图文话语中的态度研究
|
摘要
态度研究是系统功能语言学中的一项重要课题。与文本话语一样,图文话语也反映着一定的态度。不过,相较于文本话语,图文话语中的态度研究方兴未艾。
本文以100篇汉语图文批评性新闻评论为语料,系统研究了态度在图文话语中的实现特征。在评价理论基础上,本文构建了一个研究图文话语中态度的三维模式,即通过分析态度在图文话语中的表征、调节和韵律特征,全面揭示态度在图文话语中的实现特征。与研究单模态的文本话语中的态度不同,该模式中表征维度的研究将揭示态度通过图文符号资源得以表征时的特征以及态度在图片(在本文语料中是漫画)与文本间的互动特征。调节维度的研究将揭示态度通过图文符号资源得以调节的特征,分为态度的图文介入和图文级差两方面,前者通过对介入的文本与漫画的表征特征分析揭示语篇表征立场的方式,后者通过对级差的文本与漫画的表征特征分析揭示态度的值如何在图文话语中得到调节。韵律特征的研究将揭示态度在图文话语语篇层面的推进特点。
本文在定性分析部分通过一系列实例分析整合、归类总结了态度的文本与漫画的表征和调节资源,分析了态度在漫画与文本中的基本互动关系,讨论了态度的韵律类型。在构建分析框架和定性分析的基础上,本文对所收集的语料进行了整理、标注以及定量统计分析,主要有以下发现：
(1)在态度的表征方面,情感本身在语料中数量较少(文本与漫画中的情感均以弱势方情感为主),主要表达了弱势方对弱势境遇或负面行为或事件(的发生)的消极情感。相比旁观者的态度,弱势方情感作为新闻当事人情感更易在读者一方引起共鸣,从而起到说服读者采纳相同立场的作用。判断远多于情感和鉴赏,作者判断又远多于其它态度主体的判断(文本中的微观判断以作者判断为主,漫画中的微观判断均为作者判断),主要表达了语篇作者对负面行为或事件的消极判断。判断态度本身具有的客观性特点体现在作为新闻旁观者的语篇作者身上,可以相应地增加作者态度的客观性。大量作者判断的使用可以显著提高语篇的可信度和说服力。与情感相似,鉴赏本身在语料中数量较少。相较而言,作者鉴赏又远多于其它态度主体的鉴赏(文本与漫画中均以作者鉴赏居多),主要表达了语篇作者对负面事物的消极鉴赏。通过呈现作为旁观者的语篇作者的消极鉴赏,负面事物的负面品质得以突显,有利于语篇引导读者对负面事物采纳与语篇作者相同的立场。此外,态度的标记性表征在语料中出现很少,显性表征和隐性表征的微观态度数量也基本相同。
态度在漫画与文本间的互动方面,漫画中的微观态度总数并不多,但与文本中的微观态度互动频繁,且主要是漫画与大文本而非其它文本间的互动,尤以漫画中针对负面行为或事件的消极作者判断与文本中的消极作者判断间的一致性互动为主。这种作者态度与作者态度在模态层面的一致性互动强化了作者立场,即对负面行为或事件的否定态度,有助于提高语篇整体的说服力。
(2)在态度的调节方面,自言介入的作者微观态度数量最多,这体现了作者有意向读者传达其否定立场是唯一合理选择的意图。此外,第三方微观态度的介入以公告和归属借言居多,这在一定程度上增强了作为旁观者的第三方消极判断的客观性。弱势方微观态度的介入未呈现出自言和借言孰寡孰多的分布。负面方微观态度的介入以归属借言居多,这在一定程度上突显了作为新闻当事人的负面方态度的利己性。自言在文本中的比例远大于借言,但二者在漫画中的比例差距不大。关于级差,语力远多于聚焦,语力中的强化又远多于量化,高阶远多于低阶。可以说,大量的高阶强化体现了语篇作者对负面事物、负面行为或事件等的强烈否定态度。级差在漫画中的出现频率远高于文本中。漫画中的高阶级差,结合漫画本身作为视觉模态的特性将强烈的作者立场更显著地呈现于读者面前。
(3)在态度的韵律方面,语料的态度语义韵律以判断主导韵为主,判断／鉴赏联合主导韵为辅；态度载荷韵律以消极载荷主导韵为主,完全消极载荷韵为辅,载荷均匀分布韵极少；微观态度与作者立场的关系韵以一致主导韵为主,完全一致韵为辅。
本研究的创新之处是将态度的研究范围从英语语料扩展到汉语语料、从单模态的文本话语拓展到图文话语,扩充了态度的研究范围。本文在评价理论基础上构建了研究图文话语中态度的三维模式,其中态度在图文间的互动也作为一个因素纳入考量,这使评价理论更加适用于分析图文话语中的态度。此外,本研究还对态度的图文表征和调节资源做了详尽的整合和归类,在某种意义上填补了文献空白,为后续研究提供了较大方便。
The study of attitude is an important part among researches taken under the framework of Systemic Functional Linguistics. Similar to verbal discourse, visual-verbal discourse also expresses certain attitude. However, compared to that in verbal discourse, study of attitude in visual-verbal discourse is just unfolding till recently. This dissertation endeavors to undertake a comprehensive study of characteristics related to the realization of attitude in visual-verbal discourse with100Chinese visual-verbal news commentary as its corpus.
On the basis of Systemic Functional Linguistics and Appraisal Theory, a tripartite model to examine the realization of attitude in visual-verbal discourse is constructed, which is a comprehensive study by respectively analyzing the processes of attitude's representation, modulation and its development in visual-verbal discourse. The study of attitude's representation reveals those characteristics employed when attitude is represented by visual-verbal resources and the role that visual-verbal interaction plays while attitude is represented. The study of attitude's modulation shows how attitude is intersubjectively positioned and how its graduation is scaled. The study of attitudinal prosody illustrates how attitude is developed in visual-verbal discourse.
A qualitative study of visual-verbal resources for the representation and modulation of attitude is undertaken, which comes out a detailed classification of these resources. Two basic types of visual-verbal interaction are analyzed. In addition, three types of attitudinal prosody, i.e., attitudinal meaning, attitude's load, and the relationship between micro attitude and authorial position, are discussed. Based on the construction of the tripartite model and the qualitative analysis, an annotation scheme is designed and applied to our corpus, after which a comprehensive statistical analysis of the annotated corpus is conducted. Major findings are listed as follows:
(a) Attitude's representation. Affect is uncommon in the corpus and most cases of affect both in visual and verbal parts of the corpus are negative affects of the disadvantaged side in news. The majority of judgment belong to authorial judgment, especially those toward negative behaviors and events. As for appreciation, many cases of negative appreciation of quality are found in the corpus. Besides, though there aren't a number of micro attitudes in cartoons, attitudinal interaction between cartoons and verbal parts of the corpus is quite frequent, especially that between negative authorial judgments.
(b) Attitude's modulation. Monogloss is frequently applied to authorial attitudes and heterogloss to attitudes of both the negative side in news and the third party. The positioning of attitudes of the disadvantaged side in news has not shown any tendency toward neither monogloss nor heterogloss. As for the modulation of graduation, it has shown that there is more modulation of force than that of focus. It is also found that cases of modulation of attitude's graduation is much more common in cartoons than in verbal parts of the corpus.
(c) Attitudinal prosody. As is revealed, the prosody of attitudinal meaning for most individual Chinese new commentary discourse in our corpus belongs to judgment-leading pattern, and the prosody of the load of attitude is mainly negative-load-leading pattern. As for the prosody of the relationship between micro attitude and authorial position, most cases are congruence-leading pattern.
All in all, major findings listed above prove that characteristics related to the realization of attitude in Chinese visual-verbal news commentary is oriented toward increasing the persuasive power of corresponding commentary discourse.
