Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies >
Interpersonal Meanings of the Values of Modal Operators in English Political Interviews
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.
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 . DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1674-8921.2020.06.006
| [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 (3rd 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. |
/
| 〈 |
|
〉 |
