英语学术讲座话语的评价及其语类结构
|
摘要
评价,作为一种普遍的社会现象,指说话者/作者对待自己所言及的实体或者命题的态度。鉴于评价现象在语言交际中的普遍性和重要性,学者们从各种视角、运用各种方法对其进行了描写和解释。其中影响最大的是Martin等人在系统功能语言学框架下建立起来的评价理论。该理论有三大系统,分别为态度、介入和级差,它们在语篇语义层面表达人际意义。评价系统由于其可操作性高、系统性强的特点,目前已被广泛应用于分析各种语类的评价特征。
英语学术讲座指演讲者以英语为媒介、就专业课或某个专题在大学校园内所进行的学术演讲。目前国内外有关该语类的研究主要从以下三个方面进行：讲座理解过程、讲座话语和讲座输入变量。其中有关讲座话语的研究近年来很受重视,主要偏向于语篇的宏观结构和微观特征的描写。话语是一种动态的意义协商过程,包括语篇的生产和理解。要了解英语学术讲座话语的本质,就有必要考察演讲者和听众之间的互动特征。
本研究以系统功能语言学为理论基础,其目的是在评价系统的框架内研究英语学术讲座话语的评价及其语类结构。因此,本研究主要回答以下三个的问题：(1)评价资源在英语学术讲座话语中的分布规律及其原因是什么?(2)评价资源是如何体现演讲者和听众之间的互动关系的?(3)英语学术讲座话语的语类结构及其评价特征是什么?
本研究采用基于语料库的量化研究方法,所采用的语料是来自外语教学与研究出版社出版的六名世界著名认知语言学家在北京几所高校中所作的30场讲座的录音转写稿。通过深入研究,有以下发现：
第一,从介入系统来看,对话性收缩资源的使用频率远高于对话性扩展,表明英语学术讲座是主观性相对较强的语类,演讲者更愿意缩小对话空间,否定或者反对或者修正持不同意见者的观点,而主要不是扩展对话空间。在对话性扩展资源中,接纳远高于归属,说明演讲者更愿意为命题负责,他们多从自己的角度来表达对命题的一种可能的立场,但较少引用来自外部声音的观点。英语学术讲座话语的一个突出特征是演讲者极少使用疏远资源,表明演讲者一般不愿将自已与所表述的命题之间的距离拉大,以免使其变得可疑。从态度系统来看,鉴赏资源远远多于判断和情感资源,其中判断资源最少。这种分布特征与英语学术讲座话语的语场密切相关。本研究中的英语学术讲座都是认知语言学方向的,演讲者注重的是对语言现象或者观点的评价,通过使用鉴赏资源,可以使听众把握重点和难点；就判断而言,演讲者讨论的是语言的认知规律或者现象,一般不会对人类行为作出表扬或者谴责；就情感而言,由于讲座是为了传递语言科学信息,一般和演讲者的情感无关。态度资源在本研究语料中的分布规律表明在英语学术讲座话语中只有两种基调,即通讯员声音和评论员声音,没有记者声音。这同样证明英语学术讲座话语是一种相对主观的语类：演讲者扮演的不是一个客观的、不偏不倚的信息传递者,他们运用各种态度手段表明自己的立场,以争取听众的立场,和听众形成一致关系。在级差资源使用上,演讲者倾向于使用语势资源,其子系统强化资源往往被用来对态度意义进行调节,级上升强化资源可以增强演讲者对命题的投入程度,缩小对话空间,而级下降强化资源可以减少演讲者对命题的投入程度,扩展对话空间。同属于聚焦资源的锐化和柔化的评价功能分别和级上升和级下降强化资源类似。
第二,英语学术讲座话语的语类结构可表征为15个相,分布于3个片段之中。其中提出讲座分话题/研究问题和论述分话题/研究问题是必要成分,提出讲座主题和概述讲座主题两个相必须出现其中之一。从语类来看,每个阶段的目标都可以由相应的相去体现。每个相都体现着说话者/作者一定的意图或者目的,这种意图或目的对整个语篇来说是一种修辞效果。我们将这种修辞效果看成是语篇结构成分的评价意义,隶属于语类层面。该种评价制约语域层面演讲者和听众之间的关系。从语旨来看,演讲者和听众在15个相中的角色不是一成不变的。在英语学术讲座话语中,演讲者与听众之间主要表现为一致关系。每个相都充满了各种评价资源,这些评价资源使演讲者和听众之间的一致关系得以实现。另外,演讲者通过策略性地使用评价资源可以使权力关系转化为一致关系。
第三,演讲者和听众的互动方式表明,语旨的两个变量,即权力和一致关系,两者之间不是非此即彼的关系,在一定条件下可以相互转化。这种转化主要通过调节对事物或者命题的投入得以实现。从系统功能语言学的层次理论来看,在上的层次制约在下的层次的意义选择,但是英语学术讲座话语中演讲者和听众之间的互动方式表明,在一定语境下,在下的层次的选择会产生变异,这种变异可以影响在上的层次的系统关系。
本研究主要有以下三个方面的启示：
首先,本研究可以为高校教学提供重要参考。随着国际学术交流活动的逐步推广,英语学术讲座必将成为高校教学的重要形式。目前由于教学设备和学生英语技能的不断提高,学术听力已不成为主要障碍。而如何说服听众,站到自己的学术立场应成为演讲者要考虑的重要因素。英语学术讲座话语中评价意义的配置方式及其在词汇语法层面的一些典型体现方式可以为演讲者使用评价资源提供重要依据；另外,英语学术讲座话语的语类结构潜势表达式可以为演讲者实现语类目的提供具体可行的步骤。
第二,本研究是专门针对语言学学科的英语学术讲座话语评价意义的研究,其评价对象、评价者都有自身的特征,这些特征对英语学术讲座话语的一些评价资源的判定和评价资源的配置都产生了重要影响。因此,本研究将评价理论的应用进一步细化的同时,也在一定程度上补充了评价理论。
第三,本研究从评价的视角详细地探讨了语类层面的评价意义及其体现方式,将评价概念扩展到语类层,进一丰富了评价研究。另外,本研究对系统功能语言学的层次思想作了一定的补充。
Evaluation, as a universal social phenomenon, refers to the speakers'or writers' attitude or stance towards the opinions, or feelings about the entities or propositions that they are talking of. In view of the importance and universality of evaluation in common language communications, a number of scholars have engaged themselves in describing and explaining it from various perspectives. The most influential approach to evaluation is appraisal theory developed by Martin and his colleagues on the ground of Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL). Appraisal theory is built around three systems:attitude, engagement and graduation, all of which express the interpersonal meaning on the stratum of discourse semantics. Being highly operational and systematic, appraisal theory has been widely applied to the analysis of evaluative characteristics in different kinds of genres.
Academic lecture discourse in English (ALDE) refers to the lecture that is delivered in English on a professional course or a special subject in Universities. Most of the researches conducted in this area so far, have mainly involved three aspects:the lecture comprehension process, lecture discourse, and lecture input variables. Recently, it is lecture discourse that has received increasing attention. However, most of the studies have focused on the description of macro-structure and micro-features. Discourse is a dynamic process of meaning negotiation, including the production and reception of a text. Consequently, it is necessary to investigate the interaction between the lecturer and the audience if we want to capture the essence of ALDE.
Based on SFL, the present study aims to explore evaluation and generic structure within the appraisal frame, and is supposed to answer the following three questions:(1) How evaluative resources are distributed across ALDE, and what are the reasons?(2) How do evaluative resources realize the interaction between the speaker and the audience?(3) What is the generic structure of ALDE and its evaluative characteristics?
The research is corpus-illustrated and the data are collected from the transcriptions of30lectures made by the world-renowned cognitive linguists and published by Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press. After careful and thorough study, the research arrives at the three main conclusions:
First, in terms of engagement, contraction resources are used much more frequently than expansion resources, indicating that the lecturer tends to narrow down the dialogic space, denying or reformulating those different opinions, rather than open it up. In terms of expansion resources, entertainment enjoys much higher proportions, indicating that the lecturer would rather express the opinion from an inner voice. One salient characteristic of ALDE is its rare use of distance resource, which is a manifestation of the lecturer's unwillingness to distance himself from the proposition so as not to make it unreliable. In terms of attitude, resources for appreciation appear much more frequently than that of judgment or affection, which can be attributed to field. Since the materials in this study are all about linguistics, the lecturers are usually concerned with the linguistic phenomenon, rather than the moral of people. The distribution of attitudinal resources also proves that ALDE is a relatively subjective genre. There are only two voices:commentator's voice and correspondent's voice. The lecturer tends to explicitly express his own position for the purpose of establishing solidarity and alignment with the audience. In terms of graduation, the lecturer prefers the force resources, which are usually in the form of upgrading. In this way, the lecturer is able to increase his or her commitment to the proposition so as to narrow down the dialogic space. Sharpen and soften resources perform their respective functions in the same way as upgrading and downgrading resources do.
