英语专业学生议论文中的立场动词研究
|
摘要
近年来,许多文献都从语篇的角度对学生作文,尤其是议论文进行了探讨,但大多数都集中于语篇的几个重要特征如：信息结构、主述位结构、衔接连贯,对语篇的另一重要要素“立场”的研究未受到足够重视。尽管国内外一些学者对语篇立场也有一些研究,然而大多局限于对学术语篇和科技语篇的分析,以英语专业学生议论文作为语料,对其进行立场标记语分析的文献欠缺。
因此,本研究旨在考察立场动词在英语专业学生议论文中的分布和特点,并以问卷调查的方式探讨了产生这些特征的原因,为以后的议论文写作教学提出建议,从而提高英语专业学生议论文写作水平。所用语料包括134篇类似于专业四级写作的议论文,分别被建立为两个语料库：第一个语料库是英语专业学生议论文语料库即观察语料库,由67篇来自太原理工大学英语专业二年级英语写作测试的Part III的议论文组成；第二个语料库是专家议论文语料库即参照语料库,由67篇选自Nick Stirk的“AWinning Approach to TEM4Writing"(56篇)和"100Topics for TEM Writing "(5篇)以及米春霞的《英语专四十年真题胜经》(6篇)的议论文组成。本研究利用文本分析软件Wconcord和AntConc以及SPSS16.0对134篇议论文进行分析。
研究结果表明：(1)从立场动词总体特征看,英语专业学生议论文的立场动词占总字数的5.35%,专家议论文的立场动词所占比例为3.96%,由此可知,英语专业学生有立场意识。(2)从议论文中使用的立场动词类型看,英语专业学生表达立场过度依赖于情态动词和由立场动词引起的补语从句,很少使用单个立场动词及动词短语来表达立场。(3)对于由立场动词引起的补语从句,英语专业学生更多的使用" stance verb+that-clause"来表达立场,很少使用"stance verbs+to-clause "。(4)从语义角度看,英语专业学生非常频繁地使用从句来表达认知立场和方式立场,很少使用动词短语来表明这两种立场。另外他们经常使用单个立场动词来表达其态度立场。(5)与专家议论文立场动词的分布和特点相比,本研究发现英语专业学生议论文中存在过度使用和使用不足的立场动词。比如：过度使用情态动词"can""will",单个立场动词"think""know",动词短语"know about",由"think""know"引导的that-clauses;对立场动词"believe""hold"使用不足。
此外,作者对67名英语专业二年级学生进行了问卷调查,试图揭示产生英语专业学生议论文立场动词的这一特点的本质原因。此问卷主要用来评估学生对议论文写作的态度、对立场的了解情况及对议论文教学的看法。调查结果显示：(1)38.46%的学生说,除了教师布置的作业外,从来不主动进行写作实践；还有75.38%的学生认为,提高议论文写作水平只是为了找份好工作或者考试的通过。这表明他们对英语议论文写作的认识不足,未给予足够的重视。(2)66.15%的学生对立场知之甚少；56.92%的同学在议论文中,经常使用"think""know""know that""think that"来表达自己的观点,对于其它的立场动词如："hold""advocate""suppose"使用频率较少,50.77%的学生知道这些词的意思但却不知用法。(3)学生中,29%建议教师在议论文写作课上讲解立场的相关知识以及表达立场的词汇和句子；47.69%希望教师提供不同类型议论文的模版。
根据以上研究结果,作者对英语专业议论文写作教学提出了四点建议：提高学生对英语议论文写作的认识；鼓励学生将具体的单词和语境结合起来；系统地讲解立场的相关知识；提供大量的立场词汇并举例、同时加强关于立场的写作练习。
In recent years, plenty of literature has investigated students'compositions, especially argumentations, on the basis of several important features of the discourse, including information structure, theme-rheme structure, cohesion and coherence. Although some scholars at home and abroad have conducted the researches into stance markers in academic discourses and technological discourses, there is still a gap in the investigation of stance markers in English majors'argumentations.
Therefore, the current study is to examine the characteristics of stance verbs in English majors'argumentations and figure out the root of those features by means of questionnaire in order to offer effective suggestions for argumentative writing teaching, resulting in students'high argumentative writing proficiency. This study includes two corpora-English majors'argumentations corpus i.e. the observed corpus and model argumentations corpus i.e. the reference corpus. The former one contains67argumentations, being collected from Part Ⅲ of the final-term writing test for second-year English majors at Taiyuan University of Technology; the latter one is also comprised of67argumentations, of which56argumentations were drawn from Nick Stirk's A Winning Approach to TEM4Writing,5argumentations from his100Topics for TEM Writing and6argumentations from Mi Chunxia's A Winning Approach to TEM4(2002-2011). The thesis will firstly analyze134argumentations by means of the three instruments:Wconcord, AntConc and SPSS16.0.
