英語情態附加語使用中的文化差異（簡體書）

《英語情態附加語使用中的文化差異》採用一個用來描寫語篇差異與文化差異之間相互聯繫的理論框架。該框架提供了對語篇進行功能分析的手段，並將語篇功能與文化中的面子系統聯繫起來。
《英語情態附加語使用中的文化差異》以比較中美文化背景為例，以分別具有兩種文化背景的作者在英文媒體發表的個人評論文章為語料來源，相應建立了規模相當的兩組有控制的書面語料，並採用嚴格的分析方法，比較了兩組語料問使用情態附加語的差異。結果顯示出以下主要的差異：美方語料中使用的情態附加語在頻率上顯著高於中方語料，並且美方語料中使用的情態附加語的類型也多於中方語料；這些差異尤其體現在其中某些語義類別的情態附加語的使用上。

《英語情態附加語使用中的文化差異》描寫了不同文化背景的英語使用者使用情態附加語所體現出的差異，并揭示了這一差異與使用者的文化背景中面子系統差異間的聯系。該書有助于加深我們對語篇中微觀語言特征差異的文化涵義的認識，也對文化與語言相互關系的理論探索有一定貢獻。

List of Figures
List of Tables
List of Abbreviations
Chapter 1 Introduction
1.1 Scope of the Study
1.2 Modal Adjunct in a Cross-Cultural Perspective
1.3 Rationale and Objective
1.4 Overview of Methodology
1.5 Book Organization
Chapter 2 Literature Review
2.1 Modal Adjunct
2.1.1 Meaning
2.1.2 Structure
2.1.3 Function in information structure
2.2 Sociolinguistic Perspectives to Modality
2.2.1 Sociopragmatic perspective
2.2.2 Variationist perspective
2.2.3 Cross cultural perspective
2.3 Cross-Cultural Differences in English Language Use
2.4 American-Chinese Cultural Differences in Language Use
2.5 Summary
Chapter 3 Methodology
3.1 Research Questions
3.2 Operational Definitions
3.3 Theoretical Framework
3.3.1 The framework
3.3.1.1 Face systems
3.3.1.2 Solidarity face system
3.3.1.3 Involvement
3.3.1.4 Note on application
3.3.2 Advantage of the framework
3.3.2.1 Theoretical foundation
3.3.2.2 Analytic validity
3.4 Data Collection and Analysis
3.4.1 Nature of the data
3.4.2 Data collection
3.4.3 Data analysis
3.4.3.1 Structural analysis
3.4.3.2 Semantic considerations
Chapter 4 Results
4.1 General Results
4.1.1 Overall distribution of modal adjunct
4.1.2 General difference
4.2 Differences Along Semantic Categorization of Modal Adjl
4.2.1 Broad sets of modal adjunct
4.2.2 Subsets of modal adjunct
4.2.3 Interim summary
4.3 General Interpretation
4.3.1 English proficiency
4.3.2 Sociopolitical context
4.3.3 Cultural background
Chapter 5 Interpretation and Discussion
5.1 Functional Analysis of Modal Adjunct
5.1.1 Information function
5.1.2 Involvement function
5.2 Functional Interpretation of the Differences
5.2.1 The use of modal adjunct of extent
5.2.2 The use of modal adjunct of focalization
5.2.3 The use of modal adjunct of certainty
5.2.4 The use of modal adjunct of comment
5.2.5 The use of modal adjunct of exclamation
5.2.6 The use of the other subsets of modal adjunct
5.2.7 Interim summary
5.3 Discussion of the Difference in Solidarity Face System
5.4 Theoretical Discussion
Chapter 6 Conclusion
6.1 Summary of the Study
6.2 Implications
6.3 Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research
References
Appendix A Sources of Linguistic Data
Appendix B Sample Texts
Appendix C List of Identified ModalAdjuncts

Index

Meanwhile, written discourse has some advantages over spoken discourse as far as the present study is concerned. The written medium matters to the study of modal expressions in discourse context. Modality semantically belongs to subjectivity in the large. Subjectivity is prevalent in language, but it is possible for it not to be manifest in utterance. It is quite possible for subjectivity to be expressed prosodically or paralinguistically in speech without being encoded in the grammatical or lexical structure of the language-system (Lyons, 1995). Prosodic and paralinguistic exponents of subjectivity may possibly outweigh other types of exponent (e.g. lexical exponent) of subjectivity through the spoken medium. According to Biber (2006), it is found that modality (stance) is overtly marked in spoken texts much more than in written texts. Consequently, it is reasonable to restrict our data to written product.Written discourse, as well as spoken discourse, provides the interactional features of language that can be studied with reference to the categories previously defined in the framework of analysis (e.g. involvement and solidarity face system).
Third, the type of content (personal commentary on certain subject matters) and the manner of production (published in the media) specify the discourse goal. The goal of a discourse refers to the communicative purpose or function, which is usually composed of an overriding function (superfunction) and some sub-functions (hyperfunctions) (a view supported by Cook, 1992). It is similar to intentionality, one of the seven standards of textuality (i.e., what makes up a text) suggested by Beaugrande and Dressier (1986). As Dooley and Levinson (2000) explain, "Each text type has a particular social and cultural purpose, around which clusters a characteristic combination of linguistic or textual properties." Discourse goal is perhaps the primary defining factor for a discourse type, and it is usually the defining factor for a genre. Speaker's communicative intent can shape the discourse characteristics, and it has important impact on the comparison of discourse as regards certain linguistic features (Bartsch, 1997). As Hunston (1993) argues, "the ideology (the discourse goal or global speech act) within which a text is written constrains choices in discourse organization, grammar and lexis" (annotation added).