Secondly, the generic structure of ALDE contains15phase distributed across3periods. Only two phases are obligatory:raising sub-topic of lecture/research questions, and explaining sub-topic of lecture/research questions. In each lecture, at least one of the two phases, raising the theme and sketching the theme, must appear. In terms of genre, the goal at every stage can be realized by the corresponding phase. Each phase realizes the speakers'/writers' intention or purpose, which can be seen as the rhetorical effect of the discourse and is defined as evaluation of the phase, a kind of evaluation belonging to the genre stratum. It shall influence the relationship between the lecturer and the audience. In terms of tenor, the role that the lecturer and the audience play is not fixed. Each phase is loaded with all kinds of evaluative resources realizing solidarity between the lecturer and the audience. Besides, the lecturer can change the power relation into that of solidarity by strategic use of appraisal resources.
Thirdly, the mode of interaction between the audience and the lecturer indicates that there is no definite boundary between power and solidarity. Instead, they are interchangeable through the modulation of commitment to the thing or proposition. Besides, according to stratificational theory of SFL, the meaning choice made on upper stratum is in control of the meaning choice on the lower stratum. However, the mode of interaction between the audience and the lecturer suggests that there may be variation in the choice on the lower stratum, which may affect the system of the upper stratum.
The present study has important implications as follows:
First of all, the result of the study can offer important insights for higher education. With the widespread of international academic exchanges, ALDE is to become the major mode of instruction in higher education. Due to the improvement in both teaching facilities and students'English competence, academic listening is no longer a major problem. It is how to win over the audience that should be the lecturer's main concern. The typical lexical realization and the configuration of appraisal resources will provide the lecturer with important guidance in utilizing the appraisal resources. In addition, the generic structure formulation of ALDE will provide the lecturer with practical steps to follow.
Secondly, the present study selected a specific subject of ALDE, i.e., linguistics. The evaluator and thing evaluated of this subject shall exhibit subject-specific characteristics important to the identification and configuration of appraisal resources. Consequently, the present study has further refined the application of appraisal theory and complemented it to some extent.
Thirdly, the present study examined in detail evaluation and its realization on the generic stratum expanding the notion of evaluation to the generic stratum, and thus has further enriched the study of evaluation and stratification to a certain extent.
英语学术讲座指演讲者以英语为媒介、就专业课或某个专题在大学校园内所进行的学术演讲。目前国内外有关该语类的研究主要从以下三个方面进行：讲座理解过程、讲座话语和讲座输入变量。其中有关讲座话语的研究近年来很受重视,主要偏向于语篇的宏观结构和微观特征的描写。话语是一种动态的意义协商过程,包括语篇的生产和理解。要了解英语学术讲座话语的本质,就有必要考察演讲者和听众之间的互动特征。
本研究以系统功能语言学为理论基础,其目的是在评价系统的框架内研究英语学术讲座话语的评价及其语类结构。因此,本研究主要回答以下三个的问题：(1)评价资源在英语学术讲座话语中的分布规律及其原因是什么?(2)评价资源是如何体现演讲者和听众之间的互动关系的?(3)英语学术讲座话语的语类结构及其评价特征是什么?
本研究采用基于语料库的量化研究方法,所采用的语料是来自外语教学与研究出版社出版的六名世界著名认知语言学家在北京几所高校中所作的30场讲座的录音转写稿。通过深入研究,有以下发现：
第一,从介入系统来看,对话性收缩资源的使用频率远高于对话性扩展,表明英语学术讲座是主观性相对较强的语类,演讲者更愿意缩小对话空间,否定或者反对或者修正持不同意见者的观点,而主要不是扩展对话空间。在对话性扩展资源中,接纳远高于归属,说明演讲者更愿意为命题负责,他们多从自己的角度来表达对命题的一种可能的立场,但较少引用来自外部声音的观点。英语学术讲座话语的一个突出特征是演讲者极少使用疏远资源,表明演讲者一般不愿将自已与所表述的命题之间的距离拉大,以免使其变得可疑。从态度系统来看,鉴赏资源远远多于判断和情感资源,其中判断资源最少。这种分布特征与英语学术讲座话语的语场密切相关。本研究中的英语学术讲座都是认知语言学方向的,演讲者注重的是对语言现象或者观点的评价,通过使用鉴赏资源,可以使听众把握重点和难点；就判断而言,演讲者讨论的是语言的认知规律或者现象,一般不会对人类行为作出表扬或者谴责；就情感而言,由于讲座是为了传递语言科学信息,一般和演讲者的情感无关。态度资源在本研究语料中的分布规律表明在英语学术讲座话语中只有两种基调,即通讯员声音和评论员声音,没有记者声音。这同样证明英语学术讲座话语是一种相对主观的语类：演讲者扮演的不是一个客观的、不偏不倚的信息传递者,他们运用各种态度手段表明自己的立场,以争取听众的立场,和听众形成一致关系。在级差资源使用上,演讲者倾向于使用语势资源,其子系统强化资源往往被用来对态度意义进行调节,级上升强化资源可以增强演讲者对命题的投入程度,缩小对话空间,而级下降强化资源可以减少演讲者对命题的投入程度,扩展对话空间。同属于聚焦资源的锐化和柔化的评价功能分别和级上升和级下降强化资源类似。
第二,英语学术讲座话语的语类结构可表征为15个相,分布于3个片段之中。其中提出讲座分话题/研究问题和论述分话题/研究问题是必要成分,提出讲座主题和概述讲座主题两个相必须出现其中之一。从语类来看,每个阶段的目标都可以由相应的相去体现。每个相都体现着说话者/作者一定的意图或者目的,这种意图或目的对整个语篇来说是一种修辞效果。我们将这种修辞效果看成是语篇结构成分的评价意义,隶属于语类层面。该种评价制约语域层面演讲者和听众之间的关系。从语旨来看,演讲者和听众在15个相中的角色不是一成不变的。在英语学术讲座话语中,演讲者与听众之间主要表现为一致关系。每个相都充满了各种评价资源,这些评价资源使演讲者和听众之间的一致关系得以实现。另外,演讲者通过策略性地使用评价资源可以使权力关系转化为一致关系。
第三,演讲者和听众的互动方式表明,语旨的两个变量,即权力和一致关系,两者之间不是非此即彼的关系,在一定条件下可以相互转化。这种转化主要通过调节对事物或者命题的投入得以实现。从系统功能语言学的层次理论来看,在上的层次制约在下的层次的意义选择,但是英语学术讲座话语中演讲者和听众之间的互动方式表明,在一定语境下,在下的层次的选择会产生变异,这种变异可以影响在上的层次的系统关系。
本研究主要有以下三个方面的启示：
首先,本研究可以为高校教学提供重要参考。随着国际学术交流活动的逐步推广,英语学术讲座必将成为高校教学的重要形式。目前由于教学设备和学生英语技能的不断提高,学术听力已不成为主要障碍。而如何说服听众,站到自己的学术立场应成为演讲者要考虑的重要因素。英语学术讲座话语中评价意义的配置方式及其在词汇语法层面的一些典型体现方式可以为演讲者使用评价资源提供重要依据；另外,英语学术讲座话语的语类结构潜势表达式可以为演讲者实现语类目的提供具体可行的步骤。
第二,本研究是专门针对语言学学科的英语学术讲座话语评价意义的研究,其评价对象、评价者都有自身的特征,这些特征对英语学术讲座话语的一些评价资源的判定和评价资源的配置都产生了重要影响。因此,本研究将评价理论的应用进一步细化的同时,也在一定程度上补充了评价理论。
第三,本研究从评价的视角详细地探讨了语类层面的评价意义及其体现方式,将评价概念扩展到语类层,进一丰富了评价研究。另外,本研究对系统功能语言学的层次思想作了一定的补充。
Evaluation, as a universal social phenomenon, refers to the speakers'or writers' attitude or stance towards the opinions, or feelings about the entities or propositions that they are talking of. In view of the importance and universality of evaluation in common language communications, a number of scholars have engaged themselves in describing and explaining it from various perspectives. The most influential approach to evaluation is appraisal theory developed by Martin and his colleagues on the ground of Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL). Appraisal theory is built around three systems:attitude, engagement and graduation, all of which express the interpersonal meaning on the stratum of discourse semantics. Being highly operational and systematic, appraisal theory has been widely applied to the analysis of evaluative characteristics in different kinds of genres.
