中美媒体有关“一带一路”倡议报道中的介入资源分析  

An Analysis of Engagement Resources in the Sino-American Media Reports on the Belt and Road Initiative

作　　者：辛斌[1] 吴玲莉[1] XIN Bin;WU Lingli

机构地区：[1]南京师范大学外国语学院,江苏南京210097

出　　处：《外语研究》2018年第6期1-7,112,共8页Foreign Languages Research

基　　金：国家社会科学基金重点项目"中美关系危机话语的互文性和对话性比较研究"(16AYY021)的阶段性成果

摘　　要：本文分析了中美媒体有关"一带一路"倡议的报道中介入资源的分布情况,发现中美都更多地调用了"对话性扩展"资源,表明双方都愿意在表达自己立场态度的同时,愿意为不同的观点预留对话空间。在"对话性扩展"资源中,两国媒体都倾向于使用情态动词,中方媒体主要表达对"一带一路"未来的良好愿望,而美方媒体则不看好其发展。在"归属"资源中,中方更多引用领导人的话语,而美方则更多引用普通人的话语,其目的都是限制对话性。在"对话性压缩"资源中,中方媒体往往直接否定反对"一带一路"倡议的观点,而美方媒体则更倾向于使用"反预期"资源质疑"一带一路"倡议。至于"宣告"资源,中方媒体更多使用"宣布"资源直接介入命题,而美方则经常调用"认可"资源来认同某些权威观点,并以此降低对话性。The paper analyses the distribution of Engagement resources in the Sino-American media reports on the Belt and Road Initiative. The analysis shows that the reports of both countries favor the employment of dialogic expansion resources in expressing their own views, leaving room for other different ideas about the B & R Initiative. On the whole, all the media investigated prefer to use modal auxiliaries as means of dialogic expansion, for the Chinese media to show great positive expectations towards the B & R Initiative and for the American media to cast doubt on the Initiative. In terms of attribution resources, the Chinese media quote more from authoritative sources and the American media quote more from voices of ordinary people, both to modify dialogic possibility. As to dialogic contraction resources, the Chinese media use more deny resources to negate negative attitudes towards the B & R Initiative while the American media exploit more counter-expectation resources to raise doubts about it. As to proclaim resources, the Chinese media use more pronouncement resources while the American media prefer endorsement resources, both to identify themselves with some external voices so as to reduce dialogic possibility.

关 键 词：一带一路 中美媒体 介入资源 

分 类 号：H030[语言文字—语言学]