Draga Succión – Draga Estacionaria impulsora

First of all, the reporting verb distribution in the reported speech of the Chinese-English translational English corpus was discussed. Among the reporting verbs, “said” was the top one, followed by words such as “stated”, “stressed”, “noted”, “announced”, “indicated”, and “mentioned”, etc. It is evident that there should be no reporting verbs in the original direct speech of the reported speaker, so these reporting verbs are all added by the writer or editor of the broadcast news according to the content of the meaning.

Compared with those reporting verbs in the native English cited from Krestle, Bergler, and Witte (2008), it was found that the reporting verbs unique in the translational English were more moderate such

as “comment”, “demonstrate”, “express”, and “forecast”, etc., from which no apparent stance was shown either from the reporter or the reported speaker; this was probably partly originated from the source texts. While on the other hand, those in the native English speakers’ list showed obvious stance and attitude; for instance “blame”, “charge”, “criticize”, “decline”, and disagree”, etc. One unique use of translational corpus was “repeat” and “reiterate”, which were not discovered in the native English corpus. This also partly originated from the source text, being characteristic of Chinese government and foreign ministry, especially when responding on the Taiwan issue and one-China policy to show a consistent stance.

When we further studied into the semantic meaning, using Wmatrix (Rayson, 2009), it was found that the five most common meaning categories were those related to “speech acts, speech act: communicative, Open/closed; Hiding/Hidden, Crime, law and order: Law & order, Definite (+ modals), Thought, belief, and expect”, which varied between translational English and Native English. The first item is speech acts. According to Austin (2005), speech acts can be analyzed on three levels: a locutionary act, an illocutionary act, and in certain cases, a further perlocutionary act. Searle (1975) further set illocutionary acts into five classifications; assertives equal speech acts that commit a speaker to the truth of the expressed proposition, e.g. reciting a creed; directives equal speech acts that cause the hearer to take a particular action, e.g. requests, commands and advice, commissives mean speech acts that commit a speaker to some future action, e.g. promises and oaths; expressives equal speech acts that express the speaker's attitudes and emotions toward the proposition, e.g. congratulations, excuses, and thanks; declarations mean speech acts that change the reality in accordance with the proposition of the declaration, e.g. baptisms, pronouncing someone guilty or pronouncing someone husband and wife (pp. 344-369). Then, we can see that most of the illocutionary speech acts in the translational corpus belong to the “assertives”, such as “reaffirm, sum up”, “commissives” such as “forecast, swear”, and “directives”, such a “advise, propose, demand,” and “expressives” such as “caution”. On the native English list, on the other hand, there was a different picture. For “assertives”, there were “contend, allege, assert, cite, confirm”, for “directives”, there were “urge, and concede”, for “commisives”, there were none and for “expressives”, there were “blame, criticize, and complain”. As for the common verbs, they were mainly “assertives” like “announce, explain, report, and tell”, and “directives” like “recommend, acknowledge, admit and suggest”, “commissives” like “predict, and disclose”, “declaratives” like “declare, deny, and claim”, and finally, “expressives” like “accuse and agree”. It indicates that the native English list uses more expressive speech acts and both use a large quantity of assertives, directives.

As to the second item “Speech act: Communicative”, all of which were “assertives” except that of “request” from the translational corpus. The third item “Open/closed; Hiding/Hidden; finding; showing” mainly dealt with “assertives”, such as “demonstrate, discover, expose, found, indicate, point out, reveal, show, tell and disclose”, because they are mainly concerned with “committing a speaker to the truth of the expressed proposition”. Here, it suggests that the truth value of the proposition was not evident and the broadcast news was simply revealing the information source. In this consideration, native English list almost has none in this type; maybe this is to guarantee the accuracy of the broadcast news content. For the item of “Crime, law and order: Law & order”, there were more verb types in the native English, which explains its broadcast news focus and possible caution in word use. As to the “thought, belief” category, it is obvious that the translational English used more thought, belief words than its counterpart. This also indicates native English seeks to be more objective and more neutral. As for the “definite” and “expect” items, they were more concerned with the future.