Academic lecture discourse in English (ALDE) refers to the lecture that is delivered in English on a professional course or a special subject in Universities. Most of the researches conducted in this area so far, have mainly involved three aspects:the lecture comprehension process, lecture discourse, and lecture input variables. Recently, it is lecture discourse that has received increasing attention. However, most of the studies have focused on the description of macro-structure and micro-features. Discourse is a dynamic process of meaning negotiation, including the production and reception of a text. Consequently, it is necessary to investigate the interaction between the lecturer and the audience if we want to capture the essence of ALDE.
Based on SFL, the present study aims to explore evaluation and generic structure within the appraisal frame, and is supposed to answer the following three questions:(1) How evaluative resources are distributed across ALDE, and what are the reasons?(2) How do evaluative resources realize the interaction between the speaker and the audience?(3) What is the generic structure of ALDE and its evaluative characteristics?
The research is corpus-illustrated and the data are collected from the transcriptions of30lectures made by the world-renowned cognitive linguists and published by Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press. After careful and thorough study, the research arrives at the three main conclusions:
First, in terms of engagement, contraction resources are used much more frequently than expansion resources, indicating that the lecturer tends to narrow down the dialogic space, denying or reformulating those different opinions, rather than open it up. In terms of expansion resources, entertainment enjoys much higher proportions, indicating that the lecturer would rather express the opinion from an inner voice. One salient characteristic of ALDE is its rare use of distance resource, which is a manifestation of the lecturer's unwillingness to distance himself from the proposition so as not to make it unreliable. In terms of attitude, resources for appreciation appear much more frequently than that of judgment or affection, which can be attributed to field. Since the materials in this study are all about linguistics, the lecturers are usually concerned with the linguistic phenomenon, rather than the moral of people. The distribution of attitudinal resources also proves that ALDE is a relatively subjective genre. There are only two voices:commentator's voice and correspondent's voice. The lecturer tends to explicitly express his own position for the purpose of establishing solidarity and alignment with the audience. In terms of graduation, the lecturer prefers the force resources, which are usually in the form of upgrading. In this way, the lecturer is able to increase his or her commitment to the proposition so as to narrow down the dialogic space. Sharpen and soften resources perform their respective functions in the same way as upgrading and downgrading resources do.
Secondly, the generic structure of ALDE contains15phase distributed across3periods. Only two phases are obligatory:raising sub-topic of lecture/research questions, and explaining sub-topic of lecture/research questions. In each lecture, at least one of the two phases, raising the theme and sketching the theme, must appear. In terms of genre, the goal at every stage can be realized by the corresponding phase. Each phase realizes the speakers'/writers' intention or purpose, which can be seen as the rhetorical effect of the discourse and is defined as evaluation of the phase, a kind of evaluation belonging to the genre stratum. It shall influence the relationship between the lecturer and the audience. In terms of tenor, the role that the lecturer and the audience play is not fixed. Each phase is loaded with all kinds of evaluative resources realizing solidarity between the lecturer and the audience. Besides, the lecturer can change the power relation into that of solidarity by strategic use of appraisal resources.
Thirdly, the mode of interaction between the audience and the lecturer indicates that there is no definite boundary between power and solidarity. Instead, they are interchangeable through the modulation of commitment to the thing or proposition. Besides, according to stratificational theory of SFL, the meaning choice made on upper stratum is in control of the meaning choice on the lower stratum. However, the mode of interaction between the audience and the lecturer suggests that there may be variation in the choice on the lower stratum, which may affect the system of the upper stratum.
The present study has important implications as follows:
First of all, the result of the study can offer important insights for higher education. With the widespread of international academic exchanges, ALDE is to become the major mode of instruction in higher education. Due to the improvement in both teaching facilities and students'English competence, academic listening is no longer a major problem. It is how to win over the audience that should be the lecturer's main concern. The typical lexical realization and the configuration of appraisal resources will provide the lecturer with important guidance in utilizing the appraisal resources. In addition, the generic structure formulation of ALDE will provide the lecturer with practical steps to follow.
Secondly, the present study selected a specific subject of ALDE, i.e., linguistics. The evaluator and thing evaluated of this subject shall exhibit subject-specific characteristics important to the identification and configuration of appraisal resources. Consequently, the present study has further refined the application of appraisal theory and complemented it to some extent.
Thirdly, the present study examined in detail evaluation and its realization on the generic stratum expanding the notion of evaluation to the generic stratum, and thus has further enriched the study of evaluation and stratification to a certain extent.
引文
Aguilar. M. (2008). Metadiscourse in academic speech. Bern:Peter Lang AG.
Aijmer. K. (1997). I think—an English modal particle. In T. Swan & O. Westvik (Eds). Modality in Germanic languages:Historical and comparative perspectives(pp. 1-47). Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Asher. R. E. (1994). The encyclopedia of language and linguistics. Oxford:Pergamon.
Austin, J. L. (1962) How to do things with words. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Bache, C. (2010). Hjelmslev's glossematics:A source of inspiration to Systemic Functional Linguistics? Journal of Pragmatics,42,2562-2578.
Bakhtin, M. (1973). Problems of Dostoevsky's poetics. Michigan:Ann Arbor.
Bakhtin, M. (1981). The dialogic imagination:Four essays. M. Hlquist (Ed.). C. Emerson & M. Holquist (trans.). Austin:University of Texas Press.
Bakhtin, M. (1986). The problem of speech genres. In V. W. McGee (trans.). Speech genres and other late essays (pp.60-101). Austin:University of Texas Press.
Bednarek. M. (2006). Evaluation in media discourse:Analysis of a newspaper corpus. London & New York:Continuum.
Bednarek. M. (2009). Language patterns and ATTITUDE. Functions of Language.16 (2),165-192.
Bednarek, M. (2010). Corpus Linguistics and Systemic Functional Linguistics: Interpersonal meaning, identity and bonding in popular culture. In M. Bedanarek & J. R. Martin (Eds.). New discourse on language:Functional perspectives on multimodality, identity, and affiliation (pp.237-266). London & New York: Continuum.
Benson, M. J. (1989). The academic listening task:A case study. TESOL Quarterly,23 (3),421-445.
Bhatia. V. K. (1993). Analyzing genre:Language use in professional settings. London: Longman.
Biber. D. (2006). Stance in spoken and written university registers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes,5(2).97-116.
Biber. D.. Johansson. S.. Leech. G.. Conrad. S.& Finegan. E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written language. London:Pearson Education Limited.
Brown, G. (1978). Lecturing and explaining. London:Methuen.
Camiciottoli, B. C. (2005). Adjusting a business lecture for an international audience:a case study. English for Specific Purposes,24,183-199.
Carrell, P. L. (1987). Content and formal schemata in ESL reading. TESOL Quarterly, 21,461-481.
Chafe, W.& Nichols, J. (1986). Evidentiality:The linguistic coding of epistemology. Norwood, NJ:Albex.
Channell, J. (2000). Corpus-based analysis of evaluative lexis. In S. Hunston & G. Thompson (Eds.), Evaluation in text:Authorial stance and the construction of discourse (pp.38-55). Oxford:Oxford University.
Chaudron, C.,& Richards, J. C. (1986). The effect of discourse markers on the comprehension of lectures. Applied Linguistics,7 (2),113-127.
Coates, J. (1983). The semantics of the modal auxiliaries. London:Croom Helm.
Coffin, C. (1997). Constructing and giving value to the past:an investigation into second school history. In F. Christie & J. R. Martin (Eds), Genre and institutions-social processes in the workplace and school (pp.196-230). London:Cassell.
Coffin, C. (2003). Reconstruals of the past-settlement or invasion? The role of JUDGEMENT analysis. In J. R. Martin & R. Wodak (Eds), Re/reading the past: critical and functional perspectives on discourses of history (pp.219-246). Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Conrad, S.& Biber, D. (2000). Adverbial marking of stance in speech and writing. In S. Hunston,& G. Thompson (Eds.), Evaluation in text:Authorial stance and the construction of discourse (pp.57-73). Oxford:Oxford University.
Cook, J. R. S. (1975). A communicative approach to the analysis of extended monologue discourse and its relevance to the development of teaching materials for ESP. Unpublished M. Litt. thesis, University of Edinburgh.
Coulthard, M.,& Montgomery, M. (1981). The structure of monologue. In M. Coulthard & M. Montgomery (Eds.), Studies in discourse analysis (pp.31-39). London:Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Decarrico, J.,& Nattinger, J. R. (1988). Lexical phrases for the comprehension of academic lectures. English for Specific Purposes.7.91-102.
