英语社论中回指词的评价功能分析
|
摘要
自20世纪八十年代以来,对回指的研究逐渐成为语言学界的一个热门。语言学家们曾分别从句法、语用、认知和功能角度对回指进行过研究。然而鲜少见对回指的评价功能的研究。本文拟在评价系统的框架下,对英语社论中回指词的评价功能进行研究。
作者分别从《纽约时报》和《中国日报》中选取二十篇英语本族语者所写的社论和二十篇非英语本族语者所写的社论,然后对其中具有评价性功能的回指词在评价系统的框架下进行标注和分类,通过定性和定量分析,旨在找出回指词在英语本族者所写社论以及非英语本族语者所写社论在实现评价功能方面的异同点。
本文分析结果发现,回指词在英语本族语者所写社论中和非英语本族者所写社论中存在一些共同点:具有评价功能的人称回指词多于其他回指词;在态度评价系统中,具有鉴赏功能的回指词较多而具有情感功能的回指词较少;在介入评价系统中,实现对话扩展的回指词比实现对话紧缩的回指词多;在级差评价系统中,实现语势功能的回指词较多而实现聚焦功能的回指词较少。
尽管如此,回指词在英语本族语者所写社论中和非英语本族者所写社论中仍然存在一些差异:英语本族语者所写社论中具有评价功能的人称回指多于非英语本族语者所写社论中具有评价功能的人称回指;在态度评价系统中,具有判断功能的回指词与表现肯定态度的回指词在非英语本族语所写社论中更为常见;在介入子系统中,实现对话紧缩的回指词在非英语本族语者所写社论中更常见;在级差子系统中,相对于英语本族者所写社论中具有评价功能的回指词,非英语本族语者所写社论中的回指词更明显的倾向加强正面态度评价和减弱负面态度评价。
本文尝试用社论的功能和不同的社会文化因素解释这些异同。本研究对于扩大回指词的研究范围,帮助英语学习者了解在不同文化背景下实现的回指词的评价功能的差异具有重要意义。
The study about anaphor has been an explosion since the 1980s. Many linguists have made studies on anaphor from different perspectives, including syntax, pragmatics, cognition and functionalism. However, the study on anaphor with consideration to its evaluative function is seldom. The thesis aims at studying the realization of evaluative functions of anaphor in English editorials within the framework of APPRAISAL System.
The author chooses twenty English editorials written by native speakers from New York Times and twenty English editorials written by non-native speakers from China Daily respectively and then annotates and classifies the evaluative anaphors in the editorials. The study aims at finding the similarities and dissimilarities in realizing evaluative functions of anaphor in native-speaker editorials and non-native speaker editorials.
This study has found out that there are some similarities in native speaker and non-native speaker editorials: there are more evaluative nominal anaphors than pronominal anaphors in both native and non-native English editorials; in attitude system, the realization of appreciation is common while the realization of affect is rare; in engagement system, the realization of dialogic expansion is more common than the realization of dialogic contraction; in graduation system, the realization of focus is rare while the realization of force is common.
There are also some dissimilarities: there are more evaluative pronominal anaphors in native English editorials; in attitude system, the realization of judgment and the realization of positive attitude are more common in non-native English editorials; in graduation system, the realization of dialogic contraction by anaphors are more common in non-native English editorials; the anaphors in non-native English editorials tend to raise the positive aspect of attitude and lower the negative aspect, whereas there is not such obvious situation in native English editorials.
In view of the similarities and dissimilarities between them, the functions of editorials and some social-cultural factors are cited to explain the similarities and dissimilarities.The study is signifieant for enriehing the methodologies on the study ofanaPhor.Moreover，it may be helPful for English leamers to know the dissimilarities onevaluative funetions of anaPhor in different eultural baekground.