Main innovation of this dissertation lies in three aspects. First, the range of research on attitude is extended from mono-modal discourse to multimodal discourse. Second, a tripartite model to examine the realization of attitude in visual-verbal discourse is constructed, which is more applicable for the analysis of attitude in visual-verbal discourse. Third, a detailed classification of visual and verbal resources for realizing and modulating attitude is undertaken, which will facilitate further study of attitude in visual-verbal discourse.
本文以100篇汉语图文批评性新闻评论为语料,系统研究了态度在图文话语中的实现特征。在评价理论基础上,本文构建了一个研究图文话语中态度的三维模式,即通过分析态度在图文话语中的表征、调节和韵律特征,全面揭示态度在图文话语中的实现特征。与研究单模态的文本话语中的态度不同,该模式中表征维度的研究将揭示态度通过图文符号资源得以表征时的特征以及态度在图片(在本文语料中是漫画)与文本间的互动特征。调节维度的研究将揭示态度通过图文符号资源得以调节的特征,分为态度的图文介入和图文级差两方面,前者通过对介入的文本与漫画的表征特征分析揭示语篇表征立场的方式,后者通过对级差的文本与漫画的表征特征分析揭示态度的值如何在图文话语中得到调节。韵律特征的研究将揭示态度在图文话语语篇层面的推进特点。
本文在定性分析部分通过一系列实例分析整合、归类总结了态度的文本与漫画的表征和调节资源,分析了态度在漫画与文本中的基本互动关系,讨论了态度的韵律类型。在构建分析框架和定性分析的基础上,本文对所收集的语料进行了整理、标注以及定量统计分析,主要有以下发现：
(1)在态度的表征方面,情感本身在语料中数量较少(文本与漫画中的情感均以弱势方情感为主),主要表达了弱势方对弱势境遇或负面行为或事件(的发生)的消极情感。相比旁观者的态度,弱势方情感作为新闻当事人情感更易在读者一方引起共鸣,从而起到说服读者采纳相同立场的作用。判断远多于情感和鉴赏,作者判断又远多于其它态度主体的判断(文本中的微观判断以作者判断为主,漫画中的微观判断均为作者判断),主要表达了语篇作者对负面行为或事件的消极判断。判断态度本身具有的客观性特点体现在作为新闻旁观者的语篇作者身上,可以相应地增加作者态度的客观性。大量作者判断的使用可以显著提高语篇的可信度和说服力。与情感相似,鉴赏本身在语料中数量较少。相较而言,作者鉴赏又远多于其它态度主体的鉴赏(文本与漫画中均以作者鉴赏居多),主要表达了语篇作者对负面事物的消极鉴赏。通过呈现作为旁观者的语篇作者的消极鉴赏,负面事物的负面品质得以突显,有利于语篇引导读者对负面事物采纳与语篇作者相同的立场。此外,态度的标记性表征在语料中出现很少,显性表征和隐性表征的微观态度数量也基本相同。
态度在漫画与文本间的互动方面,漫画中的微观态度总数并不多,但与文本中的微观态度互动频繁,且主要是漫画与大文本而非其它文本间的互动,尤以漫画中针对负面行为或事件的消极作者判断与文本中的消极作者判断间的一致性互动为主。这种作者态度与作者态度在模态层面的一致性互动强化了作者立场,即对负面行为或事件的否定态度,有助于提高语篇整体的说服力。
(2)在态度的调节方面,自言介入的作者微观态度数量最多,这体现了作者有意向读者传达其否定立场是唯一合理选择的意图。此外,第三方微观态度的介入以公告和归属借言居多,这在一定程度上增强了作为旁观者的第三方消极判断的客观性。弱势方微观态度的介入未呈现出自言和借言孰寡孰多的分布。负面方微观态度的介入以归属借言居多,这在一定程度上突显了作为新闻当事人的负面方态度的利己性。自言在文本中的比例远大于借言,但二者在漫画中的比例差距不大。关于级差,语力远多于聚焦,语力中的强化又远多于量化,高阶远多于低阶。可以说,大量的高阶强化体现了语篇作者对负面事物、负面行为或事件等的强烈否定态度。级差在漫画中的出现频率远高于文本中。漫画中的高阶级差,结合漫画本身作为视觉模态的特性将强烈的作者立场更显著地呈现于读者面前。
(3)在态度的韵律方面,语料的态度语义韵律以判断主导韵为主,判断／鉴赏联合主导韵为辅；态度载荷韵律以消极载荷主导韵为主,完全消极载荷韵为辅,载荷均匀分布韵极少；微观态度与作者立场的关系韵以一致主导韵为主,完全一致韵为辅。
本研究的创新之处是将态度的研究范围从英语语料扩展到汉语语料、从单模态的文本话语拓展到图文话语,扩充了态度的研究范围。本文在评价理论基础上构建了研究图文话语中态度的三维模式,其中态度在图文间的互动也作为一个因素纳入考量,这使评价理论更加适用于分析图文话语中的态度。此外,本研究还对态度的图文表征和调节资源做了详尽的整合和归类,在某种意义上填补了文献空白,为后续研究提供了较大方便。
The study of attitude is an important part among researches taken under the framework of Systemic Functional Linguistics. Similar to verbal discourse, visual-verbal discourse also expresses certain attitude. However, compared to that in verbal discourse, study of attitude in visual-verbal discourse is just unfolding till recently. This dissertation endeavors to undertake a comprehensive study of characteristics related to the realization of attitude in visual-verbal discourse with100Chinese visual-verbal news commentary as its corpus.
On the basis of Systemic Functional Linguistics and Appraisal Theory, a tripartite model to examine the realization of attitude in visual-verbal discourse is constructed, which is a comprehensive study by respectively analyzing the processes of attitude's representation, modulation and its development in visual-verbal discourse. The study of attitude's representation reveals those characteristics employed when attitude is represented by visual-verbal resources and the role that visual-verbal interaction plays while attitude is represented. The study of attitude's modulation shows how attitude is intersubjectively positioned and how its graduation is scaled. The study of attitudinal prosody illustrates how attitude is developed in visual-verbal discourse.
A qualitative study of visual-verbal resources for the representation and modulation of attitude is undertaken, which comes out a detailed classification of these resources. Two basic types of visual-verbal interaction are analyzed. In addition, three types of attitudinal prosody, i.e., attitudinal meaning, attitude's load, and the relationship between micro attitude and authorial position, are discussed. Based on the construction of the tripartite model and the qualitative analysis, an annotation scheme is designed and applied to our corpus, after which a comprehensive statistical analysis of the annotated corpus is conducted. Major findings are listed as follows:
(a) Attitude's representation. Affect is uncommon in the corpus and most cases of affect both in visual and verbal parts of the corpus are negative affects of the disadvantaged side in news. The majority of judgment belong to authorial judgment, especially those toward negative behaviors and events. As for appreciation, many cases of negative appreciation of quality are found in the corpus. Besides, though there aren't a number of micro attitudes in cartoons, attitudinal interaction between cartoons and verbal parts of the corpus is quite frequent, especially that between negative authorial judgments.
(b) Attitude's modulation. Monogloss is frequently applied to authorial attitudes and heterogloss to attitudes of both the negative side in news and the third party. The positioning of attitudes of the disadvantaged side in news has not shown any tendency toward neither monogloss nor heterogloss. As for the modulation of graduation, it has shown that there is more modulation of force than that of focus. It is also found that cases of modulation of attitude's graduation is much more common in cartoons than in verbal parts of the corpus.
(c) Attitudinal prosody. As is revealed, the prosody of attitudinal meaning for most individual Chinese new commentary discourse in our corpus belongs to judgment-leading pattern, and the prosody of the load of attitude is mainly negative-load-leading pattern. As for the prosody of the relationship between micro attitude and authorial position, most cases are congruence-leading pattern.
