从评价理论视角探析诺贝尔文学奖颁奖词中的态度意义 59页

Conte·ntsContentsAbstract(inChinese)⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯．．IAbstract(inEnglish)⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯．⋯⋯⋯．IIContents⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯．IVListofFigures⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯．VIListofTables⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯VIIChapterOneIntroduction⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯11．IResearchBackground⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯11．2ResearchPurposeandSignificance⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯21．3ResearchQuestions．．．．．．．．⋯⋯．．．．．⋯⋯．．．．．．．．．⋯．．⋯．⋯⋯．．．．．．．．⋯⋯⋯⋯．．⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯．31．4ResearchMethodology．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．⋯．．．．⋯⋯⋯．．．．．⋯⋯⋯⋯．．．⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯31．5OrganizationoftheThesis⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯···⋯⋯⋯一3ChapterTwoLiteratureReview⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯52．1PreviousStudiesOnPresentationSpeech⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯52．1．1AnOverviewofPublicSpeaking⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯．⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯52．1．2RelatedStudiesonPublicSpeakinginDiscourseAnalysis⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯．62．1．3PresentationSpeechandRelatedStudiesinDiscourseAnalysis⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯一72．2PreviousStudiesonAppraisalTheory⋯．⋯⋯⋯⋯．．⋯．．．．．．．．⋯⋯．．．．．．．．⋯．．．．．．．⋯⋯82．2．1TheOriginandDevelopmentofAppraisalTheory．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．⋯．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．82．2．2TheApplicationofAppraisalTheoryinDiscourseAnalysis⋯．．．．．．．．．⋯．．．．．．．．．．．．．-·10ChapterThreeTheoreticalFramework⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯．．163．1AnOverviewofAppraisalTheory．．．．．．．．⋯．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．⋯⋯．．．．．．．，163．2SystemofAttitudeinAppraisalTheory⋯．．．．．．．．．．⋯．．．．．．．．⋯．．．．．．．．．．．⋯．．．．．．．．⋯193．2．1Affect⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯203．2．2Judgment．．．．．．．⋯．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．⋯．．．．．⋯．．．．．．．⋯．．．．．．．．．．．．．．，．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．⋯．．．．．．．．．．．．．25IV Contents3．2．3Appreciation⋯⋯．．⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯．．．．．．⋯⋯⋯⋯。．⋯．．．．．．．．⋯⋯．．⋯⋯⋯⋯．⋯．．．．．．．⋯．．．．．．．．⋯．．．．27ChapterFourAnAnalysisofAttitudinalResourcesinNobelPrizePresentationSpeechinLiterature⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯．304．1RealizationofAttitudinalMeanings⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯304．1．1AffectAnalysis⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯314．1．2JudgmentAnalysis⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯．344．1．3AppreciationAnalysis⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯．⋯．384．2DistributionofAttitudinalResources．．．．．．⋯．．．．．．⋯⋯．．．⋯．．．．．．．⋯．⋯⋯．．．．．．．．⋯．．．414．2．1DistributionofAffect．．．．．．．．．⋯．．．．．⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯．．．．．．．．⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯．⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯．．．．414．2．2DistributionofJudgment．．．．．．．．．．．．．．⋯．．．．．．．⋯．．．．．．．．⋯．．．．．．．⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯．．．．⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯．．434．2．3DistributionofAppreciation．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．⋯．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．．⋯．．．．．．．⋯⋯．⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯．．．444．2．4OverallDistributionofAttitudinalResources⋯⋯⋯．．．．⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯．．．．．．．⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯．．444．3StylisticFeaturesReflectedbyAuimdinalMeanings⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯46ChapterFiveConclusion．⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯．485．1MajorFindings⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯．．485．2Implication⋯．．．．⋯⋯．．．．．．⋯．．．．．．⋯．．．⋯⋯，．．．．．．⋯．⋯．⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯．．495．3LimitationsandSuggestions．⋯．．．．．．．⋯．⋯⋯．．．．．．．．⋯．．．．．．⋯⋯．⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯50Bibliography⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯．⋯⋯⋯⋯．．⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯51AppendixA⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯．．⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯54AppendixB⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯．．54Acknowledgements⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯．．．二⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯．59AbouttheAuthor⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯．．⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯60V ListofFiguresofFiguresFigure3．1AnOverviewofAppraisalResources⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯．17Figure3．2JudgmemandAppreciationasInstitutionalizedAffect⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯一20VI ListofTablesofTablesTabIe3．1IrrealisA舵ct⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯．．22Table3．2AffectUn／happiness⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯．．23疋山le3．3Affect--Irgsecufity⋯⋯⋯⋯。⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯．⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯23R山le3．4Affect_—Dis／satisfaction⋯⋯．⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯．24Table3．5Judgrnent--SocialEsteem州ormality⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯25Table3．6Judgment--SocialEsteem--Capacity⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯．．26Table3．7Judgment--SocialEsteem--Tenacity⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯26Table3．8Judgment--socialsanction⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯27Table3．9Appreciatiotr---Reaction⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯28Table3．10Appreciation---Composition⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯28Table3．11Appreciation--Valuation⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯29Table4．1neOccurrenceofAffectResources⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯：⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯44Rlble4．27rheoccurrenceofDis／inclinationResources⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯．44Table4．3耶1eoecurreneeofUn／happinessResources⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯44T￡山le4．4T11eoccurrenceofDis／satisfactionResources⋯．⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯．⋯⋯．⋯⋯⋯45Table4．57nleoccurrenceofIn／securityResources⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯．45Table4．6‘I■eoccurrenceofJudgmentResources⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯46Table4．7TheoccurrenceofAppreciationResources⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯4611abIe4．8neOverallStatisticalDistributionofAttitudinalResources⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯．．．47Table4．9ExplicitnessofAttitudinalResources⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯48RIble4．10PolarityofAttitudinalResources⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯48VII ChapterOneIntroductionOneIntroduction1．1ResearchBackgroundThefunctionoflanguageisextensive．Itisusedtoexchangeinformationortocommunicate．Moreimportantly,itisconcemedwithhowwriters／speakersapproveanddisapprove，enthuseandabhor，applaudandcriticize，withhowwriters／speakersconstrueforthemselvesparticularauthorialidentitiesorpersonae，andwithhowtheyalignordisalignthemselveswithactualorpotentialrespondents(MartinandWhite，2008)．Thatistosay,thelanguageisalsousedtoshowwriters’／speakers’feelings，attitudes，motivesandstatuses．FormtheviewpointofSystemic．FunctionalLinguisticsfoundedbyHaltiday,thatistheinterpersonalfunctionoflanguage，whichhasarousedmuchattentionamongscholars．Inordertomakethestudyofinterpersonalmeaningindiscourseanalysismoresystemicandcomplete，Martinin1990sputforwardAppraisalTheoryonthebasisofSFL．Thisnewlyemergedtheorydevelopedandexpandedthestudyofinterpersonalmeaninggreatlyandhasbeenappliedtodiscourseanalysisinawiderange．Attitude，asoneofthethreesubsystemsinAppraisalTheory,isconcemedwithvaluesbywhichspeakerspassjudgrnentsandassociateemotionalresponseswithparticipantsandprocess·Publicspeech,asavitalmeansofcommunication，isasocialactivityforpeopletocontactortocommunicatewitheachother,withtheexpectationtoinform，topersuade，toentertain，etc．ThehistoryofpublicspeechCandatebacktoancientGreekandRome．Asoneoftheearliestandthemostradicaldemocraticgovernments，Greekcitizensmetinthemarketplacefordebatingpoliticsandeconomicissues．InRome，MarcusTulliusCicerohasmadegreateffortstothedevelopmentofthefivecanonsofrhetoric，whichwasfundamentaltopublicspeech．Inmodemtimes，sincemutualunderstandingandcooperationhavebecomefarmorefrequent，publicspeechhasbecomemoreandmoreimportantandconsequentlyreceivedmuchmoreattentionfromtheperspectiveofstylistics，criticaldiscourses，rhetoric，pragmaticsandsystemicfunctionalgrammar．However,thepreviousstudiesonpublicspeechmainlyfocusonpoliticalspeech，andtheotherformsarerelativelyneglected．Presentationspeech，aspecialformofpublicspeaking，referstoformalwordsto ChapterOneIntroductionassesstheachievementsoftherecipientsonawardceremony,rarelybeingstudiedbylinguists，letalonefromtheperspectiveofAppraisalTheory．Inthehistoryofpresentationspeech，NoblePricepresentationspeechseemstobealandmarkandisworld-wideinfluential．