作者分别从《纽约时报》和《中国日报》中选取二十篇英语本族语者所写的社论和二十篇非英语本族语者所写的社论,然后对其中具有评价性功能的回指词在评价系统的框架下进行标注和分类,通过定性和定量分析,旨在找出回指词在英语本族者所写社论以及非英语本族语者所写社论在实现评价功能方面的异同点。
本文分析结果发现,回指词在英语本族语者所写社论中和非英语本族者所写社论中存在一些共同点:具有评价功能的人称回指词多于其他回指词;在态度评价系统中,具有鉴赏功能的回指词较多而具有情感功能的回指词较少;在介入评价系统中,实现对话扩展的回指词比实现对话紧缩的回指词多;在级差评价系统中,实现语势功能的回指词较多而实现聚焦功能的回指词较少。
尽管如此,回指词在英语本族语者所写社论中和非英语本族者所写社论中仍然存在一些差异:英语本族语者所写社论中具有评价功能的人称回指多于非英语本族语者所写社论中具有评价功能的人称回指;在态度评价系统中,具有判断功能的回指词与表现肯定态度的回指词在非英语本族语所写社论中更为常见;在介入子系统中,实现对话紧缩的回指词在非英语本族语者所写社论中更常见;在级差子系统中,相对于英语本族者所写社论中具有评价功能的回指词,非英语本族语者所写社论中的回指词更明显的倾向加强正面态度评价和减弱负面态度评价。
本文尝试用社论的功能和不同的社会文化因素解释这些异同。本研究对于扩大回指词的研究范围,帮助英语学习者了解在不同文化背景下实现的回指词的评价功能的差异具有重要意义。
The study about anaphor has been an explosion since the 1980s. Many linguists have made studies on anaphor from different perspectives, including syntax, pragmatics, cognition and functionalism. However, the study on anaphor with consideration to its evaluative function is seldom. The thesis aims at studying the realization of evaluative functions of anaphor in English editorials within the framework of APPRAISAL System.
The author chooses twenty English editorials written by native speakers from New York Times and twenty English editorials written by non-native speakers from China Daily respectively and then annotates and classifies the evaluative anaphors in the editorials. The study aims at finding the similarities and dissimilarities in realizing evaluative functions of anaphor in native-speaker editorials and non-native speaker editorials.
This study has found out that there are some similarities in native speaker and non-native speaker editorials: there are more evaluative nominal anaphors than pronominal anaphors in both native and non-native English editorials; in attitude system, the realization of appreciation is common while the realization of affect is rare; in engagement system, the realization of dialogic expansion is more common than the realization of dialogic contraction; in graduation system, the realization of focus is rare while the realization of force is common.
There are also some dissimilarities: there are more evaluative pronominal anaphors in native English editorials; in attitude system, the realization of judgment and the realization of positive attitude are more common in non-native English editorials; in graduation system, the realization of dialogic contraction by anaphors are more common in non-native English editorials; the anaphors in non-native English editorials tend to raise the positive aspect of attitude and lower the negative aspect, whereas there is not such obvious situation in native English editorials.
In view of the similarities and dissimilarities between them, the functions of editorials and some social-cultural factors are cited to explain the similarities and dissimilarities.The study is signifieant for enriehing the methodologies on the study ofanaPhor.Moreover，it may be helPful for English leamers to know the dissimilarities onevaluative funetions of anaPhor in different eultural baekground.
引文
Ariel, M. Accessing Noun-Phrase Antecedents. London: Routledge, 1990.
Grasser, Arthur C. et al. Discourse Cohesion in Texts and Tutorial Dialogue. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2007.
Biber, D. et al (eds). Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research press, 2000.
Bhatin, V. Genre analysis, ESP and professional practice. English for the Specific Purpose, 2008(26): 161-174.
Bloor, T. & M. Bloor. The Functional Analysis of English: A Hallidayan Approach. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2001.
Bloomfield, L. Language. London: Allen and Unwin, 1935.
Botley, S. & A. Mark McEnery. Corpus-based and Computational Approach to Discourse anaphora. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2000.
Brown, G. & G Yule. Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: CUP, 1983.