All in all, major findings listed above prove that characteristics related to the realization of attitude in Chinese visual-verbal news commentary is oriented toward increasing the persuasive power of corresponding commentary discourse.
Main innovation of this dissertation lies in three aspects. First, the range of research on attitude is extended from mono-modal discourse to multimodal discourse. Second, a tripartite model to examine the realization of attitude in visual-verbal discourse is constructed, which is more applicable for the analysis of attitude in visual-verbal discourse. Third, a detailed classification of visual and verbal resources for realizing and modulating attitude is undertaken, which will facilitate further study of attitude in visual-verbal discourse.
引文
Baldry, A.P.& O'Halloran, K.L.2010. Research into the Annotation of a Multimodal Corpus of University Websites:An Illustration of Multimodal Corpus Linguistics. In Harris, T & Maria, M. J. (Eds.). Corpus Linguistics in Language Teaching [C]. Bern:Peter Lang. Pp.177-210
Barthes, R.1964. Image, music, text [M]. London:Fontana.
Barthes, R.& S, Heath.1977. Image, music, text [M]. London:Fontana.
Becker, A.2009. Modality and engagement in British and German political interviews [J], Languages in Contrast 1(9):5-22.
Bednarek, M.2005. Evaluating the world:The evaluative style of British broadsheet and tabloid publications [D]. Augsburg:University of Augsburg.
Bednarek, M.2006. Evaluation in Media Discourse:Analysis of a Newspaper Corpus [M]. London:Continuum.
Bednarek, M.2008. Emotion Talk across Corpora [M]. Basingstoke:Palgrave Macmillan.
Bednarek, M.2009. Emotion-talk and emotional-talk:Cognitive and discursive perspectives. In Pishwa, H. (Eds.). Language and Social Cognition:Expression of the Social Mind [C]. Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter. Pp.395-431.
Bednarek, M.2010. Evaluation in the news:A methodological framework for analyzing evaluative language in journalism [J]. Australian Journal of Communication 37(2):15-50.
Bednarek, M.& Caple, H.2010. Playing with environmental stories in the news-good or bad practice [J]. Discourse & Communication 4(1):5-31.
Bednarek, M.& Martin, J. R.2010. New Discourse on Language:Functional Perspectives on Multimodality, Identity, and Affiliation [M]. London:Continuum.
Caple, M. B. H.2012.'Value added':Language, image & news values [J]. Discourse, Context & Media 11:103-113.
Chafe, W. L.& Nichols, J.1986. Evidentiality:The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology [M]. Norwood:Ablex Publishing.
Chen, Y. M.2009. Interpersonal meaning in textbooks for teaching English as a foreign language in China:A multimodal approach [D]. Sydney:University of Sydney.
Chen, Y. M.2010. Exploring dialogic engagement with readers in multimodal EFL textbooks in China [J]. Visual Communication 9(4):485-506.
Collins dictionary on line,2012. Collins dictionary on line [DB/OL]. http://www. collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english—thesaurus/claim?showCookiePolicy=tr ue.
Economou, D.2006. The big picture:The role of the lead image in print feature stories. In Lassen, I, Strunck, J & Vestergaard, T. (Eds.). Mediating Ideology in Text and Image:Ten Critical Studies [C]. Amsterdam:John Benjamins. Pp. 211-234.
Economou, D.2008. Pulling readers in:News photos in Greek & Australian broadsheets. In White, P & Thomson, E. (Eds.). Communicating Conflict: Multilingual Case Studies of the News Media [C]. London:Continuum. Pp. 253-280.
Economou, D.2009. Photos in the news:Appraisal analysis of visual semiosis and verbal-visual semiosis [D]. Sydney:University of Sydney.
Economou, D.2010. Having it both ways:Images & text face off in the broadsheet feature story. In Rupar, V. (Eds.). Journalism and Meaning-making:Reading the Newspaper [C]. Cresskill:Hamton Press. Pp.175-197.
Economou, D.2012. Standing out on critical issues:Evaluation in large verbal-visual displays in Australian broadsheets. In Bowcher, W. L. (Eds.). Multimodal Texts from Around the World:Cultural and Linguistic Insights [C]. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire:Palgrave Macmillan. Pp.246-272.
Eerden, B.2009. Anger in Asterix:The metaphorical representation of anger in comics & animated films. In Forceville, C & Urios-Aparisi, E. (Eds.). Multimodal Metaphor [C]. Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter. Pp.243-264.
Feng, D. Z.2012. Modeling appraisal in film:A social semiotic approach [D]. Singapore:National University of Singapore.
Feng, D. Z & O'Halloran, K. L.2012. Representing emotive meaning in visual images:A social semiotic approach [J]. Journal of Pragmatics 44(14): 2067-2084.
Feng, D. Z.& White. P.2011. Intertextual voices and engagement in TV advertisements [J]. Visual Communication 10(4):565-588.
Forceville, C.1996. Pictorial Metaphor in Advertising [M]. London:Routledge.
Forceville, C.2005. Visual representations of the idealized cognitive model of anger in the Asterix album La Zizanie [J]. Journal of Pragmatics 37(1):69-88.
Forceville, C.2011. Pictorial runes in Tintin and the Picaros [J]. Journal of Pragmatics 43(3):875-890.
Halliday, M. A. K & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M.2004. An Introduction to Functional Grammar 3rd Edition [M]. London:Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M.2013. An Introduction to Functional Grammar 4th Edition [M]. London:Arnold.
Hood, S.2004a. Appraising research:Taking a stance in academic writing [D]. Sydney:University of Technology.
Hood, S.2004b. Managing attitude in undergraduate academic writing:A focus on the introductions to research reports. In Ravelli, L & Ellis, R. (Eds.). Analyzing Academic Writing:Contextualized Frameworks [C]. London:Continuum. Pp. 24-44.
Hood, S.2006. The persuasive power of prosodies:Radiating values in academic writing [J]. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 5(1):37-49.
Hood, S.2010. Appraising Research:Evaluation in Academic Writing [M]. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire:Palgrave Macmillan.
Hood, S.2012. Voice and Stance as appraisal:Persuading and positioning in research writing across intellectual fields. In Hyland, K & Guinda, C. (Eds.). Stance and Voice in Written Academic Genres [C]. London:Palgrave. Pp.51-68.
Hood, S.& Martin, J. R.2005. Invoking attitude:The play of graduation in appraising discourse [J]. Revista Signos 38(58):195-220.
Hood, S.& Stenglin, M. et al.2011. Semiotic Margins:Meaning in Multimodalities [M]. London:Continuum.
Hunston, S.& Geoffrey, T.2000. Evaluation in Text:Authorial Stance & the Construction of Discourse [M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Hyland, K.2005. Stance and engagement:A model of interaction in academic discourse [J]. Discourse Studies 7(2):173-192.
Hyland, K.& Guinda, C.2012. Stance and Voice in Written Academic Genres [M]. London:Palgrave.
Hyon, S.2011. Evaluation in Tenure and Promotion Letters:Constructing Faculty as Communicators, Stars, and Workers [J]. Applied Linguistics 32(4):389-407.
Iedema, R.& Feez, S, et al.1994. Media Literacy (Write It Right Literacy in Industry Research Project Stage 2 [R]. Sydney:Sydney Metropolitan East Region Disadvantaged Schools Program.
Kovecses, Z.1986. Metaphors of Anger, Pride, and Love:A Lexical Approach to the Structure of Concepts [M]. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Kovecses, Z.2000. Metaphor and Emotion:Language, Culture, and Body in Human Feeling [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Kovecses, Z.2005. Metaphor in Culture:Universality and Variation [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lemke, J. L.1998a. Multiplying meaning:Visual and verbal semiotics in scientific text. In Martin, J. R.& Veel, R. (Eds.). Reading Science:Critical and Functional Perspectives on Discourses of Science [A]. New York:Routledge. Pp.87-114.