The results could indicate:(1) According to the analyses of overall features of stance verbs in the two corpora, stance verbs account for5.35%of total words in English majors' argumentations and3.96%in model argumentations, implying English majors have the awareness of stance.(2) English majors are highly dependent on modals, complement clauses controlled by stance verbs and rarely on simple lexical verbs and multi-word verbs to convey their stance.(3) As for the use of complement clauses controlled by stance verbs, English majors frequently use the structure "stance verb+that-clause" yet rarely use the structure "stance verb+to-clause".(4) From the semantic perspective, complement clauses controlled by stance verbs are the most frequently used to convey English majors' epistemic and style stance. Additionally, they usually use simple lexical verbs to express their attitudinal stance.(5) The overused and underused stance verbs co-exist in English majors'argumentations by comparison with specific stance verbs in model argumentations. For example,"can","will","think" and "know" are overused while "believe" and "hold" are underused in English majors'argumentations.
In addition, the author of this thesis will investigate the67English majors'responses to items in the questionnaire so as to track down the root of features of stance verbs in their argumentations. The questionnaire mainly involves three aspects:students'attitude towards argumentative writing, their knowledge of stance markers in argumentations and their comments on argumentative writing teaching and learning. The analyses of the results of the questionnaire display:(1)38.46%of subjects never do any argumentative writing practice besides assignments. And75.38%of them hold the improvement of argumentative writing proficiency aims to get a good job or pass the examination. These results show they do not pay much attention to argumentative writing.(2)66.15%of subjects know a little about stance. Moreover,56.92%of them frequently use "think","know","know that" or "think that" to express their stance and rarely use such stance verbs as "hold","advocate" or "suppose", which is explained by subjects that50.77%of them know the meanings of those stance verbs but don't know how they are used in argumentation.(3) Of subjects,29%suggest teachers should introduce the knowledge of stance markers in detail to students and offer a large number of instances;41.69%hope teachers show model argumentations on different types of stance markers.
On the basis of the above findings, the author offers four suggestions for argumentative writing teaching:promoting English majors'realization of English argumentative writing, encouraging students to build the link between specific words and context, systematically introducing the knowledge of stance to students, offering numerous stance words, instances and more exercises about stance.
因此,本研究旨在考察立场动词在英语专业学生议论文中的分布和特点,并以问卷调查的方式探讨了产生这些特征的原因,为以后的议论文写作教学提出建议,从而提高英语专业学生议论文写作水平。所用语料包括134篇类似于专业四级写作的议论文,分别被建立为两个语料库：第一个语料库是英语专业学生议论文语料库即观察语料库,由67篇来自太原理工大学英语专业二年级英语写作测试的Part III的议论文组成；第二个语料库是专家议论文语料库即参照语料库,由67篇选自Nick Stirk的“AWinning Approach to TEM4Writing"(56篇)和"100Topics for TEM Writing "(5篇)以及米春霞的《英语专四十年真题胜经》(6篇)的议论文组成。本研究利用文本分析软件Wconcord和AntConc以及SPSS16.0对134篇议论文进行分析。
研究结果表明：(1)从立场动词总体特征看,英语专业学生议论文的立场动词占总字数的5.35%,专家议论文的立场动词所占比例为3.96%,由此可知,英语专业学生有立场意识。(2)从议论文中使用的立场动词类型看,英语专业学生表达立场过度依赖于情态动词和由立场动词引起的补语从句,很少使用单个立场动词及动词短语来表达立场。(3)对于由立场动词引起的补语从句,英语专业学生更多的使用" stance verb+that-clause"来表达立场,很少使用"stance verbs+to-clause "。(4)从语义角度看,英语专业学生非常频繁地使用从句来表达认知立场和方式立场,很少使用动词短语来表明这两种立场。另外他们经常使用单个立场动词来表达其态度立场。(5)与专家议论文立场动词的分布和特点相比,本研究发现英语专业学生议论文中存在过度使用和使用不足的立场动词。比如：过度使用情态动词"can""will",单个立场动词"think""know",动词短语"know about",由"think""know"引导的that-clauses;对立场动词"believe""hold"使用不足。
此外,作者对67名英语专业二年级学生进行了问卷调查,试图揭示产生英语专业学生议论文立场动词的这一特点的本质原因。此问卷主要用来评估学生对议论文写作的态度、对立场的了解情况及对议论文教学的看法。调查结果显示：(1)38.46%的学生说,除了教师布置的作业外,从来不主动进行写作实践；还有75.38%的学生认为,提高议论文写作水平只是为了找份好工作或者考试的通过。这表明他们对英语议论文写作的认识不足,未给予足够的重视。(2)66.15%的学生对立场知之甚少；56.92%的同学在议论文中,经常使用"think""know""know that""think that"来表达自己的观点,对于其它的立场动词如："hold""advocate""suppose"使用频率较少,50.77%的学生知道这些词的意思但却不知用法。(3)学生中,29%建议教师在议论文写作课上讲解立场的相关知识以及表达立场的词汇和句子；47.69%希望教师提供不同类型议论文的模版。
根据以上研究结果,作者对英语专业议论文写作教学提出了四点建议：提高学生对英语议论文写作的认识；鼓励学生将具体的单词和语境结合起来；系统地讲解立场的相关知识；提供大量的立场词汇并举例、同时加强关于立场的写作练习。
In recent years, plenty of literature has investigated students'compositions, especially argumentations, on the basis of several important features of the discourse, including information structure, theme-rheme structure, cohesion and coherence. Although some scholars at home and abroad have conducted the researches into stance markers in academic discourses and technological discourses, there is still a gap in the investigation of stance markers in English majors'argumentations.