Bussmann, H. Routledge Dictionary of Language and Linguistics. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2000.
Chomsky, N. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrehct: Foris, 1981.
Crystal, D. A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics (5th Ed.). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd., 2003.
Charles, M. Argument or evidence? Disciplinary in the use of noun“That”pattern in stance construction. English for the Specific Purpose, 2007(26): 203-218.
Coulmas, F. Sociolinguistics. In M. Aronoff, et al (eds.), The Handbook of Linguistics. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2001.
Crossly, S. A chronotopic approach to genre analysis: an exploratory study. English for the Specific Purpose, 2007(26): 4-24
Flowdew, J. Signalling Nouns in Discourse. English for the Specific Purpose, 2003(26): 329-346.
Gionne, David S. Popularizing features in English journal editorials. English for the Specific Purpose,2008(26): 212-232.
Grasser,A. et al. Discourse cohesion in texts and tutorial dialogue. Information Design Journal, 2007(3): 199-213.
Halliday, M.A.K. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. Beijing: Foreign Language and Research Press, 2008.
Halliday, M.A.K. & R. Hasan. Cohesion in English. Beijing: Foreign Language and Research Press, 2001.
Halliday, M. A. K. Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2001.
Huang, Y. A neo-Gricean pragmatic theory in language. Journal of Linguistics, 1991(27): 301-335.
Huang, Y. Discourse anaphora. Journal of Pragmatics, 2000(32): 152-176.
Hoey, M. Patterns of Lexis in Text. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2000.
Hofmann,T.R. Paragraphs and anaphora. Journal of Pragmatic, 1989(13): 239-250.
Hofstede,G. Cultures and Organizations. London: McGraw-Hill.1991.
Hunston, S. & John Sinclair. A local grammar of evaluation. In Hunston, S.and G. Thompson, (eds.) Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2000: 74-101.
Hunston, S. & G. Thompson. (eds). Evaluative in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.2000: 84-91.
Klebcnov, Beta B. & E. Shamiv. Reader-based exploration of lexical cohesion evaluation resources. English for the Specific Purpose, 2007(31): 27-44.
Kuno, S. Functional Syntax: Anaphora, Discourse and Empathy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987.
Langacker, R.W. An introduction to cognitive grammar. CSc 1986(10): 1-40.
Langacker, R. W. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Volume. II, Descriptive Application. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1991.
Langacker, R.W. Conceptual grouping and pronominal anaphora. In Fox, B. A. (ed). Studies in Anaphora. Amsterdam: John Benjamins publishing company, 1996.
Levinson, S. Presumptive Meanings. Cambridge, MA: the MIT Press. 2000.
Levinson, S. Pragmatic reduction of the binding conditions revisited. Journal of Linguistics, 1991
(27): 107—161. Linell, P. & N. Korolija. Coherence in multiple-party conversation: Episode and contexts in interaction. In T. Givon (ed). Conversation: Cognitive, Communicative and Social Perspective. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins Pubishing Company, 1997. Martin, J.R. & P. White. The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. Beijing: Foreign Language
and Research Press, 2008. Martin, J.R. & D. Rose. Working with Discourse: Meaning beyond the Clause. Beijing: Peking
University Press. 2007. Mei, Wu S. Creating a rhetoric stance: investigating the strategy of problematization in student’s
argumentations. RELC Journal, 2006(26): 329-353.
Mitkov, R. Anaphora Resolution. London/New York: Longman.2002. Nozimi,Y. Collocations and colligations associated with discourse functions of unspecific anaphoric
nouns. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 2008(13): 75-98.
Palmer, F.R. Mood and Modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986.
Partington, A. et al (eds). Corpora and Discourse. Bern: Peter Lang, 2004.
Precht, K. Patterns of Stance in English. Unpublished Ph.D Dissertation. Northern Arizona University, 2000.
Sarngi, S. Editorial evaluating evaluative language. Text, 2003(2): 165-170.
