基于语料库的中菲涉南海官方文件中立场标记语对比分析
A Corpus-Based Comparative Analysis of Stance Markers in Official Documents on South China Sea Issue between China and Philippine

DOI: 10.12677/ML.2021.92041, PP. 298-306

Keywords: 立场标记语，中国，菲律宾，南海
Stance Markers, China, Philippines, South China Sea

Full-Text   Cite this paper   Add to My Lib

Abstract:

立场标记语是说话人对自己陈述的知识和信息的肯定、价值判断和情感态度的语言表达。为了更好地理解中菲两国在南海争端中的立场，本研究试图分析南海官方文件中立场标记语的分布和使用特点，进而找出这些立场标记语下隐含的情感、态度或评价。本文以语料库和自动立场标记语为基础，定量分析了中菲两国在南海问题官方文件中使用的立场标记语的类型、频率和搭配。分析表明，中国和菲律宾在南海问题官方文件中都更多地使用言据性立场标记语而不是情感性立场标记语，但中国在南海问题文件中的情感立场表达比菲律宾多。然后，通过定性分析，试图解释中菲两国立场标记语分布差异的原因。结果表明，两者多使用言据性立场标记语而较少使用情感立场标记语是为了从己方角度向读者建构南海争端知识体系，并树立客观形象。而中国比菲律宾更多使用情感立场标记语一方面在一定程度上增强了中国捍卫自身南海主权意愿的强烈程度，但另一方面亦可能导致第三方认为中国在此争端中态度强硬或“不够理智”。
Stance markers are the linguistic expression of the speaker’s affirmation, value judgment and emotional attitude to the knowledge and information he or she states. To better understand the stance held by China and Philippine in the South China Sea dispute, this study tries to analyze the distribution and usage characteristics of stance markers in official documents on South China Sea, and then figure out the implied emotions, attitudes, or evaluations under these stance markers. Based on the corpora and automatic stance maker tagger, this paper firstly quantitatively analyzes the types, frequency and collocation of stance markers used by China and the Philippines in the official documents on South China Sea issue. The analysis shows that both China and Philippine would like to use evidentiality expressions rather than affect expressions in the official documents on South China Sea issue, but there are more affect expressions in China’s documents on South China Sea issue than the Philippines. Then, with qualitative analysis, this paper tries to explain the motivation for those differences of stance markers distribution between China and Philippine. The result shows that both of them use more evidentiality expressions than affect expressions in order to construct the knowledge system of South China Sea dispute from their own point of view and establish an objective image. The fact that China uses more affect expressions than the Philippines, on the one hand, it reinforces China’s willingness to defend its sovereignty in the south China sea, but on the other hand, it may lead third parties to think that China's attitude in this dispute is tough or “irrational”.

References

[1]	Martin, J.R. and White, P.R. (2005) The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. Palgrave Macmillan, New York, 38-40.
[2]	Biber, D. and Finegan, E. (1989) Styles of Stance in English: Lexical and Grammatical Marking of Evidentiality and Affect. Textinterdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse, 9, 93-94. https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1989.9.1.93
[3]	曹蕾. 基于语料库的政治语篇立场研究[D]: [博士学位论文]. 上海: 上海交通大学, 2008.
[4]	Florea, A. (2006) Patterns of Adverbial Stance Marking in United Nations Political Discourse: A Corpus-Based Study. M.D. Thesis, Iowa State University, Iowa State.
[5]	Arrese, J.I.M. (2009) Effective vs. Epistemic Stance, and Subjectivity/Inter-Subjectivity in Political Discourse: A Case Study. In: Anastasios, T. and Facchinetti, R., Eds., Studies on English Modality: In Honour of Frank Palmer, Peter Lang, Switzerland, 266-275.
[6]	房红梅. 言据性研究述述评[J]. 现代外语, 2006(2): 191.
[7]	李佳, 梁媛元. 英语社论的言据性研究[J]. 昌吉学院学报, 2014(2): 101.
[8]	吴格奇, 潘春雷. 汉语学术论文中作者立场标记与研究[J]. 语言教学与研究, 2010(3): 91.
[9]	Biber, D. and Finegan, E. (1998) Adverbial Stance Types in English. Discourse Processes, 11, 1-34. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638538809544689
[10]	Susan, H. (2011) Corpus Approaches to Evaluation: Phraseology and Evaluative Language. Routledge, New York, 10-25. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203841686
[11]	Hyland, K. (2005) Stance and Engagement: A Model of Interaction in Academic Discourse. Discourse Studies, 7, 174-175. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605050365
[12]	方芳. 南海国际仲裁案中新闻话语的评价分析[J]. 海南大学学报, 2015(4): 22.
[13]	方天建. 菲律宾在南海主权争端上的话语权动员[J]. 东南亚研究, 2015(3): 27.

Full-Text