Dosseville. F., Laborde. S..& Scelles, N. (2012). Music during lectures:Will students learn better? Learning and Individual differences,22,258-262.
Dudley-Evans. A.,& Johns, T. (1981). A team teaching approach to lecture comprehension for overseas students. In The teaching of listening comprehension. ELT documents special. London:The British Council.
Ellis. R. (1994). Second language aquisition. Oxford:Oxford University.
Eggins, S.& Slade. D. (1997). Analysing casual conversation. London & Washington: Cassell.
Erman, B. (2001). Pragmatic markers revisited with a focus on you know in adult and adolescent talk. Journal of Pragmatics.33,1337-1359.
Fawcett, R. P., Van der Mije, A.& van Wissen. C. (1988). Towards a systemic flowchart model for discourse structure. In R. P. Fawcett & D. Young (Eds.). New developments in systemic linguistics, vol.2:Theory and application (116-143). London:Pinter.
Firth. J. R. (1950). Personality and language in society. Sociological revieM:42.37-52.
Flowerdew. J.& Miller. L. (1996a). Lecturer perceptions, problems and strategies in second language lectures. RELC Journal,1996a.27(1).23-46.
Flowerdew. J.& Miller. L. (1996b). Lectures in a second language:notes towards a cultural grammar. English for Specific Purposes,5(2),121-140.
Fraser. B.2005. Guidelines for research in discourse markers. [http://people.bu.edu/bfraser/Guidelines for Research in Discourse Markers.doc]
Gregory. M. (1967). Aspects of varieties differentiation. Journal of Linguistics.3. 177-198.
Gregory. M. (1983 [1985]). Towards communication linguistics:A framework. In J. D. Benson & W. S. Greaves (Eds.), vol. 1:Linguistics in a systemic perspective (pp. 119-134). Amsterdam & Philadelphia:John Benjamins.
Halliday M A K. (1961 [2002]). Categories of the theory of grammar. In J. Webster (Ed.). Collected works of M. A. K. Halliday. vol. 1:On grammar (pp.37-94). London & New York:Continuum.
Halliday. M. A. K. (1966). Some notes on "deep" grammar. Journal of Linguistics.2(1). 57-67.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1973). Explorations in the functions of language. London:Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1977). Text as semantic choice in social contexts. In T. A. Dijk & S. P. Janos (Eds.), Grammars and descriptions (pp.176-225). New York:Walter de Gruyter.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as social semiotic:The social interpretaion of language and meaning. London:Edward Arnold.
Halliday M A K. (1979[2002]). Modes of meaning and modes of expression:Types of grammatical structure and their determination by different semantic functions. In J. Webster (Ed.), Collected works of M. A. K. Halliday, vol.1:On grammar (pp. 196-218). London:Continuum,2002:196-218.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). An introduction to functional grammar. London:Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar (2nd edition). London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M.A.K.& Hasan, R. (1985). Language, context and text:Aspects of language as a socio-semantic perspective. Victoria:Deakin University Press.
Halliday, M. A. K.& Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar (3rd edition.). London:Arnold.
Hjelmslev, L. (1961). Prolegomena to a theory of lanaguage. F. J. Whitefield (trans.). Madison WI:University of Wisconsin Press.
Hoey, M. (1983). On the structure of discourse. London:George Allen & Unwin.
Hoey, M. (1994). Signaling in discourse:A functional analysis of a common discourse pattern in written and spoken English. In M. Coulthard (Ed.), Advances in written text analysis (pp.26-45). London:Routledge.
Hunston, S. (2000). Evaluation and the planes of discourse:Status and value in persuasive texts. In S. Hunston,& G. Thompson (Eds.), Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse (pp.176-207). Oxford:Oxford University.
Hunston, S.& Sinclair, J. M. (2000). A local grammar of evaluation. In S. Hunston,& G. Thompson (Eds.), Evaluation in text:Authorial stance and the construction of discourse (pp.75-101). Oxford:Oxford University.
Hyland, K. (1996). Writing without conviction:Hedging in science research articles. Applied Linguisitcs,17 (4):433-454.
Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourse:Social interactions in academic writing. London:Longman.
Hyland, K. (2005).Metadiscourse. London & New York:Continuum.
Iedema, R., Feez S.& White, P. (1994), Media Literacy. Sydney:Metropolitan East Disadvataged Schools Programme. NSW Department of School Education.
Iedema, R., S. Feez & White, P. R. R. (1994). Media literacy (Write it Right Literacy in Industry Research Project-Stage 2). Sydney:Metropolitan East Disadvantaged Schools Program.
Jackson, J.,& Bilton, L. (1994). Stylistic variations in science lectures:teaching vocabulary. English for Specific Purposes,13 (1),61-80.
Jordan, M. P. (1984). Rhetoric of everyday english texts. London:George Allen & Unwin.
Jung, E. H. (2006). Misunderstanding of academic monologues by nonnative speakers of English. Journal of Pragmatics,38,1928-1942.
Khuwaileh. A. A. (1999). The role of chunks, phrases and body language in understanding co-ordinated academic lectures. System,27,249-260.
Klein, W. (1994). Time in language. London & New York:Routledge.
Knight, N. K. (2010). Wrinkling complexity:Concepts of identity and affiliation in humour. In M. Bednarek & J. R. Martin (Eds), New Discourse on Language: Functional Perspectives on Multimodality, Identity, and Affiliation (pp.35-58). London:Continuum.
Labov. W. (1972). Language in the inner city:Studies in the Black English vernacular. Philadelphia:University of Pennsylvania Press.
Labov. W.& Waletzky. J. (1967). Narrative analysis:oral versions of personal experience. In J., Helm (Ed.), Essays on verbal and visual arts (pp.12-44). Seattle: University of Washington Press for the American Ethnological Society.
Lamb. S. (1966). Outline of stratificational grammar. Washington:Georgetown University Press.
Lemke, J.L. (1984). Semiotics and education. Monograph in Toronto semiotic circle monographs series. Toronto:Victoria University.
Lewis, D. (2001). Review:Hunston & Thompson, evaluation in text. Linguist List,12, 1637.
Mann, W. C.,& Thompson, S. A. (1986). Rhetorical propositions in discourse. Discourse Processing,9 (1),57-90.
Mann, W. C.,& Thompson, S. A. (1988). Rhetorical structure theory:toward a functional theory of text organization. Text,8 (3),243-281.
Markkanen, R.& Schroder, H. (Eds.) (1997). Hedging and discourse:Approach in academic texts. Berlin:de Gruyter.
Martin, J. R., (1985[2010]).Process and text:Two aspects of human semiosis. In Wang (Ed.), Collected works of J. R. Martin, vol. 1:SFL theory (pp.44-70). Shanghai: Shanghai Jiao Tong University Press.
Martin, J. R. (1992). English text:System and structure. Philadelphia & Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Martin, J.R. (1995). Text and clause:fractal resonance. Text,15 (1),5-42.
Martin, J.R. (1997). Analysing genre:functional parameters. In F. Christie & J. R. Martin (Eds.), Genres and institutions (pp.3-39). London:Cassell.
Martin, J.R. (1999). Grace:the logogenesis of freedom. Discourse Studies,1,29-56.
Martin, J. R. (2000). Beyond exchange:appraisal systems in English. In S. Hunston,& G. Thompson (Eds.), Evaluation in text:Authorial stance and the construction of discourse (pp.142-175). Oxford:Oxford University.
Martin, J. R. (2010). Semantic variation-Modelling realisation, instantiation and individuation in social semiosis. In M. Bednarek & J. R. Martin (Eds), New discourse on language:Functional perspectives on multimodality, identity, and affiliation (pp.1-34). London:Continuum.
Martin, J. R.& Rose, D. (2003). Working with discourse:Meaning beyond the clause. London:Continuum.
Martin, J. R.& Rose, D. (2008). Genre relations:Mapping culture. London:Equinox.
Martin, J. R.& White, P. R. R. (2005). The language of evaluation:Appraisal in English. Basingstoke:Palgrave Macmillan.
Mohan, B. (1986). Language and content. Reading. Massachusetts:Addison-Wesley.
Montgomery. M. (1977). Some aspects of discourse structure and cohesion in selected science lectures. Unpublished M. A. thesis. University of Birmingham.
Munday. J. (2012). Evaluation in translation:Critical points of translator decision-making. London:Routledge.
Murphy, D. F.,& Candlin, C. N. (1979). Engineering lecture discourse and listening comprehension. Practical papers in English language education,2.1-79. Lancaster:University of Lancaster.
