學(xué)術(shù)論文的人際意義研究-外國語言學(xué)博士文庫

內(nèi)容概要

　　《外國語言學(xué)博士文庫：學(xué)術(shù)論文的人際意義研究》的目的是從語言的人際功能視角考察學(xué)術(shù)論文人際意義的構(gòu)建與表述方式，這一目的決定了《外國語言學(xué)博士文庫：學(xué)術(shù)論文的人際意義研究》在理論和應(yīng)用上的雙重動機。在理論上，試圖建構(gòu)話語層面的人際意義模式，將系統(tǒng)功能語言學(xué)框架中的人際意義成分調(diào)整為同一層面上的三個相互交叉的語義成分，即認(rèn)識性（epistemic）、評價性（evaluative）和磋商性（negotiative）。這三個語義成分分別由不同的語言手段實現(xiàn)，它們共同描述詞匯與語法手段的語義功能。在應(yīng)用上，試圖將構(gòu)建的三要素人際意義模式應(yīng)用于學(xué)術(shù)論文的實際語料分析之中。書中的語料由應(yīng)用語言學(xué)和文學(xué)批評兩個領(lǐng)域的學(xué)術(shù)論文組成，所分析的80篇學(xué)術(shù)論文選自以上領(lǐng)域的10種權(quán)威性學(xué)術(shù)期刊，語料的總字?jǐn)?shù)約為55萬字。在構(gòu)建的人際意義模式下，具體分析了模糊限制語（hedging）、人稱（person）、評價詞匯（evaIuative lexis）和引用（citation）等四種語言資源在學(xué)術(shù)論文中的多重人際意義。這四種人際語言資源通過四個章節(jié)分別進行了深入的分析，同時，它們之間在語義功能和實現(xiàn)手段等方面又存在著不同程度上的交叉。

書籍目錄

序前言Chapter 1 Introduction1.1 Background to the Study1.2 A Brief Survey of Interpersonal Meaning1.3 Research Design1.4 Organization of the BookChapter 2 Towards a Functional Model of Interpersonal Meaning2.1 Introduction2.2 An Overview of Interpersonal Models2.3 A Three-Component Model of Interpersonal Meaning2.4 SummaryChapter 3 Modeling Interpersonal Features of Academic Discourse3.1 Introduction3.2 What Is Academic Discourse?3.3 Different Approaches to Academic Discourse3.4 A Description of Interpersonal Features of Academic Discourse3.5 Four Linguistic Devices to be Analyzed3.6 SummaryChapter 4 Hedging4.1 Introduction4.2 The Notion of Modality4.3 The Concept of Hedging4.4 Weighing the Claims in the Truth-Seeking Talk4.5 Mitigating Claims by Limiting Personal Commitment4.6 Gaining Reader Ratification for Claims4.7 SummaryChapter 5 Person5.1 Introduction5.2 The Notion of Person5.3 The Classifications and Functions of Varied We in RAs5.4 The Epistemic Meanings of I in RAs5.5 Uses of You Soliciting Reader Solidarity in RAs5.6 Tackling a Research Article from the Data5.7 The I/We Perspective of Knowledge Presentation in RAs5.8 SummaryChapter 6 Evaluative Lexis6.1 Introduction6.2 Approaches to the Definition of Evaluation6.3 Evaluation from a Linguistic Perspective6.4 Evaluation in RAs: Explicit Attitude versus Objectivity6.5 Dominant Choices in Expressing Explicit Attitude in RAs6.6 Dominant Choices in Grading Explicit Attitude in RAs6.7 SummaryChapter 7 Citation7.1 Introduction7.2 The Notion of Reported Speech7.3 The Conception of Citation in Evaluation7.4 The Classifications of Reporting Verbs7.5 Reporting Verbs Signaling Evaluation in RAs7.6 Evaluative Functions of Reporting Verbs in RAs7.7 The Complexity of Evaluation in the Citations of RAs7.8 SummaryChapter 8 Conclusions8.1 A Summarizing Overview8.2 Some Pedagogical Implications8.3 Suggestions for Further StudiesAppendix I The Corpus of Applied LinguisticsAppendix II The Corpus of Literary CriticismBibliographyList of FiguresList of TablesAbbreviations后記

章節(jié)摘錄

　　dence in the truth of a proposition， but also an attitude to the audience　?。℉yland， 2000）.　From this view， hedges can be considered as the interac-tive elements which serve as a bridge between the prepositional informa-tion in the text and the writer's factual interpretation.　In other words，hedging is not simply a prudent insurance against overstating an assertion，but also a rational interpersonal strategy which both supports the　writer's　position and builds writer-reader　relationship。Hedging is critical in AD because it helps gain communal acceptance　　for knowledge.　Scientific truth is as much a social as an intellectual catego-ry， and the distinction writers make between their subject matter and howthey want their readers to understand their relationship to it is crucial tosuch a highly self-conscious form of discourse. Not only does it influencethe effectiveness and credibility of argumentation， but helps define what it　means to write science. Degree of cognitive probability and generality often　facilitate， or even determine， the comprehension of a message. The as-sessment of propositions therefore places epistemic modality in a criticalrole， because the selection of devices can influence the ratification of argu-ments. Effective academic writing is like any other kind of discourse in　that it is interactive， it involves writers trying to influence their readers by　persuading them of the correctness of their view， but arguments have to be　expressed in ways that are acceptable， meaningful and plausible to the　members in academic community.　Here the main point for a writer is how　to make his knowledge claims， which is in effect a process of wrestling　with knowledge claims?！　?. 3. 3. 1 Knowledge claims and scientific truth Scientific truth can be manipulated to persuade readers of the author's　　contribution to a debate， and hedges play a large part in accomplishing　　this. Writers may thus hedge their commitment to accepted knowledge， to　　new findings， or to what those findings mean.　Essentially， the goal of aca-demic writers is to establish their claims as facts， using the resources of　the language to promote their work.　Then a statement of a knowledgeclaim is at the heart of a RA， and the writer's purpose is to create a text。　　……

圖書封面

評論、評分、閱讀與下載

---

    學(xué)術(shù)論文的人際意義研究-外國語言學(xué)博士文庫 PDF格式下載

---