Therefore, the current study is to examine the characteristics of stance verbs in English majors'argumentations and figure out the root of those features by means of questionnaire in order to offer effective suggestions for argumentative writing teaching, resulting in students'high argumentative writing proficiency. This study includes two corpora-English majors'argumentations corpus i.e. the observed corpus and model argumentations corpus i.e. the reference corpus. The former one contains67argumentations, being collected from Part Ⅲ of the final-term writing test for second-year English majors at Taiyuan University of Technology; the latter one is also comprised of67argumentations, of which56argumentations were drawn from Nick Stirk's A Winning Approach to TEM4Writing,5argumentations from his100Topics for TEM Writing and6argumentations from Mi Chunxia's A Winning Approach to TEM4(2002-2011). The thesis will firstly analyze134argumentations by means of the three instruments:Wconcord, AntConc and SPSS16.0.
The results could indicate:(1) According to the analyses of overall features of stance verbs in the two corpora, stance verbs account for5.35%of total words in English majors' argumentations and3.96%in model argumentations, implying English majors have the awareness of stance.(2) English majors are highly dependent on modals, complement clauses controlled by stance verbs and rarely on simple lexical verbs and multi-word verbs to convey their stance.(3) As for the use of complement clauses controlled by stance verbs, English majors frequently use the structure "stance verb+that-clause" yet rarely use the structure "stance verb+to-clause".(4) From the semantic perspective, complement clauses controlled by stance verbs are the most frequently used to convey English majors' epistemic and style stance. Additionally, they usually use simple lexical verbs to express their attitudinal stance.(5) The overused and underused stance verbs co-exist in English majors'argumentations by comparison with specific stance verbs in model argumentations. For example,"can","will","think" and "know" are overused while "believe" and "hold" are underused in English majors'argumentations.
In addition, the author of this thesis will investigate the67English majors'responses to items in the questionnaire so as to track down the root of features of stance verbs in their argumentations. The questionnaire mainly involves three aspects:students'attitude towards argumentative writing, their knowledge of stance markers in argumentations and their comments on argumentative writing teaching and learning. The analyses of the results of the questionnaire display:(1)38.46%of subjects never do any argumentative writing practice besides assignments. And75.38%of them hold the improvement of argumentative writing proficiency aims to get a good job or pass the examination. These results show they do not pay much attention to argumentative writing.(2)66.15%of subjects know a little about stance. Moreover,56.92%of them frequently use "think","know","know that" or "think that" to express their stance and rarely use such stance verbs as "hold","advocate" or "suppose", which is explained by subjects that50.77%of them know the meanings of those stance verbs but don't know how they are used in argumentation.(3) Of subjects,29%suggest teachers should introduce the knowledge of stance markers in detail to students and offer a large number of instances;41.69%hope teachers show model argumentations on different types of stance markers.
On the basis of the above findings, the author offers four suggestions for argumentative writing teaching:promoting English majors'realization of English argumentative writing, encouraging students to build the link between specific words and context, systematically introducing the knowledge of stance to students, offering numerous stance words, instances and more exercises about stance.
引文
[1]Capone, A. Modal Adverbs and Discourse. In Leo Francis Hoye(Ed.), "You may think that; I couldn't possibly comment!" Modality Studies:Contemporary Research and Future Directions. Part II [J]. Journal of Pragmatics,2005:1483-1485.
[2]Baratta, A. M. Revealing Stance through Passive Voice [J]. Journal of Pragmatics,2009: 1406-1421.
[3]Barbiers, S., Beukema, F., van der Wurff, W. Modality and Its Interaction with the Verbal System [M]. John Benjamins, Amsterdam,2002:51-73.
[4]Biber et al. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English [M]. Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press,1999:972-975.
[5]Biber, D. & E. Finnegan. Adverbial Stance Types in English [J]. Discourse Processes, 1988:1-34.
[6]Biber, D. & E. Finnegan. Styles of Stance in English:Lexical and Grammatical Markings of Evidentiality and Affect [J]. Text,1989:39-124.
[7]Biber, D. Stance in Spoken and Written University Registers [J]. Journal of English for Academic Purposes,2006:97-116.
[8]Brown, H. D. Principles of Language Learning and Teaching (3rd edition) [M]. Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press,2009:153-169.