Lemke, J. L.1998b. Resources for attitudinal meaning:Evaluative orientations in text semantics [J]. Functions of Language 5(1):33-56.
Lemke, J. L.1998c. Visual and Verbal Resources for Evaluative Meaning in Political Cartoons [DB/OL]. http://www.jaylemke.com/storage/Evaluative%20Meaning% 20in%20Political%20Cartoons.pdf.
Macken-Horarik, M.2004. Interacting with the multimodal text:Reflections on Image and verbiage in Art Express [J]. Visual Communication 3(1):5-26.
Martin, J. R.1995. Text and clause:fractal resonance [J]. Text 15(1):5-42.
Martin, J. R.1996. Types of structure:Deconstructing notions of constituency in clause and text. In Eduard, H. H & Scott, D. R. (Eds.). Computational and Conversational Discourse:Burning Issues-An Interdisciplinary Account [C]. Heidelberg:Springer. Pp.39-66.
Martin, J. R.2000a. Beyond Exchange:Appraisal systems in English. In Hunston, S & Thompson, G. (Eds.). Evaluation in Text:Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse [C]. Oxford:Oxford University Press. Pp.142-175.
Martin, J. R.2000b. Fair Trade:Negotiating meaning in multimodal texts. In Coppock, P. (Eds.). The Semiotics of Writing:Transdisciplinary Perspectives on the Technology of Writing [C]. Turnhout:Brepols. Pp.338.
Martin, J. R.2003. Negotiating Heteroglossia:Social Perspectives on Evaluation [J]. Text Special Issue 2(23):1-11.
Martin, J. R.2004. Sense and sensibility:Texturing evaluation. In Foley, J. (Eds.). Language, Education and Discourse:Functional Approaches [C]. London: Continuum. Pp.270-304.
Martin, J. R.& Rose, D.2003. Working with Discourse:Meaning Beyond the Clause [M]. New York, London:Continuum.
Martin, J. R.& Rose, D.2008. Working with Discourse:Meaning Beyond the Clause 2nd Edition [M]. New York, London:Continuum.
Martin, J. R.& White, P. R.2005. The Language of Evaluation:Appraisal in English [M]. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire:Palgrave Macmillan.
Martin, J. R.& Zappavigna, M. et al.2010. Negotiating evaluation:Story structure and appraisal in Youth Justice Conferencing. In Mahboob, A & Knight, N. (Eds.). Appliable Linguistics [M]. London:Continuum International Pub. Group. Pp. 44-75.
Martinec, R.2001. Interpersonal resources in action [J]. Semiotica 135(1-4):117-145.
Norris, S.2004. Analyzing Multimodal Interaction:A Methodological Framework [M]. New York:Routledge.
Norris, S.2011. Multimodality in Practice:Investigating Theory in practice through methodology [M]. New York:Routledge.
O'Halloran, K. L.1999. Interdependence, interaction and metaphor in multisemiotic texts [J]. Social Semiotics 9(3):317-356.
O'Halloran, K. L.2004a. Multimodal Discourse Analysis:Systemic-Functional Perspectives [M]. London:Continuum.
O'Halloran, K. L.2004b. Visual semiosis in film. In O'Halloran. K. L. (Eds.). Multimodal Discourse Analysis:Systemic-Functional Perspectives [C]. London: Continuum,2004:109-130.
O'Halloran, K. L.2008. Systemic functional-multimodal discourse analysis SF-MDA: Constructing ideational meaning using language and visual imagery [J]. Visual Communication 7(4):443-475.
O'Halloran, K. L.2011a. Multimodal Discourse Analysis. In Hyland, K & Paltridge, B. (Eds.). Continuum Companion to Discourse Analysis [C]. London:Continuum. Pp.120-137.
O'Halloran, K. L.2011b. Multimodal studies. In O'Halloran, K. L.& Smith. B. A. (Eds.). Multimodal Studies:Exploring Issues and Domains [C]. New York: Routledge. Pp.1-13.
O'Halloran, K. L.2012. Combining Computational Tools with Systemic Functional Theory for Discourse Analysis. In Norris, S. Multimodality in Practice: Investigating theory in practice through methodology [C]. London, Routledge: 153-173.
O'Halloran, K. L.& B. A. Smith (Eds.).2011. Multimodal Studies:Exploring Issues and Domains [C]. New York:Routledge.
O'Halloran, K. L.& Bradley, A. S.2011. Multimodal Studies:Exploring Issues and Domains [M]. New York:Routledge.
O'Halloran, K. L & Fei, V. L.2009. Sequential Visual Discourse Frames. In Ventola, E, Guijarro, M & Jesus, A. (Eds.). The World Told and the World Shown: Multisemiotic Issues [C]. Basingstoke:Palgrave Macmillan. Pp.139-152.
O'Toole, L. M.1995. A systemic-functional semiotics of art. In Halliday, M. A. K.& Fries, P. H. (Eds.). Discourse in Society:Systemic-Functional Perspectives [C]. New York:Ablex Publishing Corporation. Pp.159-179.
O'Toole, L. M.2011. The Language of Displayed Art [M]. New York:Routledge.
Pantti, M.2010. The value of emotion:An examination of television journalists' notions on emotionality [J]. European Journal of Communication 25(2):168-181.
Pho, P. D.2008. Research article abstracts in applied linguistics and educational technology:A study of linguistic realizations of rhetorical structure and authorial stance [J]. Discourse Studies 10(2):231-250.
Pounds, G.2010. Attitude and subjectivity in Italian and British hard-news reporting: The construction of a culture-specific'reporter'voice [J]. Discourse Studies 12 1: 106-137.
Pounds, G.2012. Multimodal expression of authorial affect in a British television [J]. Discourse, Context & Media 12(3):68-81.
Royce, T. D.1999. Visual-verbal intersemiotic complementarity in the economist magazine [D]. Reading:The University of Reading.
Royce, T. D.& Bowcher, W. L.2007. New Directions in the Analysis of Multimodal Discourse [M]. New York:Routledge.
Shinohara, K.& Matsunaka, Y.2009. Pictorial metaphors of emotion in Japanese comics. In Forceville, C & E. Urios-Aparisi (Eds.). Multimodal Metaphor [C]. Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter. Pp.265-293.
Swain, E.2012. Analyzing evaluation in political cartoons [J]. Discourse, Context & Media 1(2-3):82-94.
Tan, S.2010. Modelling engagement in a web-based advertising campaign [J]. Visual Communication 9(1):91-115.
Thompson, G. 2000. Introducing Functional Grammar [M]. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Thomson, E. A.& White, P. R.2008. Communicating Conflict:Multilingual Case Studies of the News Media [M]. London:Continuum.
Unsworth, L.2008. Describing image-text relations as a resource for negotiating multimodal texts. In Coiro, J. (Eds.). Handbook of Research on New Literacies [C]. New York:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates/Taylor & Francis Group. Pp. 378-403.
Van Leeuwen, T.& Jewitt, C.2001. Handbook of Visual Analysis [M]. London:Sage.
Van Leeuwen, T.& Kress, G.1996. Reading Images:The Grammar of Visual Design [M]. London:Routledge.
Van Leeuwen, T.& Kress, G.2001. Multimodal Discourse:The Modes & Media of Contemporary Communication [M]. London:Arnold.
Van Leeuwen, T.& Kress, G.2006. Reading Images:The Grammar of Visual Design 2nd Edition [M]. New York:Routledge.
Wang, R.2011. Meaning, Discourse and Society [J]. Journal of Pragmatics 43(14): 3630-3632.
Wang, R.2013. Multimodal Texts from Around the World:Cultural and Linguistic Insights [J]. Language in Society 42(4):476-477.