Myers, G. (1989). The pragmatics of politeness in scientific articles. Applied Linguistics, 10.1-35.
Nesi, H. (2012). Laughter in university lectures. Journal of English for Academic Purposes,11,79-89.
Olsen, L. A.,& Huckin, T. N. (1990). Point-driven understanding in engineering lecture comprehension. English for Specific Purposes.9,33-47.
Poos. D.& Simpson. R. (2002). Cross-disciplinary comparisons of hedging:Some findings from the Michigan Corpus of Academic Spoken English. In R. Reppen. S. M. Fitzmaurice.& D. Biber (Eds.), Using corpora to explore linguistic variation (pp.3-23). Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John Benjamins.
Palmer. F. (1986). Mood and modality. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Perez, M. A.,& Macia, E. A. (2002). Metadiscourse in lecture comprehension:Does it really help foreign language learners? Atlantics,24,3-21.
Poynton. C. (1985). Language and gender:Making the difference. Geelong. Victoria: Deakin University Press.
Quirk. R.. Greenbaum. S., Leech. G.,& Svartvik. J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London & New York:Longman.
Richards. J. C. (1983). Listening comprehension:approach, design, procedure. TESOL Quarterly,17 (2):219-239.
Schiffrin. D. (1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Schleef. E. (2009). A cross-cultural investigation of German and American academic style. Journal of Pragmatics.41,1104-1124.
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts:an essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sinclair, J. M (1981). Planes of discourse. In S. N. A. Rizvi (Ed.), The two-fold voice: essays in honour ofRamesh Mohan (pp.70-89). Salzburg:University of Salzburg.
Sinclair, J. M.,& Coulthard, M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse:The English used by teachers and pupils. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Stubbs, M. (1996). Text and corpus analysis:Computer-assisted studies of language and culture. Oxford:Blackwell Publishers.
Susskind, J. E. (2005). PowerPoint's power in the classroom:enhancing students' self-efficacy and attitudes. Computer & Education,45,203-215.
Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Swales, J. (2001). Metatalk in American academic talk. Journal of English Linguistics, 29 (1),34-54.
Taverniers M. (2011). The Syntax-semantics interface in Systemic Functional Grammar: Halliday's interpretation of the Hjelmslevian model of stratification. Journal of Pragmatics,43,1100-1126.
Thilbault, P. (1987). An Interview with Michael Halliday. In R. Steele & T. Threadgold (Eds.). Language topics:Essays in honor of Michael Halliday, Vol.2 (601-627). Amsterdam:Benjamins.
Thompson, G. (1996). Introducing functional grammar. London:Arnold.
Thompson, G.& Hunston, S. (2000). Evaluation:An introduction. In S. Hunston,& G. Thompson (Eds.), Evaluation in text:Authorial stance and the construction of discourse (pp.1-27). Oxford:Oxford University.
Thompson, S. (1994). Frameworks and Contexts:A genre-based approach to analysing lecture introductions. English for Specific Purposes,13 (2),171-186.
Thompson, S. E. (2003). Text-structuring metadiscourse, intonation and the signalling of organisation in academic lectures. Journal of English for Academic purposes,2, 5-20.
van Dijk, T. A. (1977). Text and context:explorations in the semantics and pragmatics of discourse. London:Longman.
van Dijk, T. A. (1977). Text and context. London:Longman.
van Leeuwen, T. (1999). Speech, music, sound [M]. London:Palgrave Macmillan.
Ventola. E. (1987). The structure of social interaction. London:Pinter.
Ventola. E. (1989). Problems of modelling and applied issues within the framework of genre. Word,40 (1-2),129-161. (Systems, structure and discourse:selected papers from the fifteenth international systemic congress.)
Voloshinov. V. N. (1995). Marxism and (he philosophy of language, Bakhtinian thought: An introductory reader. S. Dentith, L. Matejka and L. R. Titunik. (trans.). London: Routledge.
Wekker, H. C. (1976). The expression of future time in contemporary British English. Amsterdam:NorthHolland.
White, P. R. R. (1998). Telling media tales:the news story as rhetoric. PhD. Dissertation. University of Sydney.
White, P. R. R. (2000). Dialogue and inter-subjectivity:reinterpreting the semantics of modality and hedging. In M. Coulthard. J. Coterrill.& F. Rock (Eds.). Dialogue analysis Ⅶ:Working with dialogue (pp.67-80). Tubingen:Niemeyer.
White. P. R. R. (2001). An introductory tour through appraisal theory, [http://www. grammatic s. com/appraisal]
White. P. R. R. (2002). Appraisal—the language of evaluation and stance. In J. Verschueren, J. Ostman, J. Blommaert.& C. Bulcaen (Eds.), The handbook of pragmatics(pp.1-23). Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John Benjamins.
Winter. E. (1982). Towards a contextual gammar of English:The clause and its place in the definition of sentence. London:Allen & Unwin.
Wittgenstein, L. (1972) Philosophical investigations. Oxford:Blackwell.
Young. L. (1994). University lectures—macro-structure and micro-features. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.). Academic listening:Research perspectives (pp.159-176). Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Zappavigna. M., Cleirigh. C. Dwyer. P.& Martin, J. R. (2010). Visualizing appraisal prosody. In A. Mahroob.& N. Knight (Eds.). Appliable linguistics (pp.150-167). London & New York:Continuum.
陈国华,(2000),《朗文英语口语和笔语语法》导读,D. Biber. S. Johansson. G. Leech. S. Conrad.& E. Finegan,(著),《郎文英语口浯和笔语语法》(PP. F13-F22),北京：外语教学语研究出版社。
陈黎,(2007),高校专业课学术英语听力理解能力培养探讨,《山东外语教学》,4,50-53。
陈晓燕,(2007),英汉社论语篇态度资源对比分析,《外国语》,3,39-46。
程微,(2010),态度韵律的整体性研究,《外语学刊》,3,68-73。
崔艳嫣、王同顺,(2004),英语学术讲座的宏观结构与微观结构——体裁分析在学术语篇分析中的应用,《山东外语教学》,5,27-30。
戴炜栋、龚龙生、束定芳,(1997),《英语常用衔接词例解词典》,上海：上海外语教育出版社。
胡庚申,(1987),《怎样参加国际学术会议：会议实用英语》,北京：科学出版社。
胡瑾、曾蕾,(2007),国际学术交流英语演讲稿语篇模式分析,《外语教学》,28(3),20-24。
胡壮麟、朱永生、张德录,(1989),《系统功能语法导论》,长沙：湖南教育出版社。
胡壮麟、朱永生、张德禄、李战子,(2008),《系统功能语言学概论》(修订版),北京：北京大学出版社。
胡壮麟,(2009),语篇的评价研究,《外语教学》,30(1),1-6。
李基安,(1999),情态意义和情态助动词意义,《外国语》,4,19-23。
李元授、邹昆山,(2003),《演讲学》,武汉：华中科技大学出版社。
李战子,(2001),学术话语中认知型情态的多重人际意义,《外语教学与研究》,5,353-358。
李战子,(2004),评价理论：在话语分析中的应用和问题,《外语研究》,5,1-6。
李战子,(2004),身份策略的矛盾境地——《论不说汉语》中对中国人特质的评价,《外国语》,5,56-63。
李战子、高一虹,(2002),功能语法与批评性话语分析的结合点——第28届国际系统功能语法大会述评,《外语研究》,3,78-79。
刘静,(2005),边界轮与话语整体可理解性——微型学术讲座话语分析,《解放军外国语学院学报》,28(4),6-11。
刘世铸、韩金龙,(2004),新闻话语的评价系统,《外语电化教学》,98,17-21。
刘世铸、张征,(2011),评判的结构潜势与语义构型,《中国外语》,1,22-27,下 转50。
刘晓琳,(2010),评价系统视域中的翻译研究——以《红楼梦》两个译本对比为例,《外语学刊》,3,161-163
林语他堂,(2002),《论读书,论幽默》,北京：当代世界出版社。
马伟林,(2007),评价理论对英语口语教学的启示,《外语教学》,6,37-40。
庞继贤、陈明瑶,(2006),电视访谈中介入标记语的人际功能,《浙江大学学报》(人文社会科学版),36(6),168-175。
冉永平,(2002),话语标记语you know的语用增量辨析,《解放军外国语学院学报》,4,10-15。
苏奕华,(2008),翻译中的意义对等与态度差异,《外语学刊》,5,100-102。
宋成方,(2010),“评价理论”：回顾与展望,刘立华(主编),《评价理论研究》(pp,202-221),北京：外语教学与研究出版社。
索绪尔,(1980),《普通语言学教程》,高名凯(译),北京：商务印书馆。
田芬,(2011),英汉语经济类硬新闻的裁决系统对比研究,《山东外语教学》,2,32-36。