[9]Dunn, C. D. Information Structure and Discourse Stance in a Monologic "Public Speaking" Register of Japanese [J]. Journal of Pragmatics,2010:1890-1911.
[10]Ifantidou Elly. The Semantics and Pragmatics of Metadiscourse [J]. Journal of Pragmatics,2005:1325-1353.
[11]Dafouz-Miline, E. The Pragmatic Role of Textual and Interpersonal Metadiscourse Markers in the Construction and Attainment of Persusion:A Cross-linguistic Study of Newspaper Discourse [J]. Journal of Pragmatics,2008:95-113.
[12]Facchinetti, Roberta, Krug, etc. (eds.). Modality in Contemporary English [C]. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin and New York,2003:331-348.
[13]Fairclough, N. Stance Mood in Spoken English:Attitude, Emotion and Evidentiality in British and American Conversation in Discourse and Social Change [J]. Malden, MA: Blackwell,1992:137-169.
[14]Lakoff George. Hedges:A Study in Meaning Criteria and the Logic of Fuzzy Concepts.Edited by Peranteau, P., J. Levi, and G. Phares. [C]. Papers from the English Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society,1972:183-228.
[15]Guangwei Hu & Feng Cao. Hedging and Boosting in Abstracts of Applied Linguistics Articles:A Comparative Study of English-and Chinese-medium Journals [J]. Journal of Pragmatics,2011:2795-2809.
[16]Halliday, M. A. K. (Revised by Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen). An Introduction to Functional Grammar (3rd ed.) [M]. London:Arnold,2004.
[17]Halliday, M. A. K. An Introduction to Functional Grammar (2nd ed.) [M]. London:A Hodder Arnold Publication,1994:106-158.
[18]Halliday, M. A. K. Language as Social Semiotics [M]. London:Arnold,1978:60-128.
[19]Harris, Z. Papers in Structural and TranNFormational Linguistics [J]. Dordrecht, Holland:D. Reidel,1970.
[20]Stotesbury Hilkka. Evaluation in Research Article Abstracts in the Narrative and Hard Sciences [J]. Journal of Pragmatics,2003:327-341.
[21]Hunston, S. & G. Thompson. Evaluation in Text:Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse [M]. Oxford:OUP,2000:1-26.
[22]Hunston, S. Evaluation and Organization in a Sample of Written Academic Discourse. In M. Coulthard (Ed.), Advances in Written Text Analysis [M]. London:Routledge,1994: 191-219.
[23]Jef Verschueren. Understanding Pragmatics [M]. London:Arnold,1999:46-105.
[24]Hyland, K. & P. Tse. Metadiscourse in Academic Writing:A Reappraisal [J]. Applied Linguistics,2004:156-177.
[25]Hyland, K. Disciplinary Interactions:Metadiscourse in L2 Postgraduate Writing[J]. Journal of Second Language Writing,2004:133-151.
[26]Hyland, K. Persuasion and Context:The Pragmatics of Academic Metadiscourse[J]. Journal of Pragmatics,1998:437-455.
[27]Hyland, K. Persuasion and Context:The Pragmatics of Academic Metadicourse [J]. Journal of Pragmatics,1998:437-455.
[28]Hyland, K. Stance and Engagement:A Model of Interaction in Academic Discourse[J]. Discourse Studies,2005:173-191.
[29]Hyland, K. Talking to the Academy:Forms of Hedging in Scientific Research Articles [J]. Written Communication,1996:241-281.
[30]Hoye Leo Francis. "You may think that; I couldn't possibly comment!" Modality Studies: Contemporary Research and Future Directions. Part I [J]. Journal of Pragmatics,2005: 1295-1321.
[31]Hoye Leo Francis. "You may think that; I couldn't possibly comment!" Modality Studies: Contemporary Research and Future Directions. Part II [J]. Journal of Pragmatics,2005: 1481-1506.
[32]Charles Maggie.'This mystery...':a Corpus-based Study of the Use of Nouns to Construct Stance in These from Two Contrasting Disciplines [J]. Journal of English for Academic Purposes,2003:313-326.
[33]Carretero Marta. Book Review of Epistemic Stance in English Conversation [J]. Journal of Pragmatics,2006:1352-1356.
[34]Martin, J. R. Beyond Exchange:Appraisal System in English. In Thompson, Geoff, Hunston, etc. (eds.), Evaluation in Text:Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse [C]. Oxford University Press,2000:1-28.
[35]Stirk Nick. A Winning Approach to TEM 4 Writing [M]. Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press,2009:30-202.
[36]Stirk Nick.100 Topics for TEM 4 Writing [M]. Foreign Language Press,2009:2-20.
[37]Ochs, E. Cultural Universals in the Acquisition of Language:Keynote Address [J]. Papers and Reports on Child Language Development,1990:1-19.
[38]Palmer, F. R. Mood and Modality [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1986: 24-40.
[39]Gillaerts, P. & Freek Van de Velde. Interactional Metadiscourse in Research Article Abstracts [J]. Journal of English for Academic Purposes,2010:128-139.
