英语政治访谈文本中情态量值的人际意义

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1674-8921.2020.06.006

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

情态是人际功能的重要组成部分,在政治话语中尤其重要。本文以Halliday的系统功能语言学为依据,以30篇英美政界人物的电视访谈文本为语料,对采访双方使用的不同情态动词的量值进行人际意义分析,旨在揭示采访双方如何通过不同量值情态词的使用来表达人际意义。研究结果表明,对话双方在情态动词的量值使用上体现了一定的共性和差异性,不同量值的情态动词的使用在一定程度上受到“交际角色”和“社会角色”的影响。情态动词的量值不仅表现对话双方的权势地位关系,也表现交际双方的互动关系。本研究为政治话语的解读提供了一个新的视角。

关键词: 系统功能语法, 情态量值, 人际意义, 政治话语

Abstract:

Modality is one important part of the interpersonal meta-function, which is particularly essential in political discourse. Based on Halliday's Systemic Functional Grammar, this paper tries to analyze the interpersonal meanings of the values of modal operators of 30 English political interviews in order to see how interpersonal meanings are revealed through the usage of different values of modal operators. Results indicate that both sides tend to use similar and different amounts of modal operators with different values. The use of different values of modal operators by the interviewers and the interviewees is influenced by both social roles and roles in the interaction. Usages of different values of modal operators not only show the power relationships, but also show the interaction of the participants. This study hopes to provide a new perspective for understanding political discourse.

中图分类号:

高岩杰, 丁艺, 蒋跃. 英语政治访谈文本中情态量值的人际意义[J]. 当代外语研究, 2020, 20(6): 50-58.

GAO Yanjie, DING Yi, JIANG Yue. Interpersonal Meanings of the Values of Modal Operators in English Political Interviews[J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2020, 20(6): 50-58.

图/表 6

表1

表2

图1

表3

表4

表5

参考文献 17

[1]	Brown, R. & A. Gilman. 1960. The pronouns of power and solidarity [A]. T.Sebeok (ed). Style in Language[C]. Cambridge: MIT Press. 253-276.
[2]	Halliday M.A.K. 1978. Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning[M]. London: Edward Arnold.
[3]	Halliday M.A.K. 2004. An Introduction to Functional Grammar (3^rd edition)[M]. London: Edward Arnold.
[4]	Simon-Vandenbergen A.M. 1997. Modal (un)certainty in political discourse: A functional account[J]. Language Sciences 19(4): 341-356.
[5]	胡壮麟、张德禄、李战子. 2005. 系统功能语言学概论[M]. 北京: 北京大学出版社.
[6]	黄国文. 2017. 从系统功能语言学视角看政治演讲语篇[J]. 外语学刊 (3):7-11.
[7]	黄国文. 2018. M. A. K. Halliday的系统功能语言学理论与生态语言学研究[J]. 浙江外国语学院学报 (5): 31-40.
[8]	蒋跃、李璐. 2010. 英文电视访谈节目中模糊语言构建权势关系的分析研究[J]. 外语教学 (1):16-20
[9]	李杰. 2005. 情态的表达与意识形态的体现[J]. 外语学刊 (4):49-55.
[10]	李战子. 2000. 情态——从句子到语篇的推广[J]. 外语学刊 (4):7-12.
[11]	李战子. 2002. 话语的人际意义研究[M]. 上海: 上海外语教育出版社.
[12]	任凯、王振华. 2017. 系统功能语言学视角下的英汉情态对比研究——以政治新闻语篇为例[J]. 当代外语研究 (2):20-26.
[13]	施光、辛斌. 2008. 试析美国宪法中的情态系统[J]. 外语学刊 (2):55-59.
[14]	王和私、尹丕安、王芙蓉. 2011. 中英文政治演说的情态对比研究[J]. 西安外国语大学学报 (2):38-42.
[15]	王红阳、程春松. 2007. 英语政治演讲和学术演讲的情态对比研究[J]. 外语与外语教学 (5): 21-24.
[16]	魏本力. 2005. 情态动词的量值取向[J]. 外语学刊 (4):56-59.
[17]	朱士昌. 2002. 情态值——社会人际关系的镜子[J]. 上海师范大学学报 (5):117-124.

	低值(low)	中值(median)	高值(high)
肯定式 (positive)	can, may, could,might, dare	will, would,should, is/was to	must, ought to,need, has/had to
否定式 (negative)	needn't, doesn't/didn't +need to, have to	won't, wouldn't,shouldn't, isn't/wasn't to	mustn't, oughtn't to,can't, couldn't, mayn't, mightn't, hasn't/hadn't to

		低量值	中量值	高量值	合计	总字数
被采访者 (政治人物)	数量频率	520 5.29	931 9.48	350 3.56	1801 18.33	98247
采访者 (主持人)	数量频率	163 5.49	280 9.42	77 2.59	520 17.50	29713

低量值情态动词	被采访者(政治人物)	采访者(主持人)
can	315	87
could	115	38
may	45	21
might	36	14
needn't, doesn't /didn't need to	6	2
doesn't/didn't have to	3	1
总计 (频率)	520 5.29	163 5.49

中量值情态动词	被采访者(政治人物)	采访者(主持人)
would/wouldn't	354	121
will/won't	333	111
should/shouldn't	178	40
shall/ shall not	0	3
is/was to; isn't/wasn't to	66	5
总计 (频率)	931 9.48	280 9.42

高量值情态动词	被采访者(政治人物)	采访者(主持人)
has/had to; hasn't/hadn't to	179	32
can't/cannot/couldn't	122	30
ought/oughtn't to	26	9
must/mustn't	23	6
总计 (频率)	350 3.56	77 2.59