【作者】 布占廷；

【导师】 张德禄；

【作者基本信息】 山东大学 ， 英语语言文学， 2014， 博士

【摘要】 负面评价现象是学术书评语篇中不可或缺的组成部分。语言学家着重从跨学科变异、跨语言变异、历时变异以及跨语类变异等视角对学术书评中显性的负面评价及其缓和策略进行了研究。但是,对英汉语言学书评(以下简称英汉书评)中负面评价的对比语义分析既不系统也不深入,亟需进一步探讨。本研究以系统功能语言学的语言—语境分层模型为理论基础,以评价系统为主要框架,旨在发展基于语料库的负面评价对比分析和标注系统,以期对英汉书评中的负面评价进行全面、系统的对比性功能描述,发现英汉异同,并探讨其语境动因。具体来说,共有四个研究问题：(a)英汉书评中的负面态度有何异同?(b)英汉书评中负面态度的级差有何异同?(c)英汉书评中负面态度的介入有何异同?(d)英汉书评中负面评价异同的语境动因是什么?为回答这些问题,本研究首先简要回顾了评价系统,着重对其三个子系统进行了考量,建立了适合类型学分析的标注系统。其次,探讨了评价系统分析中的问题、原则和路径。再次,建立了语类阶段、语类结构变体和书评类型的标注系统,从而促成对比评价分析和对比语境分析。本研究自建英汉书评类比语料库,内含英汉书评各70篇,在所评书籍方面一一对应。这些书评分别选自主要英语国家和中国大陆出版的重要语言学期刊,涵盖了语言学研究的诸多领域。英语子库(ELBRC)库容为98,139个单词,汉语子库(CLBRC)库容为238,556个汉字。经整理后的语料导入到UAM CorpusTool(UAM)中。本研究的分析程序主要分为三个步骤：(a)语料库标注,其中包括纸质版标注、UAM标注和检查三个环节；(b)对比评价分析,其中涵盖对比统计、负面评价的体现资源和负面评价的阶段分布；(c)对比语境分析,在语域、语类和意识形态等层面上展开。下面以研究问题为主线,英汉书评的异同为重点来阐述主要的研究发现。负面态度涉及态度隐显类别和态度类别。前者逐级细分为铭刻、激发、旗示和致使,态度类别中分别引入了情感者、判断对象和鉴赏对象。英汉书评中负面态度的比率高达2：1。两种语言在态度隐显类别方面非常相似,铭刻占比均达64%,但在态度类型方面差异显著。负面情感仅在英语书评中出现20例,情感者多为书评者,凸显了英语书评的情感性。负面判断主要通过对非态度性过程进行否定来引发。汉语书评中判断对象皆为书籍作者,但英语书评中有5处书评者的自我判断。负面鉴赏主导整个态度系统,五个特征均可区分为更加细致的语义群组,但相关词汇语法资源的频次都不高。鉴赏对象类别中具体内容的比例最高。另外,两种语言中负面态度的跨阶段分布差异显著。英语书评中负面态度出现在所有四个阶段中,但汉语书评中负面态度从未出现在引言阶段。级差的对比分析涉及四个子系统。其中级差升降是指态度值的升高或降低,级差功能是指显性态度的分级或隐性态度的引发,级差模式包括分离、重复、比较和极度,级差类型分为语力和语焦。英汉书评中级差比率高达2.2：1。两种语言在级差升降和级差类型方面差异显著,但在级差功能和级差模式方面非常相似。具体来说,英语书评中升高级差显著多于降低级差,但汉语书评中恰好相反。汉语书评中语力占比显著更高。两种语言中显性态度分级资源均逾70%,分离级差均超80%。在更精密层级中,本研究对语力和语焦的子系统和特征从级差升降、级差功能和级差模式三个维度进行了细致描述。体现级差的词汇语法资源很多,但高频者很少。最后,级差的阶段分布亦呈现出显著的英汉差异。英语书评中的分布形状与负面态度稍有不同。汉语书评中级差同样不出现在引言阶段。介入的对比分析主要从对话视角探讨负面态度的协商环境。分析表明,英汉书评中负面态度的介入资源比率高达2.1：1。在介入类型方面,英汉书评非常相似。杂言占比均超90%。但在杂言类型方面,英汉书评差异显著,对话收缩在汉语书评中的比例显著更高。在扩展方面,接纳在英汉语书评中均处主导地位,接纳的体现资源多样,部分资源频次高。归属的两个特征频次很低。在收缩方面,否认在英汉书评中均占主导地位,其中反对和否定表现出显著的英汉差异。反对数量超过否定,尤以英语为甚。在两种语言中,否定和反对的体现资源类别不多,但频次很高。收缩的另一个子系统公告含有三个特征。其中同意和宣告表现出显著的英汉差异,而背书表现出相似性。最后,介入的阶段分布与负面态度非常接近。负面评价的跨语言差异可以通过对比语境分析得到阐释。首先,在语域层面,语场和语式在英汉书评非常相似,但是语旨的跨语言差异显著。这些差异必然对负面评价的类别及频次都产生相当大的制约作用。其次,英汉书评在语类阶段和语类结构变体方面相似,但在书评类别方面存在显著差异。英汉书评作为一种分阶段、交际目标明确的社会化过程,其语类结构可以使用四个阶段的模式来描述,即引言阶段(IS)、概述阶段(DS)、评价阶段(ES)和结论阶段(CS)。其中前三项是必选成分,最后一项是可选成分。英汉书评共享同一个语类结构潜势Ⅰ^<E>^D^E^(C)。四个阶段的不同配置共形成七种语类结构变体。其中主要变体三种,即IDEC,IDE和IDC,合计占比逾九成。汉语中批评性书评占比60%,而英语书评中占比达83%。这一显著差异与负面评价的跨语言差异存在很大相关性。最后,意识形态可分析为价值系统和社会实践。意识形态作为价值系统与负面评价之间存在辩证关系。一方面,负面评价建构话语社区的价值系统,前者的跨语言差异必然投射在后者之上。反之,正是价值系统的差异导致了负面评价的差异。另一方面,价值系统可以帮助表达和识别负面评价。意识形态作为社会实践直接影响着负面评价的使用。英美学术话语社区对批评性或负面书评甚至持鼓励和欢迎的态度。部分期刊的投稿指南等信息中对此亦有明确的说明。而汉语语言学期刊中对书评大多语焉不详,更不要说批评性或负面书评了。这也是造成负面评价跨语言差异的重要原因。本研究的贡献主要有以下几点：首先,基于评价系统,设计了适用于英汉书评语篇中负面评价对比分析的标注系统。其中评价标注系统中引入了新的变量,如情感者和评价对象。其次,基于自建类比语料库,全面系统地分析了英汉书评语篇中的负面评价意义,在分析的精密阶上向前推进一步,特别是在负面鉴赏方面。分析揭示了英汉书评负面评价的异同,并在语境层面提供了解释。这对于学术话语的写作和发表具有较大参考价值,对于我国语言学期刊的发展与建设也具有借鉴意义。再次,所提出的分析程序逐步展开,步步深入,对基于语料库的对比评价分析具有较大的借鉴意义。更多还原

【Abstract】 The phenomenon of negative evaluation is an indispensable component of academic book reviews (ABRs). Linguists have mainly approached explicit negative evaluation and its mitigation strategies in ABRs from the variational perspectives, especially cross-disciplinary variation, cross-linguistic variation, diachronic variation, and cross-generic variation. However, there are still few in-depth, systematic contrastive semantic analyses of negative evaluation in English and Chinese linguistics book reviews (LBRs), and such a study is in urgent need.This study is carried out from the perspective of the appraisal system situated within