Therefore，itisurgentandsignificanttoanalyzetheattitudinalmeaningsinNobelPricepresentationspeech．1．2ResearchPurposeandSignificanceNobelPrizepresentationspeechintroducestheawarditself,tellsalittleaboutitshistoryandmeaningandintroducestheactualawardeeatthesametime．Therefore，itissupposedtobeabundantinattitudinalresources．ThepresentthesisaimstoanalyzetherealizationofattitudinalmeaningsinNobelPrizepresentationspeechinliterature，unearththedistributionofthoseattitudinalresources，andfinally,discussthestylisticfeaturesreflectedbyattitudinalmeanings．TheNobelPrizeisregardedbyfarasthemostprestigiousprizeintheworld．TheawardceremonieshavebeentransformedfromlocalSwedishandNorwegianarrangementsintomajorinternationaleventswhichhavereceivedworldwidecovemgebytheprintmedia，radioandtelevision．Thepresentationspeechdeliveredontheceremonyhasalsoarousedwideattention．However,thelinguisticstudyofNobelPrizepresentationspeechisprettyrare．Uptonow,ithasbeenapproachedfromtheperspectiveofstylisticsandgrammaticalmetaphor．Therefore，thestudyofitfromallappraisalviewpointissupposedtobesignificant．Theoretically，appraisalstudyofNobelPrizepresentationspeechinliteratureextendsthefieldofappraisalanalysis．BothpublicspeakingandAppraisalTheoryhaveattractedattentionofscholarsathomeandabroad．However,thecombinationofAppraisalTheoryandpresentationspeechindiscourseanalysisisrelativelyrare．ThistentativestudyexpectstoenrichtheanalysisofNobelPrizepresentationspeechandtheapplicationofAppraisalTheory．Practically,thisthesisCanbenefitlanguagelearners．Ononehand，itcanhelpthembetterunderstandandappreciateNobelPrizepresentationspeechandhelpsthemimprovepresentationspeechwriting．Ontheotherhand，theanalysisofNoblePrizepresentationspeechinliteratureCanhelplanguagelearnersbetterunderstandwestemculture．2 ChapterOneIntroduction1．3ResearchQuestionsWiththepurposeandsignificanceclearinmind，thisthesisattemptstoanswerthefollowingthreequestions：1．HowareattitudinalmeaningsrealizedinNobelPrizepresentationspeechinliterature?2．Whatist11edistributionofattitudinalresourcesinNobelPrizepresentationspeechinliterature?3．WhatarestylisticfeaturesreflectedinNobelPrizePresentationSpeechinliteraturethroughthemodeofattitudinalmeanings?1．4ResearchMethodologyInthisthesis，bothqualitativeandquantitativeapproachesareemployed．Thequalitativemethod，whichlakesadominantroleindataanalysis，isappliedtoanalyzetherealizationofattitudinalmeaningsandthestylisticfeaturesreflectedbyattitudinalmeanings．WKlethequantitativemethod，whichactsaSacomplement，isusedtofindoutthedistributionofattitudinalresourcesinNobelPrizepresentationspeechinIiterature．Asfordatacollection，thisthesisadopts12NobelPrizepresentationspeechesinliteraturefromtheyear2001to2012andallofthemweredownloadedfromNobelPrizeofficialwebsiteathttp：／／www．nobelprize．org／．1．5OrganizationoftheThesisThewholethesisiscomposedoffivechapters．ChapterOneintroducesresearchbackground，researchpurposeandsignificance，researchquestions，researchmethodologyandorganizationrespectively．ChapterTwoisliteraturereview,whichgivesanaccountofthepreviousstudiesonpublicspeech，presentationspeechandAppraisalTheory．Fromthispart，thelimitationsofpreviousstudiesarerevealedandthentheauthorseeksoutresearchspaceforthisthesis．ChapterThreeintroducesthetheoreticalframeworkofthisthesis．ItbeginswithabriefoverviewofAppraisalTheoryandthengivesadetaileddescriptionofthesub—system：attitude，followedby3 ChapterOneIntroductionaffect，judgmentandappreciation．ChapterFouristhemainbodyofthisthesis．Itfu"stlyanalyzestherealizationofattitudinalmeaningsinNobelPrizepresentationspeechinliteraturebyadoptingspecificexamples．Secondly,itanalyzesthedistributionofattitudinalresourcesthroughaccuratestatistics．Finally,thestylisticfeaturesofNobelPrizepresentationspeechinliteraturethroughthemodeofattitudinalmeaningsarediscussed．ChapterFiveconcludesmajorfindingsofthisthesisanddiscussesitsimplication，limitationsandsuggestionsforfurtherstudy．4 ChapterTwoLiteratureReviewTwoLiteratureReview2．1PreviousStudiesonPresentationSpeechPresentationspeechisonekindofpublicspeaking．Itisnecessarytoreviewthestudiesonpublicspeakingbeforemakingareviewonpresentationspeech．2．1．1AnOverviewofPublicSpeakingThroughouthistory,publicspeakinghasbeenusedasavitalmeansofcommunication．However，publicspeakingisdifferentfromdailyconversationinseveralaspects+Firstly,publicspeakingismorehighlystructured．Itdemandsmuchmoredetailedplanningandpreparationthanordinaryconversation．Secondly，publicspeakingrequiresmoreformallanguage．Jargon，slangandbadgrammarareseldomfoundinpublicspeeches．Thirdly,themethodofdeliveryrequiredinpublicspeakingisquitedifferentfromthatofdailyconversation．Ineverydayconversation，peoplemaytalkquietlyandusesomevocalizedpausessuchas‘‘uh”，‘‘er"’，‘"um”，butineffectivepublicspeeches，distractingmannerismsandverbalhabitsareavoided．