《新闻话语对读者的影响 毕业论文外文翻译.docx》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《新闻话语对读者的影响 毕业论文外文翻译.docx（8页珍藏版）》请在三一文库上搜索。
1、News Discourse and Its Influence on Readers Kumiko Murata This paper investigates the ways in which readers interpret a news editorial on the basis of cultural assumptions formulated partly under the influence of the media they are associated with.The result shows that in the case of the English ver
2、sion, the majority of the non-Japanese respondents were anti-whaling, while most of the Japanese version respondents (Japanese) were either neutral or pro-whaling. The English respondents overwhelmingly supported the editors anti-whaling stance despite pointing out the excessive use of emotive langu
3、age. By contrast, most of the Japanese respondents showed strong disagreement with the editors attitude, pointing out the lack of evidence and information. Although the result does not necessarily show that this single editorial had a direct influence on the respondents, there are nonetheless some i
4、ndications of the ways in which nave readers could be influenced by the media. Finally, the paper discusses implications of this study for language pedagogy. This paper is an attempt to investigate the relationship between readers cultural assumptions, beliefs and values and their interpretation and
5、 perception of news discourse, focusing specifically on the British press. News discourse has been extensively studied in the past by commentators, for example, from the perspective of media and sociolinguistics (Bell, 1991; Bell & Garrett, 1998), of critical linguistics (Fowler, 1991; Fowler, Hodge
6、, Kress & Trew, 1979; Hodge & Kress, 1993; Simpson, 1993; Trew, 1979), of critical linguistics and social theory (Fairclough, 1989, 1992, 1995a, 1995b, 1998, 2000), and of social cognition (van Dijk, 1988, 1993, 1996, 1998). Their approach, however, is not free from limitations, and it has been crit
7、ically scrutinized mainly for the inadequacy of the linguistic analysis. In particular, there has been strong criticism of the analysis of limited lexical items and grammatical features, which are seemingly chosen arbitrarily to meet their specific interpretation, and of the lack of objective suppor
8、ts .Direct and Indirect Influences The influences were characterized by a drastic change of attitudes towards whaling after reading the commentary, which showed that the respondents cooperated with the authors pretextual purposes (Widdowson, forthcoming) and came to have the same view as him/her.I h
9、ave divided these into two types: direct and indirect influences. The latter shows a much subtler form of influence, mainly through intertextuality (Fairclough, 2003).Direct Influence (Complete Agreement/ Agreement Awareness) Direct influence was most clearly observed in the responses of four of the
10、 seven EFL and five of the 30 Japanese respondents. The four out of the seven EFL respondents, who claimed to be neutral on this issue at the outset (see the result of Question 1, Part II in Table 1) mainly on the grounds of lack of information or interest, stated that they agreed with the commentar
11、y, one even clearly stating that his opinion had changed after reading it as can be seen in the following:Ex 1.1 (Neutral Agree, i.e. Anti-whaling) My answer was neutral, but now when I realize the situation I prefer to be anti-whaling, because pro-whaling means jeopardize(sic) its existence. (Answe