White, P. R.1998. Telling media tales:The news story as rhetoric [D]. Sydney: University of Sydney.
White, P. R.2002. Appraisal:The language of evaluation and stance. In Verschueren, J, Stman, J.0. et al. (Eds.). Handbook of Pragmatics [M]. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
White, P. R.2003. Beyond modality and hedging:A dialogic view of the language of intersubjective stance [J]. Text 3(23):259-284.
White, P. R.2005. Subjectivity, evaluation & point of view in media discourse. In Burns, A & Coffin, C. (Eds.). Analyzing English in a Global Context:A Reade [C]. London & New York:Arnold. Pp.229-257.
White, P. R.2006. Evaluative semantics and ideological positioning in journalistic discourse. In Lassen, I. Image and Ideology in the Mass Media [M]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John Benjamins. Pp.45-73.
White, P. R.2008. The News story as rhetoric:Linguistic approaches to the analysis of journalistic discourse. In Thomson, E & White, P. R. Communicating Conflict: Multilingual Case Studies of the News Media [M]. London:Continuum. Pp.1-23.
White, P. R.2012. The Appraisal website [DB/OL].http://grammatics.com/appraisal.
White, P. R.& Martin, J. R.2005. The Language of Evaluation:Appraisal in English [M]. New York:Palgrave Macmillan.
Wilson, D.& Sperber, D.1996. Relevance:Communication and Cognition 2nd [M]. Oxford:Blackwell Publishers.
Yu, N.2011. Beijing Olympics and Beijing opera:A multimodal metaphor in a CCTV Olympics commercial [J]. Cognitive Linguistics 22(3):595-628.
Zappavigna, M.& Chris, C, et al.2010. Visualizing Appraisal Prosody. In A. Mahboob & N. Knight (Eds.). Appliable Linguistics [M]. London, Continuum International Pub. Group. Pp.150-167.
布占廷,2000,夸张修辞的态度意义研究[J]。《当代修辞学》4：53-59。
陈瑜敏,2008,奥运电视公益广告多模态态度的构建[J]。《北京科技大学学报》(社会科学版)3：108-114。
陈瑜敏,2010,《多模态与语篇体裁：书面多模态语篇系统分析的基本原则》述介[J]。《当代语言学》3：282-284。
陈瑜敏,2010,情态分析在多模态外语教材研究中的应用探析[J]。《外语教学》1：69-72。
陈瑜敏、秦小怡,2007,教科书语篇多模式符号的介入意义、多声互动[J]。《外语与外语教学》12：15-18。
陈瑜敏、王红阳,2008,多模态语篇图像的概念意义、图文关系——当代教科书的多模态语篇分析[J]。《宁波大学学报》(教育科学版)1：124-129。
陈瑜敏、黄国文,2009,话语多声互动的多模态构建方式解析——以语言教材话语为例[J]。《外语电化教学》6：35-41。
程微,2007,从态度韵看语篇的衔接、连贯[J]。《外语教学》6：24-28。
程微,2010a,积极语篇分析：和谐的态度韵律研究——以汉语导游讲解词为例[J]。《北京科技大学学报》(社会科学版)2：113-118。
程微,2010b,态度韵律的整体性研究[J]。《外语学刊》3：68-73。
樊新民,2009,当代中国社会问题[M]。北京：中国社会出版社。
冯德正,2011,多模态隐喻的构建、分类-系统功能视角[J],《外语研究》1：24-29。
付晓丽、付天军,2009,英语文学语篇的级差系统分析——以《呼啸山庄》为例[J],《河北师范大学学报》(哲学社会科学版)3：115-119。
汉典在线,2004,汉典在线[DB/OL]。 http://www.zdic.net/。
胡新桥、王俊荣,2008,记者职业权利的特征与保护[J]。《湖北社会科学》10： 150-153。
贾奎林、张雪娜,2009,新闻评论运用教程[M]。北京：北京大学出版社。
李君,2010,汉语小说中含义的主观态度研究[J]。《语文知识》4：75-78。
李君,2011a,从宏观到微观解读影评的态度策略[J]。《山东外语教学》1：17-22。
李君,2011b,评价理论视角下影评的态度特征研究[D]。济南：山东大学。
李君、张德禄,2010,电视新闻访谈介入特征的韵律性模式探索[J]。《外语教学》4：6-10,19。
李战子,2004a,评价理论：在话语分析中的应用和问题[J]。《外语研究》5：1-6,80。
李战子,2004b,评价与文化模式[J]。《山东外语教学》2：3-8。
李战子,2005,从语气、情态到评价[J]。《外语研究》6：14-19+80。
李战子,2006,文体、评价——从语篇潜势到阅读取位[J]。《外语与外语教学》10：25-28,56。
刘世铸,2006,态度的结构潜势[D]。济南：山东大学。
刘世铸,2009,基于语料库的情感评价意义构型研究[J]。《外语教学》2：22-25。
刘世铸、张征,2011,评判的结构潜势与语义构型[J]。《中国外语》1：22-27,50。
马博森、王荣斌,2014,基于汉语新闻语料库的季节隐喻研究[J]。《安徽大学学报》(哲学社会科学版)2：16。
彭宣维,2010,汉语的介入与级差现象[J]。《当代外语研究》10：55-63。
彭宣维,2011,语言与语言学概论：汉语系统功能语言学[M]。北京：北京大学出版社。
彭宣维、杨晓军、何中清,2012,汉英对应评价意义语料库[J]。《外语电化教学》5：3-10。
尚重生,2010,当代中国社会问题透视[M]。武汉：武汉大学出版社。
王荣斌,2010,社会身份多重性与政治劝说的元语言研究[J]。《电子科技大学学报》(社会科学版)3：86-91。
王荣斌,2012,《网络语用学——网络语境中的交际》述评[J]。《现代外语》4：433-435。
王硕、尹富林,2011,视觉语法关照下的多模态语篇分析——以一则平面广告为 例[J]。《南京工业大学学报》(社会科学版)4：96-100。
王天华,2008,新闻话语中的隐性评价、动态读者定位[D]。济南：山东大学。
王允沆,1980,杂谈漫画[J]。《新闻战线》：32。
王振华,2001,评价系统及其运作——系统功能语言学的新发展[J]。《外国语》6：13-20。
王振华,2003,介入：言语互动中的一种评价视角[D]。开封：河南大学。
王振华,2004a,物质过程的评价价值——以分析小说人物形象为例[J]。《外国语》5：41-47。
王振华,2004b,硬新闻的态度研究——评价系统应用研究之二[J]。《外语教学》5：31-36。
王振华,2010a,从态度系统考察奥巴马获2009年度诺贝尔和平奖引发的争议[J]。《当代外语研究》3：7-11,46,61。
王振华,2010b,语言的功能维度——评价理论：研究与应用——主持人话语[J]。《外语学刊》3：51。
王振华、路洋,2010,介入系统嬗变[J]。《外语学刊》3：51-56。
王振华、马玉蕾,2007,评价理论：魅力、困惑[J]。《外语教学》6：19-23。
王振华、徐盛桓,2004,介入：言语互动中的一种评价视角[J]。《语言文字应用》3：145。
韦琴红,2008,论多模态话语的整体意义构建——基于一个多模态媒体语篇的话语分析[J]。《天津外国语大学学报》6：1621。
辛志英、黄国文,2010,元话语的评价赋值功能[J]。《外语教学》6：1-5。
杨信彰,2003,语篇中的评价性手段[J]。《外语与外语教学》1：11-14。
杨信彰,2006,英语学术语篇中的评论附加语[J]。《外语与外语教学》10：11-13。
杂文选刊,2013,中华杂文网[DB/OL]。 http://www.chinazawen.com/zwzzdt/2010-10-25/2239.html.
