theory

模糊限制语在学术书评中高频使用,并表达特定的人际意义。本研究以评价理论为框架,以40篇英汉文学学术书评中的模糊限制语为语料,采用定量分析和定性分析相结合的方法,在类型、分布和人际意义表达方面探究其在英汉两种文学学术书评中使用的异同。研究表明,在类型及分布上,相同点体现在英汉文学学术书评中模糊限制语作为话语扩张资源的比例均高于话语收缩资源;模糊限制语作为语势资源的比例高于聚焦资源。但在英汉文学学术书评中模糊限制语的分布具有显著差异。在人际意义表达上,相同点是模糊限制语在英汉文学学术书评中均可表达礼貌性和协商性,强调作者立场和权威,增强可靠性和说服力,减少责任和保护自己。英语文学学术书评更侧重展现礼貌性和协商性,强调作者立场和权威;而汉语文学学术书评更侧重增强可靠性和说服力,减少书评作者责任和保护自己。

Hedges are frequently used in academic book reviews,which express specific interpersonal meanings.The study combined the method of quantitative analysis and qualitative analysis,and explored the similarities and differences of the distribution and interpersonal meanings of the hedges in 40 English and Chinese academic literary book reviews in light of Appraisal Theory.Regarding the distributions of hedges,the results show that the similarity is the proportion of hedges as dialogic expansion resources is higher than that of hedges as dialogic contraction resources;force resources are more than focus resources in the English and Chinese academic literary book reviews.But the specific distributions of those are significantly different in the English and Chinese academic literary book reviews.Regarding the interpersonal meaning realized by hedges,the similarity is that showing politeness and negotiation,emphasizing authorial stance and authority,enhancing reliability and persuasiveness,and reducing responsibility and realizing self-protection are expressed in both English and Chinese academic literary book reviews.But English academic literary book reviews are more likely to show politeness and negotiation,and emphasize authorial stance and authority,while Chinese ones are more likely to enhance reliability and persuasiveness,and reduce reviewers’responsibility and realize self-protection.