12、r by EFL 1 to Q2, Part III)The other three neutral EFL respondents clearly stated that they had agreed with the author in their responses to Question 1, thus, indicating the change of their opinions as can be seen in the following examples. Thus, they changed their neutrality on the issue after read
13、ing the commentary and agreed with the author on the basis of his/her account. The responses of these EFL informants therefore appear to indicate that those who were not well informed about the issue tended to agree with the author, cooperating with his/her pretextual purposes directly and accepting
14、 the information at face value (see Table 2).Similarly, four Japanese neutral and one pro-whaling respondents came o agree with the author after reading the commentary (see Table 2), although ne of the neutral respondents (JPN 5) only partially agreed with the uthors opinion and another (JPN 17) cas
15、t doubt on the credibility of the nformation. The Japanese neutral-cum-anti-whaling respondents claimed to be neutral at the outset because they were concerned about the decrease of the whale population while agreeing with a regulated whale catch; thus, they lassified themselves as neutral (JPNs 5,
16、6 & 7). However, after reading the ommentary, they accepted the authors assertions and agreed with his/her anti-whaling opinion. The one pro-whaling respondent who completely changed his opinion did so because he was persuaded by the authors assertion that the number of catches per annum was too lar
17、ge.Neutral: Critical Awareness This type of the respondent tended to be very well informed of the use of language in the news media or/and of the topic. Three of the English professionals who opted for neutral at the outset (out of the total of four English professional neutral respondents) were cla
18、ssified in this way. In principle they agreed with the authors opinion, while strongly disagreeing with the use of emotive language and casting doubt on the credibility of the information. Although it is difficult to demarcate between the preceding category agreement with (+) certain awareness (Agre
19、e, but) and this category, the respondents in this category completely withheld their judgment on the authors assertion, and thus, were classified as neutral, an example of which can be seen in the following: Ex 3.1 (Neutral Neutral) It is hard to judge whether the facts are true as stated in the ar
20、ticle. It seems to me to be written in a very one-sided and inflammatory way, so I would tend to withhold judgment based on it. (Answer to Q1 in Part III by a British female neutral respondent, Br.21). Despite claiming to be neutral, most of these respondents basically agreed with the authors anti-w
21、haling opinion while casting doubt on the credibility of the information and/or the use of language. There was also one British male respondent, who, despite claiming to be anti-whaling at the outset, decided not to agree or disagree with the commentary, pointing out the use of negative connotation
22、words by the author as follows: Ex 3.2 (Anti-whaling Neutral) Im not sure the article quotes certain facts but the author continually uses negative connotation words to describe the Japanese decision its quite opinionated. (Answer to Q1 in Part III by a British male anti-whaling respondent, Br.15) T
23、his respondent was also placed in the category of neutral (critical awareness). The view was also shared by two of the four neutral Japanese respondents who clearly disagreed with the use of the emotive language, while retaining their neutrality (Answers by JPNs 20 & 22, see Table 2). (But see the f
