Expressing stance: A cross-linguistic study of effective and epistemic stance marking in Chinese and English opinion reports

IF 1.8 1区 文学 0 LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS
Yuan Wei , Yi'na Wang
{"title":"Expressing stance: A cross-linguistic study of effective and epistemic stance marking in Chinese and English opinion reports","authors":"Yuan Wei ,&nbsp;Yi'na Wang","doi":"10.1016/j.pragma.2025.02.009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>In expressing opinions, we use epistemic and effective stance marking strategies to understand and influence reality. This study conducted a cross-linguistic analysis of effective and epistemic stance marking in Chinese and English, based on 20 oral and 20 written opinion reports elicited on the topics of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM), acupuncture, and vaccines. We found that 1) most Chinese speakers selected the topic of TCM and supported its effectiveness, while most English speakers selected and supported the topic of vaccines. 2) In the selection of stance categories, the Chinese native speakers tended to use effective stance markers significantly more than the English in both spoken and written reports, reflecting a striving for control over the realization of events, whereas the English native speakers primarily used epistemic stance markers significantly more than the Chinese in spoken language, reflecting their controlling for knowledge of reality and information credibility. 3) Chinese generally manifests greater subjectivity and more inclusive intersubjectivity, while English displays a higher degree of exclusive intersubjectivity, often reflected in the frequent use of IRE markers. 4) Spoken language in both Chinese and English demonstrates stronger subjectivity and flexibility than written language. 5) The differences in topic choice, level of support, and stance marker preferences between the Chinese and the English native speakers may be attributed to cultural/emotional distance. This study can provide novel theoretical and methodological perspectives for investigating cross-linguistic and cross-cultural differences between languages, and shed light on disparities between spoken and written discourse.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":16899,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Pragmatics","volume":"240 ","pages":"Pages 18-34"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Pragmatics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378216625000463","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In expressing opinions, we use epistemic and effective stance marking strategies to understand and influence reality. This study conducted a cross-linguistic analysis of effective and epistemic stance marking in Chinese and English, based on 20 oral and 20 written opinion reports elicited on the topics of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM), acupuncture, and vaccines. We found that 1) most Chinese speakers selected the topic of TCM and supported its effectiveness, while most English speakers selected and supported the topic of vaccines. 2) In the selection of stance categories, the Chinese native speakers tended to use effective stance markers significantly more than the English in both spoken and written reports, reflecting a striving for control over the realization of events, whereas the English native speakers primarily used epistemic stance markers significantly more than the Chinese in spoken language, reflecting their controlling for knowledge of reality and information credibility. 3) Chinese generally manifests greater subjectivity and more inclusive intersubjectivity, while English displays a higher degree of exclusive intersubjectivity, often reflected in the frequent use of IRE markers. 4) Spoken language in both Chinese and English demonstrates stronger subjectivity and flexibility than written language. 5) The differences in topic choice, level of support, and stance marker preferences between the Chinese and the English native speakers may be attributed to cultural/emotional distance. This study can provide novel theoretical and methodological perspectives for investigating cross-linguistic and cross-cultural differences between languages, and shed light on disparities between spoken and written discourse.
表达立场:汉英意见报道中有效立场标记与认知立场标记的跨语言研究
在表达观点时,我们使用认知和有效的立场标记策略来理解和影响现实。本研究基于20份口头和20份书面的关于中医、针灸和疫苗主题的意见报告,对中英文有效和认知立场标记进行了跨语言分析。我们发现1)大多数说中文的人选择了中医的主题并支持其有效性,而大多数说英语的人选择并支持疫苗的主题。(2)在立场类别的选择上,以汉语为母语的人在口头和书面报告中都倾向于使用有效立场标记,这反映了对事件实现的控制,而以英语为母语的人在口头报告中主要使用认知立场标记,这反映了他们对现实知识和信息可信度的控制。3)汉语普遍表现出更大的主体性和更包容的主体间性,而英语则表现出更高程度的排他性主体间性,这通常体现在频繁使用IRE标记。4)汉语和英语口语都比书面语具有更强的主观性和灵活性。5)汉语和英语母语者在话题选择、支持水平和立场标记偏好上的差异可能归因于文化/情感距离。该研究为研究语言间的跨语言和跨文化差异提供了新的理论和方法视角,并揭示了口头和书面话语之间的差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
18.80%
发文量
219
期刊介绍: Since 1977, the Journal of Pragmatics has provided a forum for bringing together a wide range of research in pragmatics, including cognitive pragmatics, corpus pragmatics, experimental pragmatics, historical pragmatics, interpersonal pragmatics, multimodal pragmatics, sociopragmatics, theoretical pragmatics and related fields. Our aim is to publish innovative pragmatic scholarship from all perspectives, which contributes to theories of how speakers produce and interpret language in different contexts drawing on attested data from a wide range of languages/cultures in different parts of the world. The Journal of Pragmatics also encourages work that uses attested language data to explore the relationship between pragmatics and neighbouring research areas such as semantics, discourse analysis, conversation analysis and ethnomethodology, interactional linguistics, sociolinguistics, linguistic anthropology, media studies, psychology, sociology, and the philosophy of language. Alongside full-length articles, discussion notes and book reviews, the journal welcomes proposals for high quality special issues in all areas of pragmatics which make a significant contribution to a topical or developing area at the cutting-edge of research.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信