AccordingtoLucas，publicspeakingis“awayofmakingideaspublic—ofsharingthemwithotherpeopleandofinfluencingotherpeople”(Lucas，2004：4)．Tobemorespecific，publicspeakingreferstopublicspeakersexpressingtheirspeechcontinuouslyinfrontofmanyindividualsabouttheirownknowledgeandunderstanding．AccordingtoWilson，publicspeakingreferstounifiedstrategyaimedtoachieveaspecialeffect，informative，persuasive，orothers，totheextentthatitisclear,interesting，credibleandappropriateforaudiencewithinagiventimelimit(Wilson，1994：5—61．Inconclusion，publicspeakingCanbedefinedasasocialactforspeakerstoexpresstheirviewpointandunderstandingonacertainissueinfaceofmanyaudienceswithsomestrategiestoachievespecialeffect，suchastoinform，tomotive，toentertain，topersuadeortoarouse．Asforclassificationofpublicspeaking，itCanbeclassifiedintomanydifferenttypesaccordingtodifferentcriteria．Traditionally,itWasclassifiedinto“forensic，5 ChapterTwoLiteratureRenewdeliberativeandepideictic"’byAristotle．AccordingtoLucas(2004)，publicspeakingfallsintothreecategories：speakingtoinform，speakingtopersuadeandspeakingonspecialoccasions．InformativespeechesoccurinawiderangeofeverydaysituationandCanbeflLrthergroupedintofoursubcategories：speechesaboutobjects，speechesaboutprocesses，speechesaboutevents，andspeechesaboutconcepts．Persuasivespeechesaremuchmorechallenging．Aneffectivepersuasivespeechmaychangewhatpeoplebelieve，whatpeopledo，orhowpeoplefeel．Tobemorespecific，persuasivespeechesCanbesubdividedintospeechestoconvince，toactuate，ortoinspire．Asforspeakingonspecialoccasions，suchkindofspeechesaimstofitspecialneedsofaspecialoccasion．Itincludesspeechesofintroduction，speechesofpresentation，speechesofacceptance，commemorativespeechesandafter-dinnerspeeches．2．1．2RelatedStudiesonPublicSpeakinginDiscourseAnalysisPublicspeakinghasattractedmanyscholars’attentionandhasbeenstudiedfromvariousperspectives．StylisticPerspectiveFromtheperspectiveofstylistics，thepublicspeechhasbeenstudiedthoroughlyandcomprehensively．XuZhenzhong(1990)investigatedthestylisticattributionandfeaturesofpublicspeech．XuYouzhi(1994)analyzedpublicspeechfromthefollowingaspects：language，style，vocabulary,grammar,phonology，semantic，andsomepresentationskills．LaJlXiaoyan(2008)analyzedthestylisticeffectofpoliticalspeechesfromarliconicityperspective．LiXiaojin(2008)analyzedthestylisticeffectsofpublicspeechfromphonological，lexical，syntacticandgrammaticallevels．ThePerspectiveofCriticalDiscourseAnalysisAsforcriticaldiscourseanalysis，ZhangLei(2005)andShangHaiyan(2008)，haveappliedthistheorytotheanalysisofpoliticalpublicspeech．Theyexploredtherelationshipbetweenlanguageandideologyandtheideologyhiddeninthepoliticalspeech．RhetoricalPerspectiveIntermsofrhetoric，ZhouQiang(2008)utilizedIdentificationTheoryproposedbyKennethBurketotheanalysisofpoliticalspeechandattemptedtoexploretheimplicitmotivesofthespeech．ZhangYufang(2007)analyzedtherhetoricalinteractionbetweenspeakerandaudienceinpublicspeechestodiscoverthepower6 ChapterTwoLiteratureReviewrelationsbetweenthem．GongYilei(2008)exploredtherhetoricalfactorsofinauguraladdressdeliveredbyFranklinD．Rooseveltfromthelexicalandsyntacticlevel．Guoanalyzedandinterpretedhowlanguagebeauty,politicalobjectiveswereachievedthroughtheapplicationofrhetoricaldevices．ThePerspectiveofSystemicFunctionalGrammarBasedonthetheoriesofHalliday’SSystemic—FunctionalGrammar,GuJuan(2007)analyzedpublicspeechfromtheperspectiveofthemeandrheme．WangLi(2009)conductedatransitivityanalysisinpresidentObama’Sinauguraladdresstofindthepoliticalmotivationimpliedbyformoflanguage．Chenvoujun(2006)analyzedpresidentBush’Sinauguraladdressintermsofinterpersonalmeaninganditsrealization．PragmaticPerspectiveAsforpragmaticperspective，GuoXiaochun(2002)hasappliedPolitenessPrincipleintotheanalysisofAmericanpresidentialinauguraladdress．JinYanfei(2011)madeacomparativestudyonhedgesbetweenAmericanpresidents’andBritishprimeministers’speeches．LiYuyingandLiHuiyan(2009)analyzedAmericanpresidentObama’SinauguraladdressfromtheperspectiveofIntertextuality．2．1．3PresentationSpeechandRelatedStudiesinDiscourseAnalysisPresentationspeech，asaspecialformofpublicspeaking，isdeliveredOBoccasionswhenanaward，agiftorsomeotherkindofrecognitionisawardedtosomebodyinpublic，inmostcases，presentationspeechisrelativelybrief．ItaimstOacknowledgewhattherecipienthasachieved．Meanwhile，ithastopointouttherecipient’Srespectablecharacters，tremendouseffortsengagedinhisorherworkandalsothesincerecomplimentstothewinner．Therelevantstudiesonpresentationspeechmainlyinvolvetwoapproaches．Fromtheperspectiveofstylistics，ZhaoQian(2005)analyzedstylisticfeaturesofNobel-Prizepresentationspeechinliterature．LiuWenjiao(2010)madeastylisticstudyonOscarpresentationspeech．Theresultsoftheirstudiesshowthat，lexically,thewordlengthinpresentationspeechisrelativelylongerwMchshowsitsformalfeature；syntactically,declarativesentencesandsimplepresenttensesareusedfrequently；semantically，rhetoricaldevicesareappliedtOmakethespeechvividandforceful；contextually,presentationspeechinbothNobelPrizeandOscararewrittentospoken．