the stratified model of language and context in systemic functional linguistics (SFL). It aims to develop corpus-based, contrastive appraisal analytical and annotation systems with the ultimate goal of creating thorough, systematic contrastive functional descriptions of negative appraisal in English and Chinese LBRs and finding out the cross-linguistic similarities and differences that are explained in terms of contextual motivations. To be more specific, there are four research questions:(a) What are the similarities and differences of negative attitudes in English and Chinese LBRs?(b) What are the similarities and differences of the graduation of negative attitudes in English and Chinese LBRs?(c) What are the similarities and differences of the engagement of negative attitudes in English and Chinese LBRs?(d) What are the contextual motivations of the similarities and differences of negative appraisal in English and Chinese LBRs?To answer these research questions, this study firstly outlines a brief review of the appraisal system and focuses attention on the three appraisal subsystems to set up annotation systems that are applicable to the typological analysis. Secondly, the theoretical considerations cover the emergent problems, principles, and paths in appraisal analysis. Thirdly, the annotation systems of generic stages, generic structure variants, and book review types are set up to allow for the contrastive appraisal analysis and contrastive contextual analysis. A comparable corpus is compiled, consisting of70English LBRs and70Chinese LBRs, which are corresponding to each other on a one-to-one basis in that they share the same books under review. These LBRs are chosen from important linguistics journals published in major English speaking countries and China’s mainland respectively, covering various sub-disciplines of linguistics. The size of English subcorpus (ELBRC) is98,139words, and that of Chinese subcorpus (CLBRC) is238,556characters. The processed corpus data are incorporated into UAM CorpusTool (UAM).The analytical procedures are composed of three major steps:(a) the corpus annotation, which consists of annotation on paper, annotation in UAM, and checkup;(b) contrastive appraisal analysis, which consists of the analysis of comparative statistics, negative appraisal realizations, and the distribution of negative appraisal across stages; and (c) the contrastive contextual analysis at the strata of register, genre, and ideology.In the following, major findings are reported in the order of research questions with the focus on the similarities and differences between English and Chinese LBRs. The contrastive analysis of negative attitudes is concerned with the attitude explicitness type and attitude type. The former is divided into inscribe, provoke, flag, and afford. The three attitude types also include the emoter, the judged, and the appreciated. The English-Chinese ratio of negative attitudes is2:1. The two languages are very similar in terms of the attitude explicitness type in that inscribe accounts for64%in both sub-corpora, but they are statistically different in terms of the attitude type. There are20instances of negative affect, but all English ones, and the emoters are mostly the book reviewers. This foregrounds the emotionality of English LBRs. Negative judgement is mainly invoked by