张德禄、刘世铸,2006,形式、意义的范畴化——兼评《评价语言-英语的评价系统》[J]。《外语教学与研究》6：423-427,479。
张滟,2008,学术话语中的级差范畴化及其修辞劝说构建[J]。《外国语》6：33-40。
赵雪、丁晓晓,2012,互动性电视新闻评论节目介入特征探析——基于《新闻深一度》的实例分析[J]。《宁波大学学报》(人文科学版)5：119-123。 朱永生,2009,概念意义中的隐性评价[J]。《外语教学》4：1-5。
Barthes, R.1964. Image, music, text [M]. London:Fontana.
Barthes, R.& S, Heath.1977. Image, music, text [M]. London:Fontana.
Becker, A.2009. Modality and engagement in British and German political interviews [J], Languages in Contrast 1(9):5-22.
Bednarek, M.2005. Evaluating the world:The evaluative style of British broadsheet and tabloid publications [D]. Augsburg:University of Augsburg.
Bednarek, M.2006. Evaluation in Media Discourse:Analysis of a Newspaper Corpus [M]. London:Continuum.
Bednarek, M.2008. Emotion Talk across Corpora [M]. Basingstoke:Palgrave Macmillan.
Bednarek, M.2009. Emotion-talk and emotional-talk:Cognitive and discursive perspectives. In Pishwa, H. (Eds.). Language and Social Cognition:Expression of the Social Mind [C]. Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter. Pp.395-431.
Bednarek, M.2010. Evaluation in the news:A methodological framework for analyzing evaluative language in journalism [J]. Australian Journal of Communication 37(2):15-50.
Bednarek, M.& Caple, H.2010. Playing with environmental stories in the news-good or bad practice [J]. Discourse & Communication 4(1):5-31.
Bednarek, M.& Martin, J. R.2010. New Discourse on Language:Functional Perspectives on Multimodality, Identity, and Affiliation [M]. London:Continuum.
Caple, M. B. H.2012.'Value added':Language, image & news values [J]. Discourse, Context & Media 11:103-113.
Chafe, W. L.& Nichols, J.1986. Evidentiality:The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology [M]. Norwood:Ablex Publishing.
Chen, Y. M.2009. Interpersonal meaning in textbooks for teaching English as a foreign language in China:A multimodal approach [D]. Sydney:University of Sydney.
Chen, Y. M.2010. Exploring dialogic engagement with readers in multimodal EFL textbooks in China [J]. Visual Communication 9(4):485-506.
Collins dictionary on line,2012. Collins dictionary on line [DB/OL]. http://www. collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english—thesaurus/claim?showCookiePolicy=tr ue.
Economou, D.2006. The big picture:The role of the lead image in print feature stories. In Lassen, I, Strunck, J & Vestergaard, T. (Eds.). Mediating Ideology in Text and Image:Ten Critical Studies [C]. Amsterdam:John Benjamins. Pp. 211-234.
Economou, D.2008. Pulling readers in:News photos in Greek & Australian broadsheets. In White, P & Thomson, E. (Eds.). Communicating Conflict: Multilingual Case Studies of the News Media [C]. London:Continuum. Pp. 253-280.
Economou, D.2009. Photos in the news:Appraisal analysis of visual semiosis and verbal-visual semiosis [D]. Sydney:University of Sydney.
Economou, D.2010. Having it both ways:Images & text face off in the broadsheet feature story. In Rupar, V. (Eds.). Journalism and Meaning-making:Reading the Newspaper [C]. Cresskill:Hamton Press. Pp.175-197.
Economou, D.2012. Standing out on critical issues:Evaluation in large verbal-visual displays in Australian broadsheets. In Bowcher, W. L. (Eds.). Multimodal Texts from Around the World:Cultural and Linguistic Insights [C]. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire:Palgrave Macmillan. Pp.246-272.
Eerden, B.2009. Anger in Asterix:The metaphorical representation of anger in comics & animated films. In Forceville, C & Urios-Aparisi, E. (Eds.). Multimodal Metaphor [C]. Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter. Pp.243-264.
Feng, D. Z.2012. Modeling appraisal in film:A social semiotic approach [D]. Singapore:National University of Singapore.
Feng, D. Z & O'Halloran, K. L.2012. Representing emotive meaning in visual images:A social semiotic approach [J]. Journal of Pragmatics 44(14): 2067-2084.
Feng, D. Z.& White. P.2011. Intertextual voices and engagement in TV advertisements [J]. Visual Communication 10(4):565-588.
Forceville, C.1996. Pictorial Metaphor in Advertising [M]. London:Routledge.
Forceville, C.2005. Visual representations of the idealized cognitive model of anger in the Asterix album La Zizanie [J]. Journal of Pragmatics 37(1):69-88.
Forceville, C.2011. Pictorial runes in Tintin and the Picaros [J]. Journal of Pragmatics 43(3):875-890.
Halliday, M. A. K & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M.2004. An Introduction to Functional Grammar 3rd Edition [M]. London:Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M.2013. An Introduction to Functional Grammar 4th Edition [M]. London:Arnold.
Hood, S.2004a. Appraising research:Taking a stance in academic writing [D]. Sydney:University of Technology.
Hood, S.2004b. Managing attitude in undergraduate academic writing:A focus on the introductions to research reports. In Ravelli, L & Ellis, R. (Eds.). Analyzing Academic Writing:Contextualized Frameworks [C]. London:Continuum. Pp. 24-44.
Hood, S.2006. The persuasive power of prosodies:Radiating values in academic writing [J]. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 5(1):37-49.
Hood, S.2010. Appraising Research:Evaluation in Academic Writing [M]. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire:Palgrave Macmillan.
Hood, S.2012. Voice and Stance as appraisal:Persuading and positioning in research writing across intellectual fields. In Hyland, K & Guinda, C. (Eds.). Stance and Voice in Written Academic Genres [C]. London:Palgrave. Pp.51-68.
Hood, S.& Martin, J. R.2005. Invoking attitude:The play of graduation in appraising discourse [J]. Revista Signos 38(58):195-220.
Hood, S.& Stenglin, M. et al.2011. Semiotic Margins:Meaning in Multimodalities [M]. London:Continuum.
Hunston, S.& Geoffrey, T.2000. Evaluation in Text:Authorial Stance & the Construction of Discourse [M]. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Hyland, K.2005. Stance and engagement:A model of interaction in academic discourse [J]. Discourse Studies 7(2):173-192.
Hyland, K.& Guinda, C.2012. Stance and Voice in Written Academic Genres [M]. London:Palgrave.
Hyon, S.2011. Evaluation in Tenure and Promotion Letters:Constructing Faculty as Communicators, Stars, and Workers [J]. Applied Linguistics 32(4):389-407.
Iedema, R.& Feez, S, et al.1994. Media Literacy (Write It Right Literacy in Industry Research Project Stage 2 [R]. Sydney:Sydney Metropolitan East Region Disadvantaged Schools Program.
Kovecses, Z.1986. Metaphors of Anger, Pride, and Love:A Lexical Approach to the Structure of Concepts [M]. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Kovecses, Z.2000. Metaphor and Emotion:Language, Culture, and Body in Human Feeling [M]. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Kovecses, Z.2005. Metaphor in Culture:Universality and Variation [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lemke, J. L.1998a. Multiplying meaning:Visual and verbal semiotics in scientific text. In Martin, J. R.& Veel, R. (Eds.). Reading Science:Critical and Functional Perspectives on Discourses of Science [A]. New York:Routledge. Pp.87-114.
Lemke, J. L.1998b. Resources for attitudinal meaning:Evaluative orientations in text semantics [J]. Functions of Language 5(1):33-56.
Lemke, J. L.1998c. Visual and Verbal Resources for Evaluative Meaning in Political Cartoons [DB/OL]. http://www.jaylemke.com/storage/Evaluative%20Meaning% 20in%20Political%20Cartoons.pdf.