Thatistosay,theyhavethecharacterofformalwriUenlanguagebutalso ChapterTwoLiteratureReviewexhibitfeaturesofspokenlanguage．IntermsofSystemic-FunctionalGrammar,ChenHe(20l1exploredtherealizationofgrammaticalmetaphoranditscorrespondingftmctionsinNobelPrizepresentationspeech，inwhichtheauthorfoundthatallthethreekindsofgrammaticalmetaphorarelargelyemployed．Throughnominalizationandadjectivalization，ideationalgrammaticalmetaphorhelpstoevaluatethewinners’achievements．Interpersonalgrammaticalmetaphorisappliedtoanswerself-imposedquestions．Textualgrammaticalmetaphorishelpedtoachievecohesionandcoherence．AsforAppraisalTheory,PanHongpin(2011)analyzedattitudinalmeaningsinChinesepresentationspeech，inwhichtheauthorexploredthefeaturesofChinesepresentationspeechin⋯TouchingChina"；andexplainedthepotentialreasons．Asdiscussedabove，therelatedstudiesonpresentationspeecharejustconfinedtosomeaspectsinsteadoftheoverallstructure．ThepresentthesisattemptstoanalyzeattitudinalmeaningsdisplayedinNobelPrizepresentationspeechinliteraturewiththeexpectationtoopenupanewangletothestudyofNobelPrizepresentationspeech．2．2PreviousStudiesonAppraisalTheory2．2．1TheOriginandDevelopmentofAppraisalTheoryTheestablishmentofSystemic—FunctionalGrammarbyM．A．K．Hallidaysetoutanewapproachtothestudyoflanguage．Itisexplanatoryandmainlyfocusesondiscourseanalysis．Onthebasisofclause，whileanalyzinggrammar,Halliday(1985，1994)pointsoutthatlanguageinvolvesthreekindsofmetafunction，namely,interpersonalfunction，ideation．alfunctionandtextualfunctionwhicharerealizedbymood，transitivityandthemerespectively(HuZhuanglin，ZhuYongsheng，ZhangDelul989；Halliday,1995，1994)．Theinterpersonalmeaningrelatestothefactthattheclauseisinterrogative(aquestion)，thatitexpressesthewriter’Sassessmentofprobabilitiesandhisorherattitude，andthatitexplicitlysignalsthewriter’Snegotiationwiththereader．Theideationalmeaningreferstothefactthatlanguageisusedtotalkabouttheworld，eithertheexternalworld--things，events，qualities，etc．—叼rourinternalworld--thoughts，beliefs，feelings，etc．Whenwelookatlanguagefromtheviewofthetextualmeaning，wearetryingtoseehowspeakers8 ChapterTwoLiteratureReviewconstructtheirmessagesinawaywhichmakesthemfitsmoothlyintounfoldinglanguageevent(whichmaybeaconversationoranewspaperarticle)．AswellaSinteracting、vitlltheirlistenersandsayingsomethingtothemabouttheworld，speakersconstantlyorganizethewaytheirmessageiswordedinordertosignaltothemhowthepresentpartoftheirmessagefitsin谢t11otherparts(Thompson，2008)．Whileanalyzingideationalfunctionandinterpersonalfunction，theinterpretationoflanguageusinghasseenitsclues．Forexample，intransitivitysystems，materialprocessmeanswhattheparticipanthasdoneinthematerialworld．Infact,whatparticipantshavedoneisactuallytheevaluationtotheparticipants．Inmoodsystems，moodandmodalityindicatethedegreeofintimacyofhumanrelationship．Generallyspeaking，Systemic—FunctionalGrammarisrelativelycomprehensivetotheanalysisofinterpersonalmeaning，butitisalsoinherentlyinadequate．Whileanalyzinginterpersonalmeaningindiscourse，itmainlyemploysclause，moodandmodalityasitsmajortool，whichresultsinthefactthatinterpersonalmeaningcannotbefullyexposedintargetdiscourseanalysis．Thatistosay,inordertocomprehendthewriter’s／reader’Saswellasspeaker’s／listener’Sviewpointandstandpointthroughlanguageitself,traditionalfunctionalgrammarisnotsystemicandadequate．Hallidayhimselfrealizedthisinsufficiencyandthenputforwardsomeotherlanguagedevicestomakeup，butthoselanguageresourceswerenotelaboratedon．Awareofthisblindspot，JamesR．Martinextendedanddevelopedsystemicfunctionallinguisticsandestablishedthetheoreticframeworkofappraisalsystemsin1990s．Tobemorespecific，AppraisalTheorywasdevelopedfromtheyear1991to1994，onthebasisoftheresearchintowritinginthesecondaryschoolandotherworkplacesofNewSouthWalesStateinAustralia,whenMartinandhiscolleagueswereengagedinaliteracyprojectnamedWriteitRight．Attheverybeginning，theyonlyfocusedonnarratives．Later,Martin，PeterWhite，RickIedemaandJoanRotheryworkedtogetherandmadegreateffortstoextendtheappraisalanalysisintoavarietyofsubjectareas．Theyexploredtheevaluativeresourcesinliterarycriticism，theobjectivityofjournalistic，technologicalandhistoricaltexts，thevalueofartandresponsibilityofpoliticaldiscoursesinsuccession．Theyaimedtoestablishacomprehensivesystemofappraisalresourcesandthenappliedthemintodiscourseanalysis．Havingdevelopedformorethan10years，AppraisalTheoryWasperfectedgraduallybyscholarsathomeandabroad．ThepublicationofTheLanguageof9 ChapterTwoLiteratureReviewEvaluation：AppraisalinEnglishin2008byMartinandWhitemarkedamoresystemicanalysisofevaluativelanguageindiscourse．2．2．2TheApplicationofAppraisalTheoryinDiscourseAnalysisSinceitsemergence，AppraisalTheoryhasarousedgreatinterestamongscholarsathomeandabroad．