grammatically negating the non-attitudinal processes. All the people judged in CLBRC are the book authors, but there are five negative self-judgement instances in ELBRC. Negative appreciation predominates in the attitude system and its five features can be further divided into smaller semantic groups. But the frequency of these lexico-grammatical resources is not high. The percentage of the specific content in the appreciated types is the highest. In addition, the distribution of negative attitudes across stages is substantially different between the two subcorpora. Negative attitudes in ELBRC occur at all of the four stages, but those in CLBRC never occur at the Introduction Stage.The contrastive analysis of graduation involves four subsystems. The graduation scale refers to the up-scaling or down-scaling of negative attitudes, and the graduation function refers to the scaling of explicit attitude or the flagging of implicit attitude. The graduation mode is divided into isolation, repetition, comparative, and superlative; and the graduation axis is divided into force and focus. The English-Chinese ratio of graduation is up to2.2:1. The two languages are significantly different in terms of the graduation scale and the graduation axis, but are very similar in terms of the graduation function and the graduation mode. To be more specific, there are more up-scaling resources than downscaling ones in ELBRC, but it is the opposite in CLBRC. The percentage of force in CLBRC is significantly higher. In both languages, the percentage of scaling-attitude is higher than70%and that of isolation is higher than80%. At more delicate levels, the subsystems and features of force and focus are examined from the perspectives of graduation scale, graduation function, and graduation mode. The lexico-grammatical realizations of graduation are diverse but most of them are infrequent. Finally, the distribution of graduation across stages is also significantly different between ELBRC and CLBRC. The distribution of graduation in ELBRC is slightly different from that of negative attitudes. The graduation in CLBRC never occurs at the Introduction Stage.The contrastive analysis of engagement is mainly to explore the dialogical settings in which negative attitudes are negotiated. The English-Chinese ratio of engagement is up to2.1:1. In terms of the engagement type, the two sub-corpora are very similar in that heteroglossic accounts for more than90%, but the cross-linguistic differences of the heteroglossic type are statistically significant. The percentage of dialogical contraction is significantly higher in CLBRC. Within expand, entertain predominates in both languages and it is realized via a few areas of lexico-grammatical resources, some of which are very frequent. The two attribute features are infrequent. Within contract, disclaim predominates in both languages. The cross-linguistic differences of denial and counter are statistically significant. Counter outnumbers denial, especially in ELBRC. In both languages denial and counter are realized mainly by dozens of very frequent locutions. The other subsystem of contract is proclaim, which has three features. The cross-linguistic differences of concur and pronounce are statistically significant, but that of endorse is not. Finally, the distribution of engagement in both sub-corpora is very