Next, the dialogism in reported speech of translational English corpus will be explored in detail. Bakhtin always argued, “The other’s word should be transformed into one’s own/other (or other/one’s own)” (1986, p. 146). In the process of dialogic communication, the object is transformed into the subject (the other’s I). Journalistic or broadcast news discourse is a combination of spoken and written styles in that it is in the written-to-be-spoken genre. Thus, as Bakhtin argued, “When there is a deliberate (conscious) multiplicity of styles, there are always dialogic relations among the styles” (1986, p. 112); it is essential to study the dialogism in broadcast news discourse. We will explore North Korea’s nuclear issues as follows through text analysis of case studies of the Six-party talks.

[Sample Text]

[1] “The second stage of discussions in the six-party talks on the North Korean nuclear issue have not been resumed for some time.

[2] On the afternoon of the tenth, Kong Quan, spokesman for the Chinese Foreign Ministry, said regarding the various speculations that China has consistently stayed in touch through various channels with all five of the other parties and was pushing for resumption of the six-party talks as soon as possible.

[3] Our basic view is that the more we are faced with this current difficult situation, all sides, everyone should strive together; all we need is for us all to work together, and I believe these difficulties should, and we can overcome them.

[4] Because ultimately, the goal of peaceful resolution of the peninsula’s nuclear issue cannot change.

[5] Peaceful resolution of the peninsula's nuclear issue, this is a proven and effective mechanism, and we should persist.

CCTV reporter reporting.”

[new, CCTV4, DAILYNEWS, CMN, 20060110]

When taking a look at the sample text, it is obvious to see the changes in the text in several aspects: First of all, the pronoun shift in the reported speech. In the five sentences above, there is a shift of pronouns from the reporter as the first person to the “represented speaker” spokesman Kong Quan as the first person, or from my words to another’s words. So the audience’s perspective is also shifted from the scene of the hostess or reporter to that of the spokesman. This is obvious from Sentence [1] to Sentence [2] and Sentence [3]. In Sentence [1], “Kong Quan” appears for the first time as a third person singular, yet in Sentence [2], it shifts into “our, we, all sides, everyone, we, I, these difficulties, we, them”, namely the first-person use. This indicates a shift of perspective. We can understand this in that broadcasting news is a combination of live reporting and a recording report. According to Oddo (2014), as one of the two most familiar kinds of recontextualization forms, “reported speech attempts to rearticulate the meaning or ‘gist’ (not the wording) of an earlier assertion, and is marked by a hypotactic dependency structure” (p. 131) and “reporting speech allows a person more freedom to reinterpret or ‘spin’ recontextualized discourse for persuasive ends” (p. 131).

Moreover, the tense discontinuity of the reported speech in Sentence [2] is present tense of absolute tense use. This also indicates dialogism which is determined by the broadcasting news itself as a special style. When the video starts, actually besides the live reports, all are recorded in order to make the audience feel the liveliness of the issue, so the reporters maintain the absolute tense use in the reported speech to achieve a live effect. This is another dialogism of time between past and present. Furthermore,

there is also a dialogism of space, namely space shift, that is the shift between different space. In addition, as a translational text, it shows features of the source text of Chinese, called source text effect, which is also a kind of dialogism. From Sentence [3], we can see that the sentence length of reported speech of Sentence [2] and [3], (50 and 42 words respectively), are longer than average English sentence length (the average sentence length of FLOB corpus is 25.59 words (Xiao, 2012, p. 73)). There are also uses of modal verbs and reporting verbs. In all sentences except [1], each includes a modal verb such as “should” (used twice), “need”, “can” in Sentence [3], “cannot” in Sentence [4], and “should” in Sentence [5]. As to the reporting verb “said” and “believe”, they form the stance or intention of the reported speaker, yet as it is added by the transeditor based on a summary of the content of the reported speech, thus it shows both the intention of the reporters or transeditors and the reported speakers’. This has been tested by Xin (2012) using appraisal theory.