Throughitsdevelopment，thistheoryhasbeenappliedtovariousgenresindiscourseanalysisfromasmallliteraryprojectrestrictedtothegenreofnarratives．InordertomakeacomprehensiveunderstandingofpreviousstudiesonAppraisalTheoryindiscourseanalysis，itisnecessarytoreviewwhatscholarshavealreadyengagedinathomeandabroad．RickIedema,SusanFeezandPeterWhite(1994)madegreatcontributiontotheearliestpublishedaccountofevaluationofhumanbehavior．IntheirMediaLiterary,theyexploredtheobjectivityandsubjectivityinmassmediadiscourse．Theyfoundthatauthorialvoicesvariedaccordingtotheirdifferentusesofappraisalvalues．Theirinvestigationlaidfoundationforthesystemofjudgrnentinappraisalframework．EgginsandSlade(1997)appliedAppraisalTheorytotheanalysisofinformalandcasualconversation．Theyfoundthatparticipantswhomadegreateruseofappraisalvaluestendedtospeakmorefreelyandactively．Theirstudyalsoshowedthatdifferentstylesofspeakerspreferreddifferentappraisalvalues．Somespeakersmaymakemoreuseofjudgment．Incontrast，someothersmayprefertheexpressionofaffectandappreciation．‘PeterR．White(1998)analyzedjournalisticvoicefromtheperspectiveofAppraisalTheoryinhisPhDdissertationentitledTellingMediaTales：thenewsstoryasrhetoric，inwhich22mediatextswerefullyexplored．Thisthesisinvestigatedengagementresourcesfromthepointofdialogismandfoundthreetypesofjournalisticvoices，namely,reporter’Svoice，commentator’Svoiceandcorrespondent’Svoice．JaneRotheryandMareeStenglin(2000)appliedAppraisalTheoryintoschooldiscourse．Throughtheirappraisalanalysisofstudents’literarycomments，theyfoundthatteacherspreferredtogivehigherscorestostudentswhoadoptedmoreexplicitjudgmentresourcesintotheircomments．Theyalsofoundthatappreciationresourceswerefewusedamongstudents．Theresultwasunexpected，becausestudentswererequiredtoevaluateapieceofliterarytext，ataskinwhichappreciationresourcesweresupposedtobehighlyadopted．Inthelightofthisphenomenon．Rotheryand10 ChapterTwoLiteratureRenewStenglinarguedthatcurrentteachingtheoryonliteraturehaddisabledstudents’appreciationofliterature．Theyinsistedthatschoolshouldhelpstudentstobeawareoftheimportanceofexpressingfeelings，evaluatingbehaviorsandalsoappreciatingaestheticqualityofliteraryworks．HenryKfrner(2000)investigatedappraisalresourcesinlegaldiscourse．BasedonthesystemsofengagementandgraduationSinappraisalframework，heanalyzedappellatecourtaward．In2001，JamesR．Martinconductedaresearchontheanalysisofrecordings，videosandCDs．功eanalysisoflanguageonCDpackagesshowedthatpositiveevaluationWasfrequentlyused．HeindicatedthatthehighlyadaptationofcommendatoryevaluationWastopersuadecustomersintobuyingCDs，whichwascommontoa11commercialsandadvertisements．CarolineCoffin(2002)appliedAppraisalTheoryintohistoricaldiscourseinwhichsheexploredinter-subjectivityandsocialevaluationinsecondaryschoolstudents’historyexaminationanswersheets．Shefoundthatthevoiceofhistoricaltextswascharacterizedbyafrequentuseofjudgmentvalues．However，indifferentstages，thevoiceWasdifferent．InRecordofEvents，studentspreferredthetokenizedandimpliedjudgmentsinsteadofexplicitjudgments，whileinthestageofDeduction，explicitjudgmentswerehighlyadopted．SusanHood(2004)extendedtheapplicationofAppraisalTheoryintoacademicdiscoursewhichWasonceregardedasabsolutelyobjective．Shecomparedtheintroductionpartofundergraduates’academicthesiswitllthatofpublishedtextswithrespecttothedistributionandrealizationofeachsub-systemofappraisalresourcesinherdoctoraldissertation：Appraisingresearch：Talcingastanceinacademicwriting．Sheexploredhowtheseappraisalresourceswerecombinedtoconveytheauthor’Sopinionandattemptedtoseemobjectivemeanwhile．。InChina,sincethefoundingofAppraisalTheory,Chinesescholarshavebeendevotedtoitsstudy．Theyhavenotonlyinvestigatedthenature，constnqctionandcategorizationofappraisalsystems，butalsoexploreditsapplication，expandingitsscopetothedomainsofdiscourseanalysis，translationstudiesandEnglishteaching．Ingeneral，ChinesescholarshavecontributedgreatlytothenatureofAppraisalTheoryandalsoextendeditsapplicationsignificantly．Asfortheoreticalexploration，Chinesescholarshaveexploredthenatureand11 ChapterTwoLiteratureReviewstatusofevaluationfromdifferentperspectives．ZhangDelu(1998)firstintroducedAppraisalTheorytoChinaandthenwasfollowedbyWangZhenhua(2001)withthearticlenamedAppraisalSystemandTheirOperation，inwhichhesystematicallyintroducedthebackground，frameworkandoperationofappraisalsystemandpredicatedtheprospectofitintheendingpart．LiZhanzi(2004)discussedtherelationshipbetweenculturalmodelandevaluation．Throughtheanalysisofschema，conceptualmeaning，culturalmodelaswellasevaluation，shepointedoutthatculturalmeaningnotonlyemphasizedinterpersonalmeaningbutalsolaidstressonevaluativemeaninginparticular．Shealsoexpectedtocallattentiontothesignificanceofinvestigatingevaluativemeaninginculturalmodelinordertofacilitatetheunderstandingofculture．