24、ollowing section as well.) These examples show the reverse effect of the authors strong pretextual purposes; that is, although the informants understood the authors pretextual purposes in principle, the way in which these purposes were realized seems to have had a reverse effect on them. Disagreemen
25、t: Complete Mismatch of Pretextual Assumptions This category includes 16 out of 30 Japanese respondents (53.3%) who disagreed with the author, including eight respondents who at the outset claimed to be neutral, as well as eight pro-whaling respondents. This shows that the commentary had a completel
26、y reverse effect on some Japanese neutral respondents compared to the English ones, most of whom came to agree with the authors opinion while disagreeing with the use of language, and thus claiming to remain neutral on the surface (see Table 2). That is, the authors pretextual purposes were rejected
27、 mainly because of the strategies s/he used to realize the purposes. The difference seems to result mostly from the differences in the perception of the use of language and of over- exaggeration based on unsatisfactory or one-sided information, as clearly pointed out by some Japanese respondents in
28、the following: Thus, despite reading the same commentary, more Japanese neutral respondents came to disagree with the authors opinion, pointing out the inadequacy and one-sidedness of the information, whereas no English professional neutral respondents clearly disagreed with the author, particularly
29、 in their opinions about whaling. The disagreement of the Japanese respondents, however, appears to originate more in the disagreement with the authors excess use of emotive language and imbalanced information rather than the anti-whaling opinion itself. Their judgement, thus, seems to have based si
30、multaneously on their opinions about whaling and perception towards the authors use of language and information, not differentiating between the two. There was also one anti-whaling English professional respondent who showed strong disagreement with the author, pointing out cultural bias despite cla
31、ssifying herself as anti-whaling at the outset and insisting that she retained the same position in principle after reading the commentary. Thus, she was also placed in the category reading the commentary. Thus, she was also placed in the category The above examples and discussion clearly show that
32、more Japanese respondents disagreed with the commentary, reacting strongly to the authors opinion, the amount and nature of the information and the use of language. This can be said to have resulted mainly from the difference in pretextual assumptions between the Japanese and the English respondents
33、, most of the Japanese respondents being either neutral or pro-whaling, while most of the latter being anti-whaling (see Table 1). SummaryTo summarise, those who were less informed on the topic, with little critical awareness in the language, seemed to have been influenced most by the commentary acc
34、ording to the current study. There was also an indication that readers pretextual assumptions influenced the interpretation and perceptionConclusion To conclude, it can be said that readers cultural backgrounds, values and beliefs seem to influence the interpretation and perception of a text althoug
35、h further research is needed to support any claim that readers cultural pretextual assumptions have a direct influence on text interpretation. This study also has implications for language pedagogy since some indications of the relationship between the amount of information that the respondents had