唐丽萍,(2004),学术书评语类结构的评价分析,《外国语》,3,35-43。
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,《外语与外语教学》,5,21-24。
王晓云,(2008),EFL教师评价性话语的人际功能,江西师范大学硕士论文。
王振华,(2001),评价系统及其运作——系统功能语言学的新发展,《外国语》,6,13-20。
王振华,(2002),杂文中作者的介入,《暨南大学华文学院学报》,1,58-64。
王振华,(2003),介入：言语互动中的一种评价视角,河南大学博士论文。
王振华,(2004),“物质过程”的评价价值——以分析小说人物形象为例,《外国语》,5,41-47。
王振华,(2013),系统功能语言学的演变：小句之外——J·R·马丁教授访谈录,《当代外语研究》,10,1-12。
王振华、马玉蕾,(2007),评价理论：魅力与困惑,《外语教学》,28(6),19-23。
王振华、路洋,(2010),介入系统的嬗变, 《外语学刊》,3,51-56。
魏在江,(2011),语用预设的语篇评价功能——语篇语用学界面研究,《中国外语》, 2,23-29。
谢启文,(1988),《会议英语：参加和主持国际性学术会议使用的英语,沈阳：辽宁科技出版社,19881
杨信彰,(2003),语篇中的评价性手段,《外语与外语教学》,1,11-14。
杨信彰,(2007),元话语与语言功能,《外语与外语教学》,12,1-3。
叶姆斯列夫,(2006),《叶姆斯列夫语符学文集》,程琪龙(译),长沙：湖南教育出版社。
于晖,(2003), 《语篇体裁分析：学术论文摘要的符号学意义》,开封：河南大学出版社。
张德禄、马磊,(2002),论实用文体语类结构潜势,《山东外语教学》,1,1-5。
张丽,(2008),英汉硬新闻的情感系统对比研究,山东大学硕士论文。
张韧, (2009),对英文报纸书评的评价研究,上海外国语大学博士论文。
张先刚,(2007),评价理论对语篇翻译的启示,《外语教学》,6,33-36。
朱永生,(2005),《语境动态研究》,北京：北京大学出版社。
Aijmer. K. (1997). I think—an English modal particle. In T. Swan & O. Westvik (Eds). Modality in Germanic languages:Historical and comparative perspectives(pp. 1-47). Berlin & New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
Asher. R. E. (1994). The encyclopedia of language and linguistics. Oxford:Pergamon.
Austin, J. L. (1962) How to do things with words. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Bache, C. (2010). Hjelmslev's glossematics:A source of inspiration to Systemic Functional Linguistics? Journal of Pragmatics,42,2562-2578.
Bakhtin, M. (1973). Problems of Dostoevsky's poetics. Michigan:Ann Arbor.
Bakhtin, M. (1981). The dialogic imagination:Four essays. M. Hlquist (Ed.). C. Emerson & M. Holquist (trans.). Austin:University of Texas Press.
Bakhtin, M. (1986). The problem of speech genres. In V. W. McGee (trans.). Speech genres and other late essays (pp.60-101). Austin:University of Texas Press.
Bednarek. M. (2006). Evaluation in media discourse:Analysis of a newspaper corpus. London & New York:Continuum.
Bednarek. M. (2009). Language patterns and ATTITUDE. Functions of Language.16 (2),165-192.
Bednarek, M. (2010). Corpus Linguistics and Systemic Functional Linguistics: Interpersonal meaning, identity and bonding in popular culture. In M. Bedanarek & J. R. Martin (Eds.). New discourse on language:Functional perspectives on multimodality, identity, and affiliation (pp.237-266). London & New York: Continuum.
Benson, M. J. (1989). The academic listening task:A case study. TESOL Quarterly,23 (3),421-445.
Bhatia. V. K. (1993). Analyzing genre:Language use in professional settings. London: Longman.
Biber. D. (2006). Stance in spoken and written university registers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes,5(2).97-116.
Biber. D.. Johansson. S.. Leech. G.. Conrad. S.& Finegan. E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written language. London:Pearson Education Limited.
Brown, G. (1978). Lecturing and explaining. London:Methuen.
Camiciottoli, B. C. (2005). Adjusting a business lecture for an international audience:a case study. English for Specific Purposes,24,183-199.
Carrell, P. L. (1987). Content and formal schemata in ESL reading. TESOL Quarterly, 21,461-481.
Chafe, W.& Nichols, J. (1986). Evidentiality:The linguistic coding of epistemology. Norwood, NJ:Albex.
Channell, J. (2000). Corpus-based analysis of evaluative lexis. In S. Hunston & G. Thompson (Eds.), Evaluation in text:Authorial stance and the construction of discourse (pp.38-55). Oxford:Oxford University.
Chaudron, C.,& Richards, J. C. (1986). The effect of discourse markers on the comprehension of lectures. Applied Linguistics,7 (2),113-127.
Coates, J. (1983). The semantics of the modal auxiliaries. London:Croom Helm.
Coffin, C. (1997). Constructing and giving value to the past:an investigation into second school history. In F. Christie & J. R. Martin (Eds), Genre and institutions-social processes in the workplace and school (pp.196-230). London:Cassell.
Coffin, C. (2003). Reconstruals of the past-settlement or invasion? The role of JUDGEMENT analysis. In J. R. Martin & R. Wodak (Eds), Re/reading the past: critical and functional perspectives on discourses of history (pp.219-246). Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Conrad, S.& Biber, D. (2000). Adverbial marking of stance in speech and writing. In S. Hunston,& G. Thompson (Eds.), Evaluation in text:Authorial stance and the construction of discourse (pp.57-73). Oxford:Oxford University.
Cook, J. R. S. (1975). A communicative approach to the analysis of extended monologue discourse and its relevance to the development of teaching materials for ESP. Unpublished M. Litt. thesis, University of Edinburgh.
Coulthard, M.,& Montgomery, M. (1981). The structure of monologue. In M. Coulthard & M. Montgomery (Eds.), Studies in discourse analysis (pp.31-39). London:Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Decarrico, J.,& Nattinger, J. R. (1988). Lexical phrases for the comprehension of academic lectures. English for Specific Purposes.7.91-102.
Dosseville. F., Laborde. S..& Scelles, N. (2012). Music during lectures:Will students learn better? Learning and Individual differences,22,258-262.
Dudley-Evans. A.,& Johns, T. (1981). A team teaching approach to lecture comprehension for overseas students. In The teaching of listening comprehension. ELT documents special. London:The British Council.
Ellis. R. (1994). Second language aquisition. Oxford:Oxford University.
Eggins, S.& Slade. D. (1997). Analysing casual conversation. London & Washington: Cassell.
Erman, B. (2001). Pragmatic markers revisited with a focus on you know in adult and adolescent talk. Journal of Pragmatics.33,1337-1359.
Fawcett, R. P., Van der Mije, A.& van Wissen. C. (1988). Towards a systemic flowchart model for discourse structure. In R. P. Fawcett & D. Young (Eds.). New developments in systemic linguistics, vol.2:Theory and application (116-143). London:Pinter.
Firth. J. R. (1950). Personality and language in society. Sociological revieM:42.37-52.
Flowerdew. J.& Miller. L. (1996a). Lecturer perceptions, problems and strategies in second language lectures. RELC Journal,1996a.27(1).23-46.
Flowerdew. J.& Miller. L. (1996b). Lectures in a second language:notes towards a cultural grammar. English for Specific Purposes,5(2),121-140.
Fraser. B.2005. Guidelines for research in discourse markers. [http://people.bu.edu/bfraser/Guidelines for Research in Discourse Markers.doc]
Gregory. M. (1967). Aspects of varieties differentiation. Journal of Linguistics.3. 177-198.
Gregory. M. (1983 [1985]). Towards communication linguistics:A framework. In J. D. Benson & W. S. Greaves (Eds.), vol. 1:Linguistics in a systemic perspective (pp. 119-134). Amsterdam & Philadelphia:John Benjamins.
Halliday M A K. (1961 [2002]). Categories of the theory of grammar. In J. Webster (Ed.). Collected works of M. A. K. Halliday. vol. 1:On grammar (pp.37-94). London & New York:Continuum.