LiZhanzi(2005)analyzedmood，modalityandappraisalinthepaperFromMoodandModalitytoAppraisal，inwhichshemadeasurveyofthediscussionsonappraisaltypesmadebyMartinandLemke，SOastoconstructthecontinuityfrommood，modalitytoappraisal．Meanwhile，sheattemptedtoexplaintherelevanceofsuchknowledgeindiscourseanalysisandsemanticstudies．ZhangDeluandLiuShizhu(2006)madeacomparisonbetweenHalliday’SSystemicFunctionalLinguisticsandMartin’SAppraisalTheory．ItwasfoundthatHalliday’SapproachWasmulti—leveledandcomprehensivebutrestrictedbyformalcategorization；Martin’SAppraisalTheoryWasmoresystemicandcomprehensiveinsocialsemioticaspectsbutneededtoimprovetherelevantformalcategorizationwhichrealizedtheappraisalsystem．LiuShizhu(2007)analyzedevaluationfromtheperspectiveoflinguisticfeatures．Heregardedevaluationasacomplexcognitiveprocesswhichinvolvedaninteractionbetweensubject，objectofevaluation，evaluationnormsandevaluationcategory．ZhuYongsheng(2009)refinedthestudiesofAppraisalTheorybyanalyzingtheimplicitevaluationintermsofideationalperspective．Heexploredthesignificanceandrealizationofimplicitevaluationtoillustratehowspeakersexpressattitudes，makejudgmentsandshowexpressionsbyusingdescriptivewordsandsemanticstructures．Chinesescholarsalsoinvestigatedthethreesub-systemsofAppraisalTheoryinspecific，namely,attitude，engagementandgraduation．LiJian(2008)exploredmodalityandengagement．ThroughtheanalysisofmodalityinSystemic—FunctionalGrammarandengagementinAppraisalTheory,hepointedoutthatmodalitywasviewedasallengagementresourcetoopenandextendthedialogicspace．Healso12 ChapterTwoLiteratureReviewmadeadiscussionoftherelationshipbetweendialogieexpansionandmodalgraduation．Withrespecttoattitudeanalysis，Chinesescholarsexpandeditsscopefromlexicalaspecttogrammaticallevel．YangXinzhang(2003)pointedoutthatitwasnecessarytoindentifyevaluativemeaningfrombothlexicalandgrammaticalaspects．Byanalyzingthreetexts，heconcludedthattheamountofevaluativedevicesreflectedthedegreeofwriters／speakers’desiretoexpresstheirpersonalidea，judgmentandattitude．ZhangKeding(2007)exploredtheevaluativefunctionofthematizedcommentconstructionwhichmadeevaluativemeaningthematized，andaccordinglythestartingpointofinformation．LiuShizhu(2009)，basedondatafromtheBankofEnglish，madeanattempttoexplorethestructuralpotentialofaffectandthencategorizedattitudinalsystemanew．Intheresearchofgraduation，FuXiaoliandFuTianjun(2009)analyzedforceandfocusinthetextofWutherighHeights．Asfordiscourseanalysis，greatattentionhasbeengiventonewstexts，whichmainlyfocusedonhardnews，columntextsandeditorials．WangZhenhua(2004)analyzedhardnewsbothinChineseandEnglishfromtheperspectiveofattitude，inwhichhefoundthatjudgmentresourcesweremuchmoreemployedthanthatofaffectandappreciation．ChenXiaoyan(2007)investigatedtherealizationofattitudeinbothChineseandEnglisheditorialswithinappraisalframeworkthroughthecontrastiveanalysisof10texts．LiRongiuan(2005)exploredtheattitudinalmeaningsinEnglishpoliticalcolumntexts．Itwasfoundthatcolumnistspreferredtoevaluateexplicitlybyusinglinguisticdevicesofappreciationandjudgment．AppraisalTheoryalsoprovidessoundexplanationtoliteraryworks．WangZhenhua(2004)analyzedhow‘‘events’’contributedtothecompositionofcharactersinnovelsbasedonSystemicFunctionalLinguistics，mainlytheperspectiveofappraisalvaluesofmaterialprocesses．ShanHuifangandDingHuiping(2006)adoptedtheattitudinalsystemstotheanalysisofthetypicalfairytale--TheUglyDuckling．Throughtheanalysis，itwasfoundthatthesub—systemofaffect，appreciationandjudgmentwerefrequentlyemployedtohelpachievedifferenteffectandfunction．WangYaliandGuanShuhong(2006)exertedAppraisalTheoryandNarratologyTheorytoexploreappraisalresourcesinHemingway’sshortfiction-砌AnotherCountry．Theanalysiscontributedtothedeeperunderstandingofthetheme．ShangBiwu(2008)analyzedthenovelAThousandSplendidSunsbyHosseinifromtheperspectiveofAppraisalTheory．Byanalyzingattitudinalresourcesfromthe13 ChapterTwoLiteratureReviewlexicalaspects，theauthorattemptedtoexplorethecharacters，feelingsandbehaviorsofthefemalefiguresinthenovel．Academicreviewisanotherresearchfocuswithinappraisalframework．TangLiping(2004)madeallappraisalanalysisonthegeneticstructureofEnglishacademicreviewfromtheperspectiveofinter-subjectivity,aimingtoinvestigateitsrhetoricalandtextualstrategies．In2005，shemadeanengagementanalysistoexploretheevaluationstrategiesofEnglishacademicreviewfromthedialogisticperspective．WangHongyangandChengChunsong(2008)conductedafurthercontrastivestudyofChineseandEnglishlinguisticsbookreviewfromtheperspectiveofAppraisalTheory,attitudeinparticular,inwhichtheyfoundthatlinguisticsbookreviewswerenotonlyculturallyindependentbutalsoculturallyvaried．Chinesescholarshavealsoextendedthescopeofdiscourseanalysisintojudicialdiscourseandpoliceinterrogationwithinappraisalframework．WangZhenhua(2004)appliedmodalitytotheanalysisofcross—examinationinthe0．J．SimpsonTrial．