In addition, the above can be further analyzed. First, according to Martin and Whiter (2005), as to the key or the “voices” of news, analysis and commentary, there are usually two voices in news. The former takes the reporter’s voices, which is relatively formulaic reporting and there are fewer commentaries; the latter one is the correspondent voices, which can make some analysis – usually political. As to the categories of engagement and graduation, the main ones are graduation: force: intensification: quality such as eye-catching, serious, comprehensively, substantive, cleverly, substantive, major, and subtly to indicate subjectivity; heterogloss: expand: attribute: acknowledge, such as say, according to, stress, and it’s said that; heterogloss: contract: proclaim: concur, such as obvious to show concurrence; concede + counter, such as although, though as concessive concurrence to acknowledge that there are possibilities of potential disagreement among the putative readers; attribute: distance, such as issue, claim; heterogloss: expand: attribute: acknowledge, highly credible such as all the parties, everyone, all the delegation heads, unanimously is worth our attention because through an emphasis of the large quantities, it shows that the proposition is highly credible and thus improve the credibility of the news. These are all concerned with the heteroglossic interaction between the authorial voices with the putative readers.

Second, the differences between reporter voice and correspondent voice are evident, since in the reporter’s voice, there are less comments and mainly fact reports about what happens to whom and in what circumstances, while in the correspondent’s voice, there are many value positionings through engagement and graduation, thus achieving a writer/speaker-reader interaction or heteroglossia to indicate the stance of the reporters or correspondent, as well as the potential discourse meaning.

Conclusion

The analysis above is only an elementary study on the dialogism of the writer/speaker and putative reader relationship, including the manipulation of reported speakers’ words, and how readers are written into the text. The present study mainly used Martin and White’s Appraisal Theory to conduct the text analysis. The findings were that in the interaction between reporters and reported speakers, manipulative means such as pronoun shift, tense discontinuity, space shift, and source text effect, etc., were used to coin the voices of the reported speakers with those of the reporters and through the use of reporting verbs to demonstrate the reporters’ stance or value position takings. However, there are still many limitations in the present study. Further studies can probe into the dialogism through reporting verbs, the generic, social, cultural and institutional influences. As to the reporting verbs, this study only explored its distribution and semantic meaning; the dialogism through reporting verbs remains to be studied further. Since the genre studied is translational text of broadcasting news discourse, and we only conducted a

preliminary study, whether the genre itself has an effect on the dialogism, such as that written-to-be-spoken can take some oral features and the source text effect remains to be studied further. Furthermore, social, cultural and institutional elements could be taken into consideration on the potential interpretation of such linguistic phenomena.

References

Austin, J. (2005). Langshaw: How to do things with words, 1962, 2nd edition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays. Vern W. McGee, (Tran.), Caryl Emerson & Micharl Holquist, (Eds.). University of Texas Press, Slavic Series 8. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Comrie, B. (1986). Tense in indirect speech. Folia Linguistica, 3, 267, 284-285.

Davidse, K., & Vandelanotte, L. (2011). Tense use in direct and indirect speech in English. Journal of Pragmatics, 1, 237-238.

Declerck, R., & Tanaka, K. (1996). Constraints on tense choice in reported speech. Studia Linguistica, 3, 286-299.

Krestel, R., Bergler, S., & Witte, R. (2008). Minding the source: Automatic tagging of reported speech in newspaper articles. Reporter, 5, 1-2.

Ma, X., & Strassel, S. (2013). LDC: Linguistic data consortium. GALE Phase 1 Chinese Broadcast News Parallel Text. Available from Linguistic Data Consortium. Retrieved from website:

Part 1: https://catalog.ldc.upenn.edu/LDC2007T23; Part 2:http://www.ldc.upenn.edu/Catalog/ catalogEntry.jsp?catalogId=LDC2008T08; Part 3:https://catalog.ldc.upenn.edu/LDC2008T18. Martin, J. R., & White, P. R. R. (2005). The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. New York:

Palgrave Macmillan.

Oddo, J. (2014). Intertextuality and the 24-Hour news cycle: A day in the rhetorical life of Colin Powell’s U.N. address. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press.

Rayson, P. (2009) Wmatrix: A web-based corpus processing environment. Computing Department, Lancaster University. Retrieved from http://ucrel.lancs.ac.uk/wmatrix/.

Searle, J. R. (1975). A taxonomy of illocutionary acts. In K. Günderson, (Ed.), Language, Mind, and Knowledge, (Minneapolis Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol. 7), Minneapolis: University of Minneapolis Press.

Stetting, K. (1989). Transediting – A new term for coping with the grey area between editing and

translating. In Proceedings from the Fourth Nordic Conference for English Studies. Copenhagen: University of Copenhagen, Department of English (pp. 371-382).