[40]Pedro A. Fuertes-Olivera, Mariso Velasco-Sacristan, Ascension Arribas-Bano, etc. Persuasion and Advertising English:Metadiscourse in Slogans and Headlines [J]. Journal of Pragmatics,2001:1291-1307.
[41]Peichin Chang & Mary Schleppegrell. Taking an Effective Authorial Stance in Academic Writing:Making the Linguistic Resources Explicit for L2 Writers in the Social Sciences [J]. Journal of English for Academic Purposes,2011:140-151.
[42]Crompton, P. Hedging in Academic Writing:Some Theoretical Problems [J]. English for Specific Purposes,1997:271-287.
[43]Shaw, P. Book Review of Hedging in Scientific Research Articles [J]. English for Specific Purposes,2001:195-203.
[44]Prince, Ellen F., J. Frader, and C. Bosk. On Hedging in Physician-physician discourse [J]. Norwood, New Jersey. Ablex Publishing Corporation,1982:83-97.
[45]Intaraprawat, P. & Steffensen, M. S. The Use of Metadiscourse in Good and Poor ESL Essays [J]. Journal of Second Language Writing,1995:253-272.
[46]Regan, S. L & R. Hopper. Alignment in the Job Interview [J]. Journal of Applied Communication Research,1981:85-103.
[47]Huddleston, R. & Pullum, G. K. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2002:71-213.
[48]Berman, R. A. Introduction:Developing Discourse Stance in Different Text Types and Languages [J]. Journal of Pragmatics,2004:105-124.
[49]Salager-Meyer, Francoise. Hedges and Textual Communicative Function in Medical English Written Discourse [J]. English for Specific Purposes,1994:149-170.
[50]Schiffrin, D. Metatalk. Organizational and Evaluative Brackets in Discourse [J]. Sociological Inquiry:Language and Social Interaction,1980:199-236.
[51]Dahl, T. Textual Metadiscourse in Research Articles:A Marker of National Culture or of Academic Discipline[J]. Journal of Pragmatics,2004:1807-1825.
[52]Kopple, W. J. Some Explanatory Discourse on Metadiscourse [J]. College Composition and Communication,1985:81-93.
[53]Chafe, W. L. & Nichols, J. Evidentiality:the Linguistic Coding of Epistemology [M]. New Jersey:Ablex Publishing Corporation,1986:261-272.
[54]Wiiliams, J. W. Syle:Ten Lessons in Clarity and Grace [J]. Glenview, IL:Scott, Foresman,1981.
[55]William Labov. Sociolinguistic Patterns [M]. Philadelphia:University of Pennsylvania Press,1972:183-259.
[56]Wunderlich, D. Foundations of Linguistics [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1979:195-255.
[57]蔡虹.广告英语中的评价性语用指示词研究[J].河南：解放军外国语学院学报,2005(2)：6-1].
[58]曹蕾.基于语料库的政治语篇立场状语研究[D].上海：上海交通大学,2008.
[59]陈国亭,兰巧玲.形容词评价句的语言内涵[J].黑龙江：外语学刊,2004(6)：59-62.
[60]董俊虹.大学生英语写作中语篇衔接与连贯的错误分析[J].陕西：外语教学,1999(1)：83-86.
[61]何安平,黄学梅.英语教材话语的立场标记语探究[J].上海：当代外语研究,2011(3)：10-17.
[62]何自然.模糊限制语与言语交际[J].上海：上海外国语学院学报,1985(5)：27-31.
[63]黑玉琴,黑玉芬.抽象名词在英语学术语篇中的评价功能[J].陕西：外语教学,2011(6)：37-41.
[64]蒋跃,陶梅.英汉医学论文讨论部分中模糊限制语的对比研究[J].黑龙江：外语学刊,2007(6)：115-122.
[65]李雪.中国学术语篇中立场标记语使用特征研究[D].辽宁：大连海事大学,2010.
[66]李战子.情态-从句子到语篇的推广[J].黑龙江：外语学刊,2000(4)：7-12.
[67]李战子.学术话语中认知型情态的多重人际意义[J].河南：外语教学与研究,2001(5)：353-400.
[68]刘胡蝶.基于语料库的学术写作中话语立场建构的对比研究[D].北京：对外经济贸易大学,2007.
[69]刘润清,戴曼纯.中国高校外语教学改革现状与发展策略研究[M].北京：外语教学与研究,2003：333-350.
[70]龙满英,许家金.大学生英汉同题议论文中立场标记的对比研究[J].辽宁：外语与外语教学,2010(3)：21-24.
[71]孟宁.基于语料库的名词模式中的立场构建对比分析[D].河南：河南师范大学,2008.
[72]米春霞.英语专四10年真题胜经(第二版)[M].北京：外语教学与研究出版社,2011.
[73]苗宝明.写作中模糊语的运用[J].黑龙江：东北林业大学学报,1989(8)：67-69.