similar to that of negative attitudes.The cross-linguistic similarities and differences of negative appraisal are explained in the light of the contrastive contextual analysis. Firstly, at the register stratum, field and mode are very similar between ELBRC and CLBRC, but tenor shows significant cross-linguistic differences, which inevitably have a considerable impact on the types and frequencies of negative appraisal. Secondly, ELBRC and CLBRC are similar in terms of generic stages and generic structure variants, but significantly different in terms of book review types. As a staged, goal oriented social process, the genre of LBRs can be described with a model of four stages, namely, the Introduction Stage (IS), the Description Stage (DS), the Evaluation Stage (ES), and the Conclusion Stage (CS). The first three are obligatory but the last one is optional. English and Chinese LBRs share a common generic structure potential I^<E>^D^E^(C), and the different configurations of the four stages produce seven generic structure variants. Three major variants (i.e., IDEC, IDE, and IDC) make up more than90%of the total. The percentage of critical LBRs is60%in CLBRC, but up to83%in ELBRC. This significant difference is strongly correlated with the cross-linguistic differences of negative appraisal. At last, ideology is analyzed as value systems and social practice. Ideology as value systems is in the dialectic relationship with negative appraisal. On the one hand, negative appraisal construes the value systems of the discourse community and its cross-linguistic differences are inevitably mapped onto the latter. Conversely, it is just the cross-linguistic differences of value systems that contribute to the cross-linguistic differences of negative appraisal. On the other hand, value systems are helpful in conveying and identifying negative appraisal. Ideology as social practice has an direct impact on the use of negative appraisal. The Anglo-American academic discourse community even encourages and welcomes critical or negative BRs, and the guidelines or instructions of some linguistics journals have clear statements about the use of negative appraisal and the publication of negative BRs. By contrast, Chinese linguistics journals have little information about BRs, let alone critical or negative ones. This also contributes to the cross-linguistic differences of negative appraisal.This study makes a few contributions to the academia. Firstly, annotation systems are designed for the contrastive analysis of the negative appraisal in LBRs. The appraisal annotation system introduces new variables such as emoters, attitudinal targets. Secondly, a comprehensive analysis of the negative appraisal in English and Chinese LBRs is carried out on the basis of a self-compiled corpus, and moves one step forward along the analytical delicacy, especially in the case of negative appreciation. The analysis reveals the cross-linguistic similarities and differences of negative appraisal and offers contextual explanations. The findings are useful for the writing and publication of academic discourse, and also shed light on the development and construction of linguistics journals in China. Thirdly, the proposed analytical procedures unfold with the research questions and have some implications for the corpus-based contrastive appraisal analysis.更多还原