Thompson, G. Introducing Functional Grammar. New York: St Martin’s Press Inc, 1996.
Wales, K. Personal Pronouns in Present-day English. London: Cambridge University Press, 1996.
Tu Xianghua. A Discourse-oriented Approach to Automatic Chinese Zero Anaphora Resolution. Unpublished Ph. D. Disseration. Boston University, 2010.
陈平.汉语零形回指的话语分析.中国语文, 1987 (5): 363-378.
陈晓燕.英汉社论语篇态度资源对比分析.外国语, 2007 (3): 39-46.
付慧敏.英文报刊论说文语篇的修辞模式—对比分析《中国日报》和《纽约时报》.吉林大学硕士学位论文, 2005.
高原.照应词的认知分析.北京:外语教学与研究出版社, 2004.
黄国文,常晨光,丁建新.功能语言学的理论与应用.北京:高等教育出版社, 2005.
胡建华,石定栩.约束B原则与代词的句内指称.中国语文, 2006 (1): 5-9.
姜望琪.也谈新格莱斯照应理论.外语教学与研究, 2001(1): 29-36.
梁鲁晋.语篇中回指的功能.厦门:厦门大学出版社, 2007.
李战子.话语的人际意义研究.上海:上海外语教育出版社, 2004.
李战子.评价理论:在话语分析中的应用和问题.外语研究, 2004b(5): 1-6.
李战子.第二人称在自传中的人际功能.外国语, 2001(6): 51-56.
刘世铸.态度的结构潜势.北京:中国社会科学出版社, 2007.
刘世铸评价理论在中国的发展.外语与外语教学, 2010 (5): 33-37.
刘世铸,韩金龙.新闻话语中的评价系统.外语电化教学, 2004(8): 17-21.
刘大保.社论写作.北京:中国广播电视出版社, 2000.
沈阳,董红源.“直接统制”与“他”的句内所指规则,中国语文, 2004(4): 16-29.
孙海珊.英语社论语篇中介入资源的分析.山东大学硕士学位论文, 2006.
田海龙.“我”,“我们”的使用与个人性格.语言教学与研究, 2001(4): 17-20.
许余龙.篇章回指的功能语用探索——一项基于汉语民间故事和报刊语料的研究上海:上海外语教育出版社, 2004.
熊学亮.英汉前指现象对比.上海:复旦大学出版社, 1999.
熊学亮,翁依琴.回指的优选解析.外语教学与研究, 2005(6): 432-438.
徐赳赳.现代汉语篇章回指研究.北京:中国社会科学出版社, 2003.
许保芳,肖德法.语篇回指的多维研究综述.西安外国语大学学报, 2008(1): 22-24.
杨信彰.话语中的识解因素与语境, 2003 (2): 97-101.
俞希,文秋芳.中国英语报章中评价性形容词搭配的本土化特征, 2010 (5): 23-28.
张德禄.论衔接.外国语, 2001(2): 23-28.
张德禄.衔接力与语篇连贯的程度.外语与外语教学, 2001(1): 9-15.
张德禄.语言的功能与文体.北京:高等教育出版社, 2005.
张晓腾.不同体裁的语篇中回指的理解策略.中国海洋大学硕士论文, 2009.
张娟.英语新闻语篇中回指的转喻研究.西南大学硕士论文, 2008.
王振华.评价系统及其运作—系统功能语言学的新发展.外国语, 2001(6): 13-20.
王振华.“硬新闻”的态度研究——“评价系统”应用研究之二.外语教学, 2004(5): 1-35.
支丽丽.论美国报纸社论的功能语体.沈阳师范大学学报, 2005(1): 136-139.
Grasser, Arthur C. et al. Discourse Cohesion in Texts and Tutorial Dialogue. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2007.
Biber, D. et al (eds). Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research press, 2000.
Bhatin, V. Genre analysis, ESP and professional practice. English for the Specific Purpose, 2008(26): 161-174.