[74]莫俊华.中国学生在议论文写作中使用因果连接词的语料库研究[J].陕西：外语教学,2005(5)：45-50.
[75]王立非,马会军.基于语料库的中国学生英语演讲话语立场构块研究[J].北京：外语教学与研 究,2009(5)：365-370.
[76]王学文.英汉信息结构对比及对英语写作教学的启示[J].黑龙江：黑龙江高教研究,2007(9)：184-186.
[77]王学文.主述位理论对英语写作连贯的启示-以英语专业四级作文为例[J].黑龙江：外语学刊,2010(2)：103-106.
[78]吴格奇,潘春雷.汉语学术论文中作者立场标记语研究[J].北京：语言教学与研究,2010(3)：91-96.
[79]吴格奇.英汉研究论文结论部分作者立场标记语对比研究[J].陕西：西安外国语大学学报,2010(4)：46-50.
[80]吴飒.听力理解中元语篇的作用及其与话题熟悉度和语言水平的关系[J].辽宁：外语与外语教学,2010(6)：57-61.
[81]吴秀芳.谈模糊语与大学英语写作教学[J].山东：中国成人教育,2005(5)：81-82.
[82]徐海铭,潘海燕.元语篇的理论和实证研究综述[J].上海：外国语,2005(6)：54-61.
[83]徐余龙.对比语言学(第二版)[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社,2010：35-43.
[84]晏尚元.英语专业学生议论文写作中因果连接词使用的语料库研究[J].山东：山东外语教学,2009(5)：75-80.
[85]杨信彰.语篇中的评价性手段[J].辽宁：外语与外语教学,2003(1)：11-14.
[86]于万锁.英语语篇交际的理论与实践[M].上海：上海科学技术出版社,2007：100-119.
[87]赵晓临,卫乃兴.中国大学生英语书面语中的态度立场表达[J].江苏：外语研究,2010(1)：59-63.
[88]赵晓临.中国英语学习者中介语中的立场副词研究[J].河南：解放军外国语学院学报,2009(5)：54-59.
[2]Baratta, A. M. Revealing Stance through Passive Voice [J]. Journal of Pragmatics,2009: 1406-1421.
[3]Barbiers, S., Beukema, F., van der Wurff, W. Modality and Its Interaction with the Verbal System [M]. John Benjamins, Amsterdam,2002:51-73.
[4]Biber et al. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English [M]. Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press,1999:972-975.
[5]Biber, D. & E. Finnegan. Adverbial Stance Types in English [J]. Discourse Processes, 1988:1-34.
[6]Biber, D. & E. Finnegan. Styles of Stance in English:Lexical and Grammatical Markings of Evidentiality and Affect [J]. Text,1989:39-124.
[7]Biber, D. Stance in Spoken and Written University Registers [J]. Journal of English for Academic Purposes,2006:97-116.
[8]Brown, H. D. Principles of Language Learning and Teaching (3rd edition) [M]. Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press,2009:153-169.
[9]Dunn, C. D. Information Structure and Discourse Stance in a Monologic "Public Speaking" Register of Japanese [J]. Journal of Pragmatics,2010:1890-1911.
[10]Ifantidou Elly. The Semantics and Pragmatics of Metadiscourse [J]. Journal of Pragmatics,2005:1325-1353.
[11]Dafouz-Miline, E. The Pragmatic Role of Textual and Interpersonal Metadiscourse Markers in the Construction and Attainment of Persusion:A Cross-linguistic Study of Newspaper Discourse [J]. Journal of Pragmatics,2008:95-113.
[12]Facchinetti, Roberta, Krug, etc. (eds.). Modality in Contemporary English [C]. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin and New York,2003:331-348.
[13]Fairclough, N. Stance Mood in Spoken English:Attitude, Emotion and Evidentiality in British and American Conversation in Discourse and Social Change [J]. Malden, MA: Blackwell,1992:137-169.
[14]Lakoff George. Hedges:A Study in Meaning Criteria and the Logic of Fuzzy Concepts.Edited by Peranteau, P., J. Levi, and G. Phares. [C]. Papers from the English Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society,1972:183-228.
[15]Guangwei Hu & Feng Cao. Hedging and Boosting in Abstracts of Applied Linguistics Articles:A Comparative Study of English-and Chinese-medium Journals [J]. Journal of Pragmatics,2011:2795-2809.
[16]Halliday, M. A. K. (Revised by Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen). An Introduction to Functional Grammar (3rd ed.) [M]. London:Arnold,2004.
[17]Halliday, M. A. K. An Introduction to Functional Grammar (2nd ed.) [M]. London:A Hodder Arnold Publication,1994:106-158.
[18]Halliday, M. A. K. Language as Social Semiotics [M]. London:Arnold,1978:60-128.
[19]Harris, Z. Papers in Structural and TranNFormational Linguistics [J]. Dordrecht, Holland:D. Reidel,1970.
[20]Stotesbury Hilkka. Evaluation in Research Article Abstracts in the Narrative and Hard Sciences [J]. Journal of Pragmatics,2003:327-341.
