中国的言论

IF 0.5 0 LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS Languages in Contrast Pub Date : 2018-06-19 DOI:10.1075/LIC.16022.YEU
L. Yeung
{"title":"中国的言论","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":"{\"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}","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

摘要

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。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Chinese rhetoric
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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Languages in Contrast
Languages in Contrast LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS-
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
40.00%
发文量
12
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.
期刊最新文献
Verbs of perception and evidentiality in English/French translation Fluidic motion patterns in English and Modern Greek Straddling the divide between contrastive and translation studies Functional hybridity in translation The Gravitational Pull Hypothesis and imperfective/perfective aspect in Catalan translation
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1