Bloor, T. & M. Bloor. The Functional Analysis of English: A Hallidayan Approach. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2001.
Bloomfield, L. Language. London: Allen and Unwin, 1935.
Botley, S. & A. Mark McEnery. Corpus-based and Computational Approach to Discourse anaphora. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2000.
Brown, G. & G Yule. Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: CUP, 1983.
Bussmann, H. Routledge Dictionary of Language and Linguistics. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2000.
Chomsky, N. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrehct: Foris, 1981.
Crystal, D. A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics (5th Ed.). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd., 2003.
Charles, M. Argument or evidence? Disciplinary in the use of noun“That”pattern in stance construction. English for the Specific Purpose, 2007(26): 203-218.
Coulmas, F. Sociolinguistics. In M. Aronoff, et al (eds.), The Handbook of Linguistics. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2001.
Crossly, S. A chronotopic approach to genre analysis: an exploratory study. English for the Specific Purpose, 2007(26): 4-24
Flowdew, J. Signalling Nouns in Discourse. English for the Specific Purpose, 2003(26): 329-346.
Gionne, David S. Popularizing features in English journal editorials. English for the Specific Purpose,2008(26): 212-232.
Grasser,A. et al. Discourse cohesion in texts and tutorial dialogue. Information Design Journal, 2007(3): 199-213.
Halliday, M.A.K. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. Beijing: Foreign Language and Research Press, 2008.
Halliday, M.A.K. & R. Hasan. Cohesion in English. Beijing: Foreign Language and Research Press, 2001.
Halliday, M. A. K. Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2001.
Huang, Y. A neo-Gricean pragmatic theory in language. Journal of Linguistics, 1991(27): 301-335.
Huang, Y. Discourse anaphora. Journal of Pragmatics, 2000(32): 152-176.
Hoey, M. Patterns of Lexis in Text. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2000.
Hofmann,T.R. Paragraphs and anaphora. Journal of Pragmatic, 1989(13): 239-250.
Hofstede,G. Cultures and Organizations. London: McGraw-Hill.1991.
Hunston, S. & John Sinclair. A local grammar of evaluation. In Hunston, S.and G. Thompson, (eds.) Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2000: 74-101.
Hunston, S. & G. Thompson. (eds). Evaluative in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.2000: 84-91.
Klebcnov, Beta B. & E. Shamiv. Reader-based exploration of lexical cohesion evaluation resources. English for the Specific Purpose, 2007(31): 27-44.
Kuno, S. Functional Syntax: Anaphora, Discourse and Empathy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987.
Langacker, R.W. An introduction to cognitive grammar. CSc 1986(10): 1-40.
Langacker, R. W. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Volume. II, Descriptive Application. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1991.
Langacker, R.W. Conceptual grouping and pronominal anaphora. In Fox, B. A. (ed). Studies in Anaphora. Amsterdam: John Benjamins publishing company, 1996.
Levinson, S. Presumptive Meanings. Cambridge, MA: the MIT Press. 2000.
Levinson, S. Pragmatic reduction of the binding conditions revisited. Journal of Linguistics, 1991
(27): 107—161. Linell, P. & N. Korolija. Coherence in multiple-party conversation: Episode and contexts in interaction. In T. Givon (ed). Conversation: Cognitive, Communicative and Social Perspective. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins Pubishing Company, 1997. Martin, J.R. & P. White. The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. Beijing: Foreign Language
and Research Press, 2008. Martin, J.R. & D. Rose. Working with Discourse: Meaning beyond the Clause. Beijing: Peking
University Press. 2007. Mei, Wu S. Creating a rhetoric stance: investigating the strategy of problematization in student’s
argumentations. RELC Journal, 2006(26): 329-353.
Mitkov, R. Anaphora Resolution. London/New York: Longman.2002. Nozimi,Y. Collocations and colligations associated with discourse functions of unspecific anaphoric
nouns. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 2008(13): 75-98.
Palmer, F.R. Mood and Modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986.