[21]Hunston, S. & G. Thompson. Evaluation in Text:Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse [M]. Oxford:OUP,2000:1-26.
[22]Hunston, S. Evaluation and Organization in a Sample of Written Academic Discourse. In M. Coulthard (Ed.), Advances in Written Text Analysis [M]. London:Routledge,1994: 191-219.
[23]Jef Verschueren. Understanding Pragmatics [M]. London:Arnold,1999:46-105.
[24]Hyland, K. & P. Tse. Metadiscourse in Academic Writing:A Reappraisal [J]. Applied Linguistics,2004:156-177.
[25]Hyland, K. Disciplinary Interactions:Metadiscourse in L2 Postgraduate Writing[J]. Journal of Second Language Writing,2004:133-151.
[26]Hyland, K. Persuasion and Context:The Pragmatics of Academic Metadiscourse[J]. Journal of Pragmatics,1998:437-455.
[27]Hyland, K. Persuasion and Context:The Pragmatics of Academic Metadicourse [J]. Journal of Pragmatics,1998:437-455.
[28]Hyland, K. Stance and Engagement:A Model of Interaction in Academic Discourse[J]. Discourse Studies,2005:173-191.
[29]Hyland, K. Talking to the Academy:Forms of Hedging in Scientific Research Articles [J]. Written Communication,1996:241-281.
[30]Hoye Leo Francis. "You may think that; I couldn't possibly comment!" Modality Studies: Contemporary Research and Future Directions. Part I [J]. Journal of Pragmatics,2005: 1295-1321.
[31]Hoye Leo Francis. "You may think that; I couldn't possibly comment!" Modality Studies: Contemporary Research and Future Directions. Part II [J]. Journal of Pragmatics,2005: 1481-1506.
[32]Charles Maggie.'This mystery...':a Corpus-based Study of the Use of Nouns to Construct Stance in These from Two Contrasting Disciplines [J]. Journal of English for Academic Purposes,2003:313-326.
[33]Carretero Marta. Book Review of Epistemic Stance in English Conversation [J]. Journal of Pragmatics,2006:1352-1356.
[34]Martin, J. R. Beyond Exchange:Appraisal System in English. In Thompson, Geoff, Hunston, etc. (eds.), Evaluation in Text:Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse [C]. Oxford University Press,2000:1-28.
[35]Stirk Nick. A Winning Approach to TEM 4 Writing [M]. Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press,2009:30-202.
[36]Stirk Nick.100 Topics for TEM 4 Writing [M]. Foreign Language Press,2009:2-20.
[37]Ochs, E. Cultural Universals in the Acquisition of Language:Keynote Address [J]. Papers and Reports on Child Language Development,1990:1-19.
[38]Palmer, F. R. Mood and Modality [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1986: 24-40.
[39]Gillaerts, P. & Freek Van de Velde. Interactional Metadiscourse in Research Article Abstracts [J]. Journal of English for Academic Purposes,2010:128-139.
[40]Pedro A. Fuertes-Olivera, Mariso Velasco-Sacristan, Ascension Arribas-Bano, etc. Persuasion and Advertising English:Metadiscourse in Slogans and Headlines [J]. Journal of Pragmatics,2001:1291-1307.
[41]Peichin Chang & Mary Schleppegrell. Taking an Effective Authorial Stance in Academic Writing:Making the Linguistic Resources Explicit for L2 Writers in the Social Sciences [J]. Journal of English for Academic Purposes,2011:140-151.
[42]Crompton, P. Hedging in Academic Writing:Some Theoretical Problems [J]. English for Specific Purposes,1997:271-287.
[43]Shaw, P. Book Review of Hedging in Scientific Research Articles [J]. English for Specific Purposes,2001:195-203.
[44]Prince, Ellen F., J. Frader, and C. Bosk. On Hedging in Physician-physician discourse [J]. Norwood, New Jersey. Ablex Publishing Corporation,1982:83-97.
[45]Intaraprawat, P. & Steffensen, M. S. The Use of Metadiscourse in Good and Poor ESL Essays [J]. Journal of Second Language Writing,1995:253-272.
[46]Regan, S. L & R. Hopper. Alignment in the Job Interview [J]. Journal of Applied Communication Research,1981:85-103.
[47]Huddleston, R. & Pullum, G. K. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2002:71-213.
[48]Berman, R. A. Introduction:Developing Discourse Stance in Different Text Types and Languages [J]. Journal of Pragmatics,2004:105-124.
[49]Salager-Meyer, Francoise. Hedges and Textual Communicative Function in Medical English Written Discourse [J]. English for Specific Purposes,1994:149-170.
[50]Schiffrin, D. Metatalk. Organizational and Evaluative Brackets in Discourse [J]. Sociological Inquiry:Language and Social Interaction,1980:199-236.
[51]Dahl, T. Textual Metadiscourse in Research Articles:A Marker of National Culture or of Academic Discipline[J]. Journal of Pragmatics,2004:1807-1825.