Macken-Horarik, M.2004. Interacting with the multimodal text:Reflections on Image and verbiage in Art Express [J]. Visual Communication 3(1):5-26.
Martin, J. R.1995. Text and clause:fractal resonance [J]. Text 15(1):5-42.
Martin, J. R.1996. Types of structure:Deconstructing notions of constituency in clause and text. In Eduard, H. H & Scott, D. R. (Eds.). Computational and Conversational Discourse:Burning Issues-An Interdisciplinary Account [C]. Heidelberg:Springer. Pp.39-66.
Martin, J. R.2000a. Beyond Exchange:Appraisal systems in English. In Hunston, S & Thompson, G. (Eds.). Evaluation in Text:Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse [C]. Oxford:Oxford University Press. Pp.142-175.
Martin, J. R.2000b. Fair Trade:Negotiating meaning in multimodal texts. In Coppock, P. (Eds.). The Semiotics of Writing:Transdisciplinary Perspectives on the Technology of Writing [C]. Turnhout:Brepols. Pp.338.
Martin, J. R.2003. Negotiating Heteroglossia:Social Perspectives on Evaluation [J]. Text Special Issue 2(23):1-11.
Martin, J. R.2004. Sense and sensibility:Texturing evaluation. In Foley, J. (Eds.). Language, Education and Discourse:Functional Approaches [C]. London: Continuum. Pp.270-304.
Martin, J. R.& Rose, D.2003. Working with Discourse:Meaning Beyond the Clause [M]. New York, London:Continuum.
Martin, J. R.& Rose, D.2008. Working with Discourse:Meaning Beyond the Clause 2nd Edition [M]. New York, London:Continuum.
Martin, J. R.& White, P. R.2005. The Language of Evaluation:Appraisal in English [M]. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire:Palgrave Macmillan.
Martin, J. R.& Zappavigna, M. et al.2010. Negotiating evaluation:Story structure and appraisal in Youth Justice Conferencing. In Mahboob, A & Knight, N. (Eds.). Appliable Linguistics [M]. London:Continuum International Pub. Group. Pp. 44-75.
Martinec, R.2001. Interpersonal resources in action [J]. Semiotica 135(1-4):117-145.
Norris, S.2004. Analyzing Multimodal Interaction:A Methodological Framework [M]. New York:Routledge.
Norris, S.2011. Multimodality in Practice:Investigating Theory in practice through methodology [M]. New York:Routledge.
O'Halloran, K. L.1999. Interdependence, interaction and metaphor in multisemiotic texts [J]. Social Semiotics 9(3):317-356.
O'Halloran, K. L.2004a. Multimodal Discourse Analysis:Systemic-Functional Perspectives [M]. London:Continuum.
O'Halloran, K. L.2004b. Visual semiosis in film. In O'Halloran. K. L. (Eds.). Multimodal Discourse Analysis:Systemic-Functional Perspectives [C]. London: Continuum,2004:109-130.
O'Halloran, K. L.2008. Systemic functional-multimodal discourse analysis SF-MDA: Constructing ideational meaning using language and visual imagery [J]. Visual Communication 7(4):443-475.
O'Halloran, K. L.2011a. Multimodal Discourse Analysis. In Hyland, K & Paltridge, B. (Eds.). Continuum Companion to Discourse Analysis [C]. London:Continuum. Pp.120-137.
O'Halloran, K. L.2011b. Multimodal studies. In O'Halloran, K. L.& Smith. B. A. (Eds.). Multimodal Studies:Exploring Issues and Domains [C]. New York: Routledge. Pp.1-13.
O'Halloran, K. L.2012. Combining Computational Tools with Systemic Functional Theory for Discourse Analysis. In Norris, S. Multimodality in Practice: Investigating theory in practice through methodology [C]. London, Routledge: 153-173.
O'Halloran, K. L.& B. A. Smith (Eds.).2011. Multimodal Studies:Exploring Issues and Domains [C]. New York:Routledge.
O'Halloran, K. L.& Bradley, A. S.2011. Multimodal Studies:Exploring Issues and Domains [M]. New York:Routledge.
O'Halloran, K. L & Fei, V. L.2009. Sequential Visual Discourse Frames. In Ventola, E, Guijarro, M & Jesus, A. (Eds.). The World Told and the World Shown: Multisemiotic Issues [C]. Basingstoke:Palgrave Macmillan. Pp.139-152.
O'Toole, L. M.1995. A systemic-functional semiotics of art. In Halliday, M. A. K.& Fries, P. H. (Eds.). Discourse in Society:Systemic-Functional Perspectives [C]. New York:Ablex Publishing Corporation. Pp.159-179.
O'Toole, L. M.2011. The Language of Displayed Art [M]. New York:Routledge.
Pantti, M.2010. The value of emotion:An examination of television journalists' notions on emotionality [J]. European Journal of Communication 25(2):168-181.
Pho, P. D.2008. Research article abstracts in applied linguistics and educational technology:A study of linguistic realizations of rhetorical structure and authorial stance [J]. Discourse Studies 10(2):231-250.
Pounds, G.2010. Attitude and subjectivity in Italian and British hard-news reporting: The construction of a culture-specific'reporter'voice [J]. Discourse Studies 12 1: 106-137.
Pounds, G.2012. Multimodal expression of authorial affect in a British television [J]. Discourse, Context & Media 12(3):68-81.
Royce, T. D.1999. Visual-verbal intersemiotic complementarity in the economist magazine [D]. Reading:The University of Reading.
Royce, T. D.& Bowcher, W. L.2007. New Directions in the Analysis of Multimodal Discourse [M]. New York:Routledge.
Shinohara, K.& Matsunaka, Y.2009. Pictorial metaphors of emotion in Japanese comics. In Forceville, C & E. Urios-Aparisi (Eds.). Multimodal Metaphor [C]. Berlin:Mouton de Gruyter. Pp.265-293.
Swain, E.2012. Analyzing evaluation in political cartoons [J]. Discourse, Context & Media 1(2-3):82-94.
Tan, S.2010. Modelling engagement in a web-based advertising campaign [J]. Visual Communication 9(1):91-115.
Thompson, G. 2000. Introducing Functional Grammar [M]. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Thomson, E. A.& White, P. R.2008. Communicating Conflict:Multilingual Case Studies of the News Media [M]. London:Continuum.
Unsworth, L.2008. Describing image-text relations as a resource for negotiating multimodal texts. In Coiro, J. (Eds.). Handbook of Research on New Literacies [C]. New York:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates/Taylor & Francis Group. Pp. 378-403.
Van Leeuwen, T.& Jewitt, C.2001. Handbook of Visual Analysis [M]. London:Sage.
Van Leeuwen, T.& Kress, G.1996. Reading Images:The Grammar of Visual Design [M]. London:Routledge.
Van Leeuwen, T.& Kress, G.2001. Multimodal Discourse:The Modes & Media of Contemporary Communication [M]. London:Arnold.
Van Leeuwen, T.& Kress, G.2006. Reading Images:The Grammar of Visual Design 2nd Edition [M]. New York:Routledge.
Wang, R.2011. Meaning, Discourse and Society [J]. Journal of Pragmatics 43(14): 3630-3632.
Wang, R.2013. Multimodal Texts from Around the World:Cultural and Linguistic Insights [J]. Language in Society 42(4):476-477.
White, P. R.1998. Telling media tales:The news story as rhetoric [D]. Sydney: University of Sydney.
White, P. R.2002. Appraisal:The language of evaluation and stance. In Verschueren, J, Stman, J.0. et al. (Eds.). Handbook of Pragmatics [M]. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
White, P. R.2003. Beyond modality and hedging:A dialogic view of the language of intersubjective stance [J]. Text 3(23):259-284.