Partington, A. et al (eds). Corpora and Discourse. Bern: Peter Lang, 2004.
Precht, K. Patterns of Stance in English. Unpublished Ph.D Dissertation. Northern Arizona University, 2000.
Sarngi, S. Editorial evaluating evaluative language. Text, 2003(2): 165-170.
Thompson, G. Introducing Functional Grammar. New York: St Martin’s Press Inc, 1996.
Wales, K. Personal Pronouns in Present-day English. London: Cambridge University Press, 1996.
Tu Xianghua. A Discourse-oriented Approach to Automatic Chinese Zero Anaphora Resolution. Unpublished Ph. D. Disseration. Boston University, 2010.
陈平.汉语零形回指的话语分析.中国语文, 1987 (5): 363-378.
陈晓燕.英汉社论语篇态度资源对比分析.外国语, 2007 (3): 39-46.
付慧敏.英文报刊论说文语篇的修辞模式—对比分析《中国日报》和《纽约时报》.吉林大学硕士学位论文, 2005.
高原.照应词的认知分析.北京:外语教学与研究出版社, 2004.
黄国文,常晨光,丁建新.功能语言学的理论与应用.北京:高等教育出版社, 2005.
胡建华,石定栩.约束B原则与代词的句内指称.中国语文, 2006 (1): 5-9.
姜望琪.也谈新格莱斯照应理论.外语教学与研究, 2001(1): 29-36.
梁鲁晋.语篇中回指的功能.厦门:厦门大学出版社, 2007.
李战子.话语的人际意义研究.上海:上海外语教育出版社, 2004.
李战子.评价理论:在话语分析中的应用和问题.外语研究, 2004b(5): 1-6.
李战子.第二人称在自传中的人际功能.外国语, 2001(6): 51-56.
刘世铸.态度的结构潜势.北京:中国社会科学出版社, 2007.
刘世铸评价理论在中国的发展.外语与外语教学, 2010 (5): 33-37.
刘世铸,韩金龙.新闻话语中的评价系统.外语电化教学, 2004(8): 17-21.
刘大保.社论写作.北京:中国广播电视出版社, 2000.
沈阳,董红源.“直接统制”与“他”的句内所指规则,中国语文, 2004(4): 16-29.
孙海珊.英语社论语篇中介入资源的分析.山东大学硕士学位论文, 2006.
田海龙.“我”,“我们”的使用与个人性格.语言教学与研究, 2001(4): 17-20.
许余龙.篇章回指的功能语用探索——一项基于汉语民间故事和报刊语料的研究上海:上海外语教育出版社, 2004.
熊学亮.英汉前指现象对比.上海:复旦大学出版社, 1999.
熊学亮,翁依琴.回指的优选解析.外语教学与研究, 2005(6): 432-438.
徐赳赳.现代汉语篇章回指研究.北京:中国社会科学出版社, 2003.
许保芳,肖德法.语篇回指的多维研究综述.西安外国语大学学报, 2008(1): 22-24.
杨信彰.话语中的识解因素与语境, 2003 (2): 97-101.
俞希,文秋芳.中国英语报章中评价性形容词搭配的本土化特征, 2010 (5): 23-28.
张德禄.论衔接.外国语, 2001(2): 23-28.
张德禄.衔接力与语篇连贯的程度.外语与外语教学, 2001(1): 9-15.
张德禄.语言的功能与文体.北京:高等教育出版社, 2005.
张晓腾.不同体裁的语篇中回指的理解策略.中国海洋大学硕士论文, 2009.
张娟.英语新闻语篇中回指的转喻研究.西南大学硕士论文, 2008.
王振华.评价系统及其运作—系统功能语言学的新发展.外国语, 2001(6): 13-20.
王振华.“硬新闻”的态度研究——“评价系统”应用研究之二.外语教学, 2004(5): 1-35.
支丽丽.论美国报纸社论的功能语体.沈阳师范大学学报, 2005(1): 136-139.