[52]Kopple, W. J. Some Explanatory Discourse on Metadiscourse [J]. College Composition and Communication,1985:81-93.
[53]Chafe, W. L. & Nichols, J. Evidentiality:the Linguistic Coding of Epistemology [M]. New Jersey:Ablex Publishing Corporation,1986:261-272.
[54]Wiiliams, J. W. Syle:Ten Lessons in Clarity and Grace [J]. Glenview, IL:Scott, Foresman,1981.
[55]William Labov. Sociolinguistic Patterns [M]. Philadelphia:University of Pennsylvania Press,1972:183-259.
[56]Wunderlich, D. Foundations of Linguistics [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1979:195-255.
[57]蔡虹.广告英语中的评价性语用指示词研究[J].河南：解放军外国语学院学报,2005(2)：6-1].
[58]曹蕾.基于语料库的政治语篇立场状语研究[D].上海：上海交通大学,2008.
[59]陈国亭,兰巧玲.形容词评价句的语言内涵[J].黑龙江：外语学刊,2004(6)：59-62.
[60]董俊虹.大学生英语写作中语篇衔接与连贯的错误分析[J].陕西：外语教学,1999(1)：83-86.
[61]何安平,黄学梅.英语教材话语的立场标记语探究[J].上海：当代外语研究,2011(3)：10-17.
[62]何自然.模糊限制语与言语交际[J].上海：上海外国语学院学报,1985(5)：27-31.
[63]黑玉琴,黑玉芬.抽象名词在英语学术语篇中的评价功能[J].陕西：外语教学,2011(6)：37-41.
[64]蒋跃,陶梅.英汉医学论文讨论部分中模糊限制语的对比研究[J].黑龙江：外语学刊,2007(6)：115-122.
[65]李雪.中国学术语篇中立场标记语使用特征研究[D].辽宁：大连海事大学,2010.
[66]李战子.情态-从句子到语篇的推广[J].黑龙江：外语学刊,2000(4)：7-12.
[67]李战子.学术话语中认知型情态的多重人际意义[J].河南：外语教学与研究,2001(5)：353-400.
[68]刘胡蝶.基于语料库的学术写作中话语立场建构的对比研究[D].北京：对外经济贸易大学,2007.
[69]刘润清,戴曼纯.中国高校外语教学改革现状与发展策略研究[M].北京：外语教学与研究,2003：333-350.
[70]龙满英,许家金.大学生英汉同题议论文中立场标记的对比研究[J].辽宁：外语与外语教学,2010(3)：21-24.
[71]孟宁.基于语料库的名词模式中的立场构建对比分析[D].河南：河南师范大学,2008.
[72]米春霞.英语专四10年真题胜经(第二版)[M].北京：外语教学与研究出版社,2011.
[73]苗宝明.写作中模糊语的运用[J].黑龙江：东北林业大学学报,1989(8)：67-69.
[74]莫俊华.中国学生在议论文写作中使用因果连接词的语料库研究[J].陕西：外语教学,2005(5)：45-50.
[75]王立非,马会军.基于语料库的中国学生英语演讲话语立场构块研究[J].北京：外语教学与研 究,2009(5)：365-370.
[76]王学文.英汉信息结构对比及对英语写作教学的启示[J].黑龙江：黑龙江高教研究,2007(9)：184-186.
[77]王学文.主述位理论对英语写作连贯的启示-以英语专业四级作文为例[J].黑龙江：外语学刊,2010(2)：103-106.
[78]吴格奇,潘春雷.汉语学术论文中作者立场标记语研究[J].北京：语言教学与研究,2010(3)：91-96.
[79]吴格奇.英汉研究论文结论部分作者立场标记语对比研究[J].陕西：西安外国语大学学报,2010(4)：46-50.
[80]吴飒.听力理解中元语篇的作用及其与话题熟悉度和语言水平的关系[J].辽宁：外语与外语教学,2010(6)：57-61.
[81]吴秀芳.谈模糊语与大学英语写作教学[J].山东：中国成人教育,2005(5)：81-82.
[82]徐海铭,潘海燕.元语篇的理论和实证研究综述[J].上海：外国语,2005(6)：54-61.
[83]徐余龙.对比语言学(第二版)[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社,2010：35-43.
[84]晏尚元.英语专业学生议论文写作中因果连接词使用的语料库研究[J].山东：山东外语教学,2009(5)：75-80.
[85]杨信彰.语篇中的评价性手段[J].辽宁：外语与外语教学,2003(1)：11-14.
[86]于万锁.英语语篇交际的理论与实践[M].上海：上海科学技术出版社,2007：100-119.
[87]赵晓临,卫乃兴.中国大学生英语书面语中的态度立场表达[J].江苏：外语研究,2010(1)：59-63.
[88]赵晓临.中国英语学习者中介语中的立场副词研究[J].河南：解放军外国语学院学报,2009(5)：54-59.