{"title":"Chinese rhetoric","authors":"L. Yeung","doi":"10.1075/LIC.16022.YEU","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n This study investigates the question of Chinese indirection as a result of the use of modality expressions, which is conventionally believed to be the hallmark of Chinese rhetoric (e.g. Young, 1994; Bond, 1991; Powers and Gong, 1994). The present research compares and contrasts the degree of assertiveness as reflected in the patterns of modality in two corpora of expert Chinese and English argumentative writing on the same controversial subject. Corpus evidence shows that contrary to expectations, the Chinese writers are significantly more assertive than the English in arguing their case. The frequency of use and distribution patterns of intensifiers present both quantitative and qualitative evidence for the rhetorical differences, which may be accounted for culturally.","PeriodicalId":43502,"journal":{"name":"Languages in Contrast","volume":"35 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2018-06-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"20","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Languages in Contrast","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1075/LIC.16022.YEU","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 20
Abstract
This study investigates the question of Chinese indirection as a result of the use of modality expressions, which is conventionally believed to be the hallmark of Chinese rhetoric (e.g. Young, 1994; Bond, 1991; Powers and Gong, 1994). The present research compares and contrasts the degree of assertiveness as reflected in the patterns of modality in two corpora of expert Chinese and English argumentative writing on the same controversial subject. Corpus evidence shows that contrary to expectations, the Chinese writers are significantly more assertive than the English in arguing their case. The frequency of use and distribution patterns of intensifiers present both quantitative and qualitative evidence for the rhetorical differences, which may be accounted for culturally.
本研究探讨了由于使用情态表达而导致的汉语间接性问题，情态表达通常被认为是汉语修辞的标志(例如Young, 1994;债券,1991;Powers and Gong, 1994)。本研究对同一争议话题的两种专家议论文语料库中语气模式所反映的自信程度进行了比较和对比。语料库证据显示，与预期相反，中国作家在论证自己的论点时明显比英国作家更自信。强化词的使用频率和分布模式为修辞差异提供了定量和定性的证据，这可能是文化上的原因。
期刊介绍：
Languages in Contrast aims to publish contrastive studies of two or more languages. Any aspect of language may be covered, including vocabulary, phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, pragmatics, text and discourse, stylistics, sociolinguistics and psycholinguistics. Languages in Contrast welcomes interdisciplinary studies, particularly those that make links between contrastive linguistics and translation, lexicography, computational linguistics, language teaching, literary and linguistic computing, literary studies and cultural studies.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
