Both English and Chinese linguists have conducted in-depth research on modal words considering the crucial role they play in interaction. Some of the research concerns modality in political news discourse, but the discourses this research focuses are in most cases merely in a single language. Comparative studies are rarely conducted. This paper, combining the systemic-functional linguistics and Chinese modality theory, modifies into a new theoretical framework and analyzes the Chinese and English modality system comparatively. A small corpus of twenty Chinese and twenty English political news texts from the perspective of modal orientation, modal values and modal types is built. The result of the research indicates: 1) In the aspect of modal orientation, modal words indicating subject implicitness and object implicitness are widely used in English and Chinese political news, and more modal words indicating subject implicitness can be found in Chinese political news. 2) In the aspect of modal types, modal words reflecting probability and inclination are widely used in English news while those indicating obligation and inclination are frequently used in Chinese news. 3) In the aspect of modal values, modal words with medium and low values are widely used in English news while those with high value are frequently used in Chinese news. These different choices of modal words conveyed various modal meanings.
REN Kai, WANG Zhenhua
. A Comparative Study of Chinese and English Modality in Political News Discourse: A Perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistics[J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2017
, 17(02)
: 20
-26
.
DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1674-8921.2017.02.003
Brinton, L.J. 1987. The aspectual nature of states and habits [J]. Folia Linguistics 21:195-214.
Coates, J. 1983. The Semantics of the Modal Auxiliaries [M]. London & Cambridge:Croom Helm.
Halliday, M.A.K. 1994. An Introduction to Functional Grammar (2nd ed.) [M]. London:Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M.A.K. 2004. An Introduction to Functional Grammar (3rd ed.) [M]. London:Edward Arnold.
Lyons, J. 1977. Semantics (2nd ed.) [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Palmer, F.R. 1986. Mood and Modality (1st ed.) [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Palmer, F.R. 2001. Mood and Modality (2nd ed.) [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Perkins. M. R. 1983. Modal Expression in English [M]. Norwood:Ables Publishing Co.
邓川林. 2011. 现代汉语若干惯常类副词研究[D]. 北京:北京语言大学.
丁声树. 1961. 现代汉语语法讲话[M]. 北京:商务印书馆.
李临定. 1986. “判断”双谓句[A]. 语法研究与探索(一)[C]. 北京:北京大学出版社.9-31
李小川. 2016. 系统功能语言学视角下英汉情态意义互译的转换规律[J]. 湖南社会科学(1):198-202.
廖秋忠. 1989. 《语气与情态》评介[J]. 国外语言学(4):157-163.
龙绍赟、付贺宾、陈天真、王晨. 2016. 专业学生议论文中情态动词的使用特征[J]. 外语学刊(1):124-131.
鲁川. 2003. 语言的主观信息和汉语的情态标记[A]. 语法研究与探索(中国语文杂志社编)(十二)[C]. 北京:商务印书馆. 317-330
马庆株.2005. 汉语动词和动词性结构[M]. 北京:北京大学出版社.
彭利贞. 2005. 现代汉语情态研究[D]. 上海:复旦大学.
彭宣维. 2000. 英汉语篇综合对比[M]. 上海:上海外语教育出版社.
史金生、胡晓萍. 2004. 动量副词的类别及其选择性[J]. 语文研究(02):9-14.
汤敬安、白解红. 2015. 认识情态的主客观性变化及机理——主观性和主观化视角之分析[J]. 外语教学与研究(4):522-534.
王红阳、程春松. 2007. 英汉政治演讲和学术演讲的情态对比研究[J]. 外语与外语教(5):21-24.
温锁林. 2013. 汉语中的语气和情态[J]. 南开语言学刊(2):21-29.
谢佳玲. 2002. 汉语情态动词[D]. 台湾:中国台湾清华大学.
谢昆. 2015. 俄汉语情态范畴对比研究[M]. 北京:中国社会科学出版社.
徐晶凝. 2007. 现代汉语话语情态研究[M]. 北京:昆仑出版社.
张冠芳. 2013. 系统功能语言学视角下的英汉政治演讲的情态对比研究[D]. 宁波:宁波大学.
赵元任. 1979. 汉语口语语法[M]. 北京:商务印书馆.