Halliday. M. A. K. (1966). Some notes on "deep" grammar. Journal of Linguistics.2(1). 57-67.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1973). Explorations in the functions of language. London:Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1977). Text as semantic choice in social contexts. In T. A. Dijk & S. P. Janos (Eds.), Grammars and descriptions (pp.176-225). New York:Walter de Gruyter.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as social semiotic:The social interpretaion of language and meaning. London:Edward Arnold.
Halliday M A K. (1979[2002]). Modes of meaning and modes of expression:Types of grammatical structure and their determination by different semantic functions. In J. Webster (Ed.), Collected works of M. A. K. Halliday, vol.1:On grammar (pp. 196-218). London:Continuum,2002:196-218.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). An introduction to functional grammar. London:Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar (2nd edition). London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M.A.K.& Hasan, R. (1985). Language, context and text:Aspects of language as a socio-semantic perspective. Victoria:Deakin University Press.
Halliday, M. A. K.& Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar (3rd edition.). London:Arnold.
Hjelmslev, L. (1961). Prolegomena to a theory of lanaguage. F. J. Whitefield (trans.). Madison WI:University of Wisconsin Press.
Hoey, M. (1983). On the structure of discourse. London:George Allen & Unwin.
Hoey, M. (1994). Signaling in discourse:A functional analysis of a common discourse pattern in written and spoken English. In M. Coulthard (Ed.), Advances in written text analysis (pp.26-45). London:Routledge.
Hunston, S. (2000). Evaluation and the planes of discourse:Status and value in persuasive texts. In S. Hunston,& G. Thompson (Eds.), Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse (pp.176-207). Oxford:Oxford University.
Hunston, S.& Sinclair, J. M. (2000). A local grammar of evaluation. In S. Hunston,& G. Thompson (Eds.), Evaluation in text:Authorial stance and the construction of discourse (pp.75-101). Oxford:Oxford University.
Hyland, K. (1996). Writing without conviction:Hedging in science research articles. Applied Linguisitcs,17 (4):433-454.
Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourse:Social interactions in academic writing. London:Longman.
Hyland, K. (2005).Metadiscourse. London & New York:Continuum.
Iedema, R., Feez S.& White, P. (1994), Media Literacy. Sydney:Metropolitan East Disadvataged Schools Programme. NSW Department of School Education.
Iedema, R., S. Feez & White, P. R. R. (1994). Media literacy (Write it Right Literacy in Industry Research Project-Stage 2). Sydney:Metropolitan East Disadvantaged Schools Program.
Jackson, J.,& Bilton, L. (1994). Stylistic variations in science lectures:teaching vocabulary. English for Specific Purposes,13 (1),61-80.
Jordan, M. P. (1984). Rhetoric of everyday english texts. London:George Allen & Unwin.
Jung, E. H. (2006). Misunderstanding of academic monologues by nonnative speakers of English. Journal of Pragmatics,38,1928-1942.
Khuwaileh. A. A. (1999). The role of chunks, phrases and body language in understanding co-ordinated academic lectures. System,27,249-260.
Klein, W. (1994). Time in language. London & New York:Routledge.
Knight, N. K. (2010). Wrinkling complexity:Concepts of identity and affiliation in humour. In M. Bednarek & J. R. Martin (Eds), New Discourse on Language: Functional Perspectives on Multimodality, Identity, and Affiliation (pp.35-58). London:Continuum.
Labov. W. (1972). Language in the inner city:Studies in the Black English vernacular. Philadelphia:University of Pennsylvania Press.
Labov. W.& Waletzky. J. (1967). Narrative analysis:oral versions of personal experience. In J., Helm (Ed.), Essays on verbal and visual arts (pp.12-44). Seattle: University of Washington Press for the American Ethnological Society.
Lamb. S. (1966). Outline of stratificational grammar. Washington:Georgetown University Press.
Lemke, J.L. (1984). Semiotics and education. Monograph in Toronto semiotic circle monographs series. Toronto:Victoria University.
Lewis, D. (2001). Review:Hunston & Thompson, evaluation in text. Linguist List,12, 1637.
Mann, W. C.,& Thompson, S. A. (1986). Rhetorical propositions in discourse. Discourse Processing,9 (1),57-90.
Mann, W. C.,& Thompson, S. A. (1988). Rhetorical structure theory:toward a functional theory of text organization. Text,8 (3),243-281.
Markkanen, R.& Schroder, H. (Eds.) (1997). Hedging and discourse:Approach in academic texts. Berlin:de Gruyter.
Martin, J. R., (1985[2010]).Process and text:Two aspects of human semiosis. In Wang (Ed.), Collected works of J. R. Martin, vol. 1:SFL theory (pp.44-70). Shanghai: Shanghai Jiao Tong University Press.
Martin, J. R. (1992). English text:System and structure. Philadelphia & Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Martin, J.R. (1995). Text and clause:fractal resonance. Text,15 (1),5-42.
Martin, J.R. (1997). Analysing genre:functional parameters. In F. Christie & J. R. Martin (Eds.), Genres and institutions (pp.3-39). London:Cassell.
Martin, J.R. (1999). Grace:the logogenesis of freedom. Discourse Studies,1,29-56.
Martin, J. R. (2000). Beyond exchange:appraisal systems in English. In S. Hunston,& G. Thompson (Eds.), Evaluation in text:Authorial stance and the construction of discourse (pp.142-175). Oxford:Oxford University.
Martin, J. R. (2010). Semantic variation-Modelling realisation, instantiation and individuation in social semiosis. In M. Bednarek & J. R. Martin (Eds), New discourse on language:Functional perspectives on multimodality, identity, and affiliation (pp.1-34). London:Continuum.
Martin, J. R.& Rose, D. (2003). Working with discourse:Meaning beyond the clause. London:Continuum.
Martin, J. R.& Rose, D. (2008). Genre relations:Mapping culture. London:Equinox.
Martin, J. R.& White, P. R. R. (2005). The language of evaluation:Appraisal in English. Basingstoke:Palgrave Macmillan.
Mohan, B. (1986). Language and content. Reading. Massachusetts:Addison-Wesley.
Montgomery. M. (1977). Some aspects of discourse structure and cohesion in selected science lectures. Unpublished M. A. thesis. University of Birmingham.
Munday. J. (2012). Evaluation in translation:Critical points of translator decision-making. London:Routledge.
Murphy, D. F.,& Candlin, C. N. (1979). Engineering lecture discourse and listening comprehension. Practical papers in English language education,2.1-79. Lancaster:University of Lancaster.
Myers, G. (1989). The pragmatics of politeness in scientific articles. Applied Linguistics, 10.1-35.
Nesi, H. (2012). Laughter in university lectures. Journal of English for Academic Purposes,11,79-89.
Olsen, L. A.,& Huckin, T. N. (1990). Point-driven understanding in engineering lecture comprehension. English for Specific Purposes.9,33-47.
Poos. D.& Simpson. R. (2002). Cross-disciplinary comparisons of hedging:Some findings from the Michigan Corpus of Academic Spoken English. In R. Reppen. S. M. Fitzmaurice.& D. Biber (Eds.), Using corpora to explore linguistic variation (pp.3-23). Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John Benjamins.
Palmer. F. (1986). Mood and modality. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Perez, M. A.,& Macia, E. A. (2002). Metadiscourse in lecture comprehension:Does it really help foreign language learners? Atlantics,24,3-21.
Poynton. C. (1985). Language and gender:Making the difference. Geelong. Victoria: Deakin University Press.
Quirk. R.. Greenbaum. S., Leech. G.,& Svartvik. J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London & New York:Longman.
Richards. J. C. (1983). Listening comprehension:approach, design, procedure. TESOL Quarterly,17 (2):219-239.
Schiffrin. D. (1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Schleef. E. (2009). A cross-cultural investigation of German and American academic style. Journal of Pragmatics.41,1104-1124.
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts:an essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sinclair, J. M (1981). Planes of discourse. In S. N. A. Rizvi (Ed.), The two-fold voice: essays in honour ofRamesh Mohan (pp.70-89). Salzburg:University of Salzburg.
Sinclair, J. M.,& Coulthard, M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse:The English used by teachers and pupils. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Stubbs, M. (1996). Text and corpus analysis:Computer-assisted studies of language and culture. Oxford:Blackwell Publishers.
Susskind, J. E. (2005). PowerPoint's power in the classroom:enhancing students' self-efficacy and attitudes. Computer & Education,45,203-215.
Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Swales, J. (2001). Metatalk in American academic talk. Journal of English Linguistics, 29 (1),34-54.
Taverniers M. (2011). The Syntax-semantics interface in Systemic Functional Grammar: Halliday's interpretation of the Hjelmslevian model of stratification. Journal of Pragmatics,43,1100-1126.