White, P. R.2005. Subjectivity, evaluation & point of view in media discourse. In Burns, A & Coffin, C. (Eds.). Analyzing English in a Global Context:A Reade [C]. London & New York:Arnold. Pp.229-257.
White, P. R.2006. Evaluative semantics and ideological positioning in journalistic discourse. In Lassen, I. Image and Ideology in the Mass Media [M]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John Benjamins. Pp.45-73.
White, P. R.2008. The News story as rhetoric:Linguistic approaches to the analysis of journalistic discourse. In Thomson, E & White, P. R. Communicating Conflict: Multilingual Case Studies of the News Media [M]. London:Continuum. Pp.1-23.
White, P. R.2012. The Appraisal website [DB/OL].http://grammatics.com/appraisal.
White, P. R.& Martin, J. R.2005. The Language of Evaluation:Appraisal in English [M]. New York:Palgrave Macmillan.
Wilson, D.& Sperber, D.1996. Relevance:Communication and Cognition 2nd [M]. Oxford:Blackwell Publishers.
Yu, N.2011. Beijing Olympics and Beijing opera:A multimodal metaphor in a CCTV Olympics commercial [J]. Cognitive Linguistics 22(3):595-628.
Zappavigna, M.& Chris, C, et al.2010. Visualizing Appraisal Prosody. In A. Mahboob & N. Knight (Eds.). Appliable Linguistics [M]. London, Continuum International Pub. Group. Pp.150-167.
布占廷,2000,夸张修辞的态度意义研究[J]。《当代修辞学》4：53-59。
陈瑜敏,2008,奥运电视公益广告多模态态度的构建[J]。《北京科技大学学报》(社会科学版)3：108-114。
陈瑜敏,2010,《多模态与语篇体裁：书面多模态语篇系统分析的基本原则》述介[J]。《当代语言学》3：282-284。
陈瑜敏,2010,情态分析在多模态外语教材研究中的应用探析[J]。《外语教学》1：69-72。
陈瑜敏、秦小怡,2007,教科书语篇多模式符号的介入意义、多声互动[J]。《外语与外语教学》12：15-18。
陈瑜敏、王红阳,2008,多模态语篇图像的概念意义、图文关系——当代教科书的多模态语篇分析[J]。《宁波大学学报》(教育科学版)1：124-129。
陈瑜敏、黄国文,2009,话语多声互动的多模态构建方式解析——以语言教材话语为例[J]。《外语电化教学》6：35-41。
程微,2007,从态度韵看语篇的衔接、连贯[J]。《外语教学》6：24-28。
程微,2010a,积极语篇分析：和谐的态度韵律研究——以汉语导游讲解词为例[J]。《北京科技大学学报》(社会科学版)2：113-118。
程微,2010b,态度韵律的整体性研究[J]。《外语学刊》3：68-73。
樊新民,2009,当代中国社会问题[M]。北京：中国社会出版社。
冯德正,2011,多模态隐喻的构建、分类-系统功能视角[J],《外语研究》1：24-29。
付晓丽、付天军,2009,英语文学语篇的级差系统分析——以《呼啸山庄》为例[J],《河北师范大学学报》(哲学社会科学版)3：115-119。
汉典在线,2004,汉典在线[DB/OL]。 http://www.zdic.net/。
胡新桥、王俊荣,2008,记者职业权利的特征与保护[J]。《湖北社会科学》10： 150-153。
贾奎林、张雪娜,2009,新闻评论运用教程[M]。北京：北京大学出版社。
李君,2010,汉语小说中含义的主观态度研究[J]。《语文知识》4：75-78。
李君,2011a,从宏观到微观解读影评的态度策略[J]。《山东外语教学》1：17-22。
李君,2011b,评价理论视角下影评的态度特征研究[D]。济南：山东大学。
李君、张德禄,2010,电视新闻访谈介入特征的韵律性模式探索[J]。《外语教学》4：6-10,19。
李战子,2004a,评价理论：在话语分析中的应用和问题[J]。《外语研究》5：1-6,80。
李战子,2004b,评价与文化模式[J]。《山东外语教学》2：3-8。
李战子,2005,从语气、情态到评价[J]。《外语研究》6：14-19+80。
李战子,2006,文体、评价——从语篇潜势到阅读取位[J]。《外语与外语教学》10：25-28,56。
刘世铸,2006,态度的结构潜势[D]。济南：山东大学。
刘世铸,2009,基于语料库的情感评价意义构型研究[J]。《外语教学》2：22-25。
刘世铸、张征,2011,评判的结构潜势与语义构型[J]。《中国外语》1：22-27,50。
马博森、王荣斌,2014,基于汉语新闻语料库的季节隐喻研究[J]。《安徽大学学报》(哲学社会科学版)2：16。
彭宣维,2010,汉语的介入与级差现象[J]。《当代外语研究》10：55-63。
彭宣维,2011,语言与语言学概论：汉语系统功能语言学[M]。北京：北京大学出版社。
彭宣维、杨晓军、何中清,2012,汉英对应评价意义语料库[J]。《外语电化教学》5：3-10。
尚重生,2010,当代中国社会问题透视[M]。武汉：武汉大学出版社。
王荣斌,2010,社会身份多重性与政治劝说的元语言研究[J]。《电子科技大学学报》(社会科学版)3：86-91。
王荣斌,2012,《网络语用学——网络语境中的交际》述评[J]。《现代外语》4：433-435。
王硕、尹富林,2011,视觉语法关照下的多模态语篇分析——以一则平面广告为 例[J]。《南京工业大学学报》(社会科学版)4：96-100。
王天华,2008,新闻话语中的隐性评价、动态读者定位[D]。济南：山东大学。
王允沆,1980,杂谈漫画[J]。《新闻战线》：32。
王振华,2001,评价系统及其运作——系统功能语言学的新发展[J]。《外国语》6：13-20。
王振华,2003,介入：言语互动中的一种评价视角[D]。开封：河南大学。
王振华,2004a,物质过程的评价价值——以分析小说人物形象为例[J]。《外国语》5：41-47。
王振华,2004b,硬新闻的态度研究——评价系统应用研究之二[J]。《外语教学》5：31-36。
王振华,2010a,从态度系统考察奥巴马获2009年度诺贝尔和平奖引发的争议[J]。《当代外语研究》3：7-11,46,61。
王振华,2010b,语言的功能维度——评价理论：研究与应用——主持人话语[J]。《外语学刊》3：51。
王振华、路洋,2010,介入系统嬗变[J]。《外语学刊》3：51-56。
王振华、马玉蕾,2007,评价理论：魅力、困惑[J]。《外语教学》6：19-23。
王振华、徐盛桓,2004,介入：言语互动中的一种评价视角[J]。《语言文字应用》3：145。
韦琴红,2008,论多模态话语的整体意义构建——基于一个多模态媒体语篇的话语分析[J]。《天津外国语大学学报》6：1621。
辛志英、黄国文,2010,元话语的评价赋值功能[J]。《外语教学》6：1-5。
杨信彰,2003,语篇中的评价性手段[J]。《外语与外语教学》1：11-14。
杨信彰,2006,英语学术语篇中的评论附加语[J]。《外语与外语教学》10：11-13。
杂文选刊,2013,中华杂文网[DB/OL]。 http://www.chinazawen.com/zwzzdt/2010-10-25/2239.html.
张德禄、刘世铸,2006,形式、意义的范畴化——兼评《评价语言-英语的评价系统》[J]。《外语教学与研究》6：423-427,479。
张滟,2008,学术话语中的级差范畴化及其修辞劝说构建[J]。《外国语》6：33-40。
赵雪、丁晓晓,2012,互动性电视新闻评论节目介入特征探析——基于《新闻深一度》的实例分析[J]。《宁波大学学报》(人文科学版)5：119-123。 朱永生,2009,概念意义中的隐性评价[J]。《外语教学》4：1-5。