Vandelanotte, L. (2005). Tense in indirect speech or thought: Some proposed modifications. Crosslinguistic Views on Tense, Aspect and Modality, 13, 66.

Ma, J. (2008). The phenomenon of indirect speech temporal discontinuity in English news discourse. Journal of Ai 'an International Studies University, 4, 18-21.

Xin, B. (2012). Dialogism and indirect speech research. Contemporary Rhetoric, 3, 25.

Xiao, Z. (2012). Corpus-based research of translated Chinese in English-Chinese translation. Shanghai: Shanghai Jiao Tong University Press.

“Paper” and “We” – The Referring Preference in Academic Abstracts

Weina Li

Beijing International Studies University, Beijing, China

[Abstract] In this paper, we attempt to explore the linguistic features of the high frequency referring

expressions in English academic abstracts from the psycholinguistic perspective of Accessibility and Subjectivity integration. According to the findings, Chinese authors show a strong tendency to use the objective formulaic expression “the paper” to refer to academic papers, and use it as the point of departure to introduce their research. By contrast, native English authors would use the subjective referring expression “we” to introduce the actions taken by the research agents. Influenced by this way of thinking, as well as culture and specific social conditions, the above feature becomes a convincing argument for the emergence of a Chinese-English variety.

[Keywords] “paper”; “we”; academic abstracts; referring expressions; preference

Introduction

Referring expressions are important in information transmission, and with the great development in many areas in social sciences, the study of referring expressions have been shedding new light with new approaches and methods. The related studies in anthropology, for example, have provided many approaches for linguistic study. Malinowski (1923) discovered in his anthropologic study that the meaning of words plays an important role in the environment where they are used. Brown (1958) pointed out in his paper “How Shall a Thing be Called” that “the name of a thing… is the name that constitutes the referent as it needs to be constituted for most purposes.” After that, the study of referring expressions cognition has received more attention from linguistics.

Linguists have been studying referring expressions from different aspects with different criteria. With the related theory from functional linguistics, linguists have studied referring phenomena in discourses (Brown, & Yule, 1983; Halliday, & Hasan, 1976; Hoey, 2001). Using pragmatic train of thought, linguist could explain the distribution of referring expressions, such as the Q-, I-and M-principle of Levinson (1987), Huang’s anaphora framework (2000), and Xu’s R-expression recognition principle; while psycholinguistics investigated the distribution of referring expressions in natural discourses, and provided explanations for their distribution. Givón (1983, p. 18) believed that referring expressions are carriers of the topic of the discourse with various degrees, and the topics determine the R-expression distribution. Chafe (1987), on the other hand, believed that referring expressions are carriers of activity, the degree of which determines the choice of referring expressions; while Ariel (1990) considers referring expressions as carriers of accessibility, which influences the R-expression distribution.

There are linguists who study referring expressions from other aspects such as the OT Centering model by Beaver (2004) which is used to explain the distribution of anaphora. Some scholars found that two NPs, which are not directly related, correlate in some certain way, and they named such kind of relation “associative anaphora”; therefore, they could interpret the distribution of referring expressions by laying down some rules. For example, Charolles (1999) holds that associative anaphora is bound by uniqueness and transitivity; while Kleiber (1999) believes that the condition of alienation and the principle of ontological congruence are working in the mechanism of relation which holds between two

referents; both Charolles and Kleiber (1999) believe that anaphora can activate typical conditions to activate the related concepts in the memory. Ma (2008) establishes the framework for persons absent from the conventional setting by studying strategies and systematically describing various linguistic forms that interlocutors may employ when it comes to the establishment and maintenance of references to such persons.

The research above have noted the anaphora features of referring expressions from such views and perspectives as discourse binding, pragmatics binding, functional cognition and psychological concept reference, yet problems still exist. There is still no clear definition about “referring expressions”; these theories can only explain some references, for example, most of the theories are applied to such reference discourses as fiction, prose, or conversation analysis, but few have been used to study academic reference. Moreover, the universal explanation for the reference relationship has not yet been found. The purpose of this paper is to explore the linguistic features of high frequency referring expressions in English academic abstracts from the psycholinguistic perspective of Accessibility and Subjectivity integration, and attempts to find the reference feature of a Chinese-English variety shown in the academic abstracts.