Thilbault, P. (1987). An Interview with Michael Halliday. In R. Steele & T. Threadgold (Eds.). Language topics:Essays in honor of Michael Halliday, Vol.2 (601-627). Amsterdam:Benjamins.
Thompson, G. (1996). Introducing functional grammar. London:Arnold.
Thompson, G.& Hunston, S. (2000). Evaluation:An introduction. In S. Hunston,& G. Thompson (Eds.), Evaluation in text:Authorial stance and the construction of discourse (pp.1-27). Oxford:Oxford University.
Thompson, S. (1994). Frameworks and Contexts:A genre-based approach to analysing lecture introductions. English for Specific Purposes,13 (2),171-186.
Thompson, S. E. (2003). Text-structuring metadiscourse, intonation and the signalling of organisation in academic lectures. Journal of English for Academic purposes,2, 5-20.
van Dijk, T. A. (1977). Text and context:explorations in the semantics and pragmatics of discourse. London:Longman.
van Dijk, T. A. (1977). Text and context. London:Longman.
van Leeuwen, T. (1999). Speech, music, sound [M]. London:Palgrave Macmillan.
Ventola. E. (1987). The structure of social interaction. London:Pinter.
Ventola. E. (1989). Problems of modelling and applied issues within the framework of genre. Word,40 (1-2),129-161. (Systems, structure and discourse:selected papers from the fifteenth international systemic congress.)
Voloshinov. V. N. (1995). Marxism and (he philosophy of language, Bakhtinian thought: An introductory reader. S. Dentith, L. Matejka and L. R. Titunik. (trans.). London: Routledge.
Wekker, H. C. (1976). The expression of future time in contemporary British English. Amsterdam:NorthHolland.
White, P. R. R. (1998). Telling media tales:the news story as rhetoric. PhD. Dissertation. University of Sydney.
White, P. R. R. (2000). Dialogue and inter-subjectivity:reinterpreting the semantics of modality and hedging. In M. Coulthard. J. Coterrill.& F. Rock (Eds.). Dialogue analysis Ⅶ:Working with dialogue (pp.67-80). Tubingen:Niemeyer.
White. P. R. R. (2001). An introductory tour through appraisal theory, [http://www. grammatic s. com/appraisal]
White. P. R. R. (2002). Appraisal—the language of evaluation and stance. In J. Verschueren, J. Ostman, J. Blommaert.& C. Bulcaen (Eds.), The handbook of pragmatics(pp.1-23). Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John Benjamins.
Winter. E. (1982). Towards a contextual gammar of English:The clause and its place in the definition of sentence. London:Allen & Unwin.
Wittgenstein, L. (1972) Philosophical investigations. Oxford:Blackwell.
Young. L. (1994). University lectures—macro-structure and micro-features. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.). Academic listening:Research perspectives (pp.159-176). Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Zappavigna. M., Cleirigh. C. Dwyer. P.& Martin, J. R. (2010). Visualizing appraisal prosody. In A. Mahroob.& N. Knight (Eds.). Appliable linguistics (pp.150-167). London & New York:Continuum.
陈国华,(2000),《朗文英语口语和笔语语法》导读,D. Biber. S. Johansson. G. Leech. S. Conrad.& E. Finegan,(著),《郎文英语口浯和笔语语法》(PP. F13-F22),北京：外语教学语研究出版社。
陈黎,(2007),高校专业课学术英语听力理解能力培养探讨,《山东外语教学》,4,50-53。
陈晓燕,(2007),英汉社论语篇态度资源对比分析,《外国语》,3,39-46。
程微,(2010),态度韵律的整体性研究,《外语学刊》,3,68-73。
崔艳嫣、王同顺,(2004),英语学术讲座的宏观结构与微观结构——体裁分析在学术语篇分析中的应用,《山东外语教学》,5,27-30。
戴炜栋、龚龙生、束定芳,(1997),《英语常用衔接词例解词典》,上海：上海外语教育出版社。
胡庚申,(1987),《怎样参加国际学术会议：会议实用英语》,北京：科学出版社。
胡瑾、曾蕾,(2007),国际学术交流英语演讲稿语篇模式分析,《外语教学》,28(3),20-24。
胡壮麟、朱永生、张德录,(1989),《系统功能语法导论》,长沙：湖南教育出版社。
胡壮麟、朱永生、张德禄、李战子,(2008),《系统功能语言学概论》(修订版),北京：北京大学出版社。
胡壮麟,(2009),语篇的评价研究,《外语教学》,30(1),1-6。
李基安,(1999),情态意义和情态助动词意义,《外国语》,4,19-23。
李元授、邹昆山,(2003),《演讲学》,武汉：华中科技大学出版社。
李战子,(2001),学术话语中认知型情态的多重人际意义,《外语教学与研究》,5,353-358。
李战子,(2004),评价理论：在话语分析中的应用和问题,《外语研究》,5,1-6。
李战子,(2004),身份策略的矛盾境地——《论不说汉语》中对中国人特质的评价,《外国语》,5,56-63。
李战子、高一虹,(2002),功能语法与批评性话语分析的结合点——第28届国际系统功能语法大会述评,《外语研究》,3,78-79。
刘静,(2005),边界轮与话语整体可理解性——微型学术讲座话语分析,《解放军外国语学院学报》,28(4),6-11。
刘世铸、韩金龙,(2004),新闻话语的评价系统,《外语电化教学》,98,17-21。
刘世铸、张征,(2011),评判的结构潜势与语义构型,《中国外语》,1,22-27,下 转50。
刘晓琳,(2010),评价系统视域中的翻译研究——以《红楼梦》两个译本对比为例,《外语学刊》,3,161-163
林语他堂,(2002),《论读书,论幽默》,北京：当代世界出版社。
马伟林,(2007),评价理论对英语口语教学的启示,《外语教学》,6,37-40。
庞继贤、陈明瑶,(2006),电视访谈中介入标记语的人际功能,《浙江大学学报》(人文社会科学版),36(6),168-175。
冉永平,(2002),话语标记语you know的语用增量辨析,《解放军外国语学院学报》,4,10-15。
苏奕华,(2008),翻译中的意义对等与态度差异,《外语学刊》,5,100-102。
宋成方,(2010),“评价理论”：回顾与展望,刘立华(主编),《评价理论研究》(pp,202-221),北京：外语教学与研究出版社。
索绪尔,(1980),《普通语言学教程》,高名凯(译),北京：商务印书馆。
田芬,(2011),英汉语经济类硬新闻的裁决系统对比研究,《山东外语教学》,2,32-36。
唐丽萍,(2004),学术书评语类结构的评价分析,《外国语》,3,35-43。
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,《外语与外语教学》,5,21-24。
王晓云,(2008),EFL教师评价性话语的人际功能,江西师范大学硕士论文。
王振华,(2001),评价系统及其运作——系统功能语言学的新发展,《外国语》,6,13-20。
王振华,(2002),杂文中作者的介入,《暨南大学华文学院学报》,1,58-64。
王振华,(2003),介入：言语互动中的一种评价视角,河南大学博士论文。
王振华,(2004),“物质过程”的评价价值——以分析小说人物形象为例,《外国语》,5,41-47。
王振华,(2013),系统功能语言学的演变：小句之外——J·R·马丁教授访谈录,《当代外语研究》,10,1-12。
王振华、马玉蕾,(2007),评价理论：魅力与困惑,《外语教学》,28(6),19-23。
王振华、路洋,(2010),介入系统的嬗变, 《外语学刊》,3,51-56。
魏在江,(2011),语用预设的语篇评价功能——语篇语用学界面研究,《中国外语》, 2,23-29。
谢启文,(1988),《会议英语：参加和主持国际性学术会议使用的英语,沈阳：辽宁科技出版社,19881
杨信彰,(2003),语篇中的评价性手段,《外语与外语教学》,1,11-14。
杨信彰,(2007),元话语与语言功能,《外语与外语教学》,12,1-3。
叶姆斯列夫,(2006),《叶姆斯列夫语符学文集》,程琪龙(译),长沙：湖南教育出版社。
于晖,(2003), 《语篇体裁分析：学术论文摘要的符号学意义》,开封：河南大学出版社。
张德禄、马磊,(2002),论实用文体语类结构潜势,《山东外语教学》,1,1-5。
张丽,(2008),英汉硬新闻的情感系统对比研究,山东大学硕士论文。
张韧, (2009),对英文报纸书评的评价研究,上海外国语大学博士论文。
张先刚,(2007),评价理论对语篇翻译的启示,《外语教学》,6,33-36。
朱永生,(2005),《语境动态研究》,北京：北京大学出版社。