Theresultshowedthattheonewhospokeobjectivelywasmorepowerfulthantheonewhospokesubjectivelyanduncertainly．ZhangLiping(2007)appliedAppraisalTheorytoexplorehowlawyersrealizetheirsubjectivityinthecourttrailwhereobjectivityissupposedtobeessential．YuanChuanyou(2008)interpreteddifferentengagementmodesthepoliceadoptedwhentheyinteractedwi廿1differenttypesofcriminalsuspects．TheapplicationofAppraisalTheoryindiscourseanalysisalsoincludesadvertisingdiscourse．CaiHong(2005)analyzedtheuseofcommentarymarkersfromtheperspectiveofengagementinappraisalframeworktoexplorehowpeopleweresuccessivelypersuadedintobuyingproducts．YuanXiaofeng(2007)alsoinvestigatedtheengagementresourcesdisplayedinEnglishnarrativeenrollmentadvertisements．Inthefieldof-translationstudies，ZhangMeifang(2002)investigatedtherelationshipbetweenevaluativemeaningoflanguageandtranslators’valueorientation．QTanHong(2007)exploredthe“unfaithful”phenomenaintranslationthroughtheanalysisandcomparisonoffourperfumeadvertisementsbothinChineseandEnglish．ChenMingyao(2007)pointedoutdifferenttranslationmethodsshouldbeadoptedaccordingtodifferentattitudinalresources．ZhangXiangang(2007)heldthatAppraisalTheorywasaneffectivetoolintheanalysisofattitudinalmeaningsintermsoftranslationstudy．ThecombinationofAppraisalTheoryandtranslationare14 ChapterTwoLiteratureReviewsupposedtofacilitatetranslationstudyandteaching．TheapplicationofAppraisalTheoryinEnglishteachingisarelativelynewresearchsubject．MaWeilin(2007)arguedthatAppraisalTheorycanprovideuniqueguidanceforspokenEnglishteaching．LiaoChuanfeng(2008)putforwardanewapproachtorevealthethemeofatextbyintroducingAppraisalTheorytothereadinginEnglishteachingactivities．15 ChapterThreeTheoreticalFrameworkThreeTheoreticalFramework3．1AnOverviewofAppraisalTheoryAppraisalTheoryextendsanddevelopsthescopeofinterpersonalmeaninginSystemicFunctionalLinguisticsfoundbyHallidayandthenestablishesamuchmoresystematicandcomprehensivetheoreticalframeworkfortheanalysisofattitudinalresourcesinlanguage．AccordingtoThompsonandHunston，AppraisalTheoryisaneffectivetooltoexplorelanguageinthefollowingway：howtouselanguagetoexpressemotion，ethicsandaestheticvalue，constructandholdtherelationshipinthecommunication，andthereforeconstructthediscourse．InMartinandWhite’Swords．AppraisalTheoryisconcemed淅t11theinterpersonalmeaninginlanguage，withthesubjectivepresenceofwriters／speakersintextsasnleyadoptstancetowardsboththematerialtheypresentandthosewithwhomtheycommunicate(MartinandWhite，2008)．Tobemorespecific，AppraisalTheoryisconcemedwithwriters’／speakers’attitudes，feelings，stancestowardstheactualorpotentialrespondents，aimingtoachieveinteractionwiththem．AccordingtoMartinandRose，appraisalisconcemedwithevaluation--thekindsofattitudesthatarenegotiatedinthetext，thestrengthofthefeelingsinvolvedandthewaysinwhichvaluesaresourcedandreadersarealigned．Basedonthedefinitionabove，itisobviousthatAppraisalTheoryismulti—dimensional．Itisconcemedwiththreeaspectsofevaluation．Accordingly,AppraisalTheorycanbedividedintothreesubsystems：attitude，engagementandgraduation．Attitude，asthefocusofthewholeframework，isconcemedwithfeelings，includingemotionalreactions，judgmentofbehaviorandevaluationofthings．Attitudeisitselfcomposedofthreeregionsoffeelings：affect，judgmentandappreciation．Engagementisabouthowtonegotiateinter-subjectivitypositioningresources．Itisfurtherdividedintomonoglossandheterogloss．Graduation，whichcanbefurthercategorizedintoforceandfocus，isconcemwithgradability．Inordertomakeappraisalframeworkmorelucidandvivid，thefollowingfigurewasprovidedbyMartinandWhite．16 ChapterThreeTheoreticalFrameworkENGAGEMENTA1vrITUDEGRADUATIONAFFECTJUDGMENTAPPRECTATToNFORCEFOCUSralSelowersharpensoftenFigure3．1AnOverviewofAppraisalResources(MartinandWhite，2008：38)Consideringthefocusofthisthesis，attitudewillbeelaboratedonseparatelyinthenextsection．witllengagementandgraduationbrieflyintroducedinthisparttoke印theintegrityofthewholetheory．．TheconceptofengagementisonthebasisofBakhtin’Snotionsofdialogismandheteroglossiawhichholdthatallverbalcommunication，includingwrittenandspoken，is‘‘dialogic’’and‘‘heteroglossic”．Generallyspeaking，engagement‘‘isconcernedwithresourceswhichinvariouswaysconstrueforthetextaheteroglossicbackdropofpriorutterances，altemativeviewpointsandanticipatedresponses”(MartinandWhite，2008：97)．Theemploymentofthoselinguisticresourcesrevealsthedegreetowhichwriters／speakersalignwiththeopinionbeingpresented．Theymightapprove，disapproveorbeneutral．Engagementconsistsoftwocategories：monoglossandheterogloss．Theemploymentofmonoglossicstatementsindicatesthatwriters／speakersmakenoreferencetoothervoicesandviewpoints，forexample，“Thebankhasbeengreedy．”Incontrast，theutilizationofheteroglossicstatementsshowsthatwriters／speakersdoinvokeorallowfordialogisticaltematives，forexample，“Thereistheargument17S泌|耋k，．I▲，，出曙唯∞玳盯伽舵麒k厂●●●●、、、L厂_、L厂j]L厂I-YL厂I