36、and their interpretation and perception of texts were observed. This, however, also requires further research specifically designed to take the informants learning backgrounds and experiences into consideration. Despite the need for further research, this paper makes it clear that different pretextu
37、al assumptions may bring about disparate interpretations and perceptions, and it shows the importance both of raising readers critical awareness from an earlier stage and of being aware of different pretextual assumptions that readers bring to interpreting texts. From THE JOURNAL OF ASLA TEFL，time（S
38、pring.2004）新闻话语对读者的影响作者:久美子.村田(日本)译者：雷甜甜本文研究采用的是在和读者相联系的媒体的影响下向读者解释新闻编辑文化假设的基础上的方法。结果表明,面对这样的英语版本,大多数非日本受访者是反对捕鲸的,但是大部分的受访者(日本)日本版,要么是中性或支持捕鲸。这显然是反映在他们的解释文本。英国受访者压倒性地支持编辑的反捕鲸的立场尽管指出过度使用的感情色彩语言。相比之下,与编辑器的态度相比，大部分的日本受访者表现态度很强烈,并指出,缺乏证据和信息。尽管结果并不一定表明这个单一的编辑有直接影响的受访者,尽管如此,这些迹象和途径说明天真读者可以受到媒体影响。最后,探讨了对语言
39、教学的影响。本文试图探讨读者之间的关系，文化的假设,信仰和价值观和他们的解释和新闻语篇的感知,对英国媒体特别关注。新闻话语一直得到过去的评论家们的广泛的研究。例如,从社会语言学的角度(贝尔,媒体和1991; 贝尔和加勒特,1998),重要的语言学(福勒,1991;福勒,霍奇, 克瑞斯,1979;霍奇和克瑞斯,1993;辛普森,1993,1979年)中，关键的语言学和社会理论(1989,1992,1995,1995b。1998年,2000年),和社会认知(凡戴克,1988,1993,1996,1998)。然而,他们的方法,不是自由的从限制,并且已经批判性审视主要为语言分析的不足。尤其是有强烈的批
40、评分析有限的词汇项目和语法功能,看似任意地选择来满足其特定的诠释,缺乏客观的支持直接和间接影响影响剧烈变化的态度，捕鲸在阅读这篇评论显示,受访者配合作者的“pretextual用途”(即将出版)和来到也有同样的观点作为他或她。我已经把这些分为两种类型:直接和间接影响。后者显示一个多的微妙形式影响,主要是通过互文性(2003)。直接影响(完整的协议意识)直接影响是最明显的反应中观察到的四个七EFL五30日本受访者。这四个出于那七位EFL受访者,声称自己是中立的,在这个问题上一开始(见问题1的结果,第二部分在表1)主要的理由缺乏信息或兴趣,表示,同意他们的评论,一个即使清楚地说出,他的观点改变了读
41、完后就可以出现在如下:前1.1(中立的同意,即。反捕鲸)我的答案是中立的,但是,现在,当我意识到我喜欢的情况反捕鲸,因为支持捕鲸意味着危及它的存在。(答案英语1到第二季度,第三部分)其他三个中性EFL受访者明确表示,他们已经同意作者在他们的回答第一个问题,因此,表明变化他们的观点中我们可以看到在这几个例子。因此,他们改变了他们的中立性问题上阅读这篇评论之后和同意的基础上,作者他/她的帐户。响应的这些英语告密者因此似乎表明,这些人都不是消息灵通的有关这个问题的倾向于同意作者、合作他或她的直接目的和接受信息票面价值(见表2)。类似地,四名日本“中性”和一个“支持捕鲸的受访者同意作者在阅读评论(见表
42、2)的观点,虽然暗夜精灵的“中性”的受访者(日本5)只是部分同意我国的观点,另一个方面比不上17质疑的可信度信息。日本受访者宣称中性在开始,因为他们担心的是下降的鲸鱼数量,同时同意与监管的鲸鱼抓;因此,他们认为自己为中立(JPNs 5、6和7)。然而,在阅读上,他们接受了作者的断言和同意他或她反对捕鲸意见。一个“支持捕鲸受访人意见彻底改变了他这样做是因为他被说服,作者的断言每年捕获的数量太大了。中性的:批判意识这种类型的相对人往往是很灵通的使用语言在新闻媒体或和主题。在开始，三个英语专业人士,他们选择了“中性”(一共有四个英语专业“中性”受访者)以这种方式被分类。原则上,他们同意作者的观点,尽
43、管强烈反对使用情绪化的语言和怀疑的可信度信息。尽管很难划定前之间类别的协议“某些认知”(“同意,不过”)和这个类别,这个类别的受访者在完全保留了他们的判断力在作者的主张,因此,被归类为中性的典范这可以看到如下:前3.1(中性)很难判断事实真像那篇文章中所说的。它对我而言,这是写在一个非常片面和炎症的方式,所以我将倾向于保留判断基于它。(答案在第三部分第一季度由英国女性中性,被调查者Br.21)尽管声称是中性的,大多数的受访者同意作者的反捕鲸的意见时,怀疑信誉信息和/或语言的使用。还有一个英国男性受调查者,尽管声称反捕鲸在一开始就决定不同意或不同意评论,指出使用“消极词” 作者如下:前3.2(捕
44、鲸中性)我不确定这篇文章还引用某些事实但作者不断使用消极词来形容日本的决定是很固执己见的。(答到Q1的第三部分中被一个英国的男性受调查者反对捕鲸的Br.15)这被调查者还被放置在“中性”的范畴(关键意识)。视图也共享两个“中性”的日本受访者显然不同意使用情绪化的语言, 同时保留他们的中立性(答案JPNs 20&22,见表2)。(请参阅下面一节)。这些例子显示了作者的反向作用强大的pretextual目的;也就是说,尽管检举人理解作者的目的在原则上,这些目的的方式实现了似乎有一个反向对他们造成影响。分歧:完全背离Pretextual的假设这一类包括十六30日本受访者(53.3%)不同意作者,包括
45、八个受访者在一开始声称是中性的,以及8名受访者支持捕鲸。这表明这评论有着完全相反的效应对日本部分“中性”受访者比英语词汇,其中大多数来到同意作者的观点虽然不同意使用的语言, 因而声称仍然“中性”表面上(见表2)。也就是说, 作者的目的pretextual拒绝主要是因为这些策略他用来实现目的。显然指出一些日本受访者基于“不满意”或“片面”信息，这种差异的原因似乎结果大多来自在感知的差异所使用的语言和过分夸张。因此,尽管阅读相同的评论,越来越多的日本“中性” 受访者来到不同意作者的观点,指出了不足和片面的信息,而不会说英语专业的“中性”受访者显然不同意作者, 尤其是在他们的意见关于捕鲸。日本受访者
46、,然而,似乎产生更多的不同意作者的过度使用的感情色彩的语言和不平衡的信息而不是反对捕鲸的意见本身。他们判断,因此,似乎有自己的看法的基础上同时捕鲸和体会到作者使用的语言和信息, 没有区分这两个。还有一个反对捕鲸的英语专业的被调查者谁表现出强烈的不同意作者, 指出文化偏见尽管自己是反捕鲸的分类一开始,并坚称她保留了原来的位置原则上之后阅读评论。因此,她也放在类别问题上的分歧”。上面的示例和讨论清楚显示,越来越多的日本人受访者不同意这篇评论作者的强烈反应看来,数量和性质的信息和语言的使用。这可以说是导致主要来自pretextual差异假设日本和英国之间的被调查者,大部分的日本受访者要么“中性”或“
47、支持捕鲸”,而大多数后者是“反捕鲸”(见表1)。总结总之,那些不太了解其中的话题,很少在语言的批判意识,似乎已通过影响最大的根据当前的研究评论。还有一个迹象读者们,pretextual假设影响了文本的解读和认知由于更多的日本中性受访者不同意作者的“片面的观点和过度使用情绪化的语言比英语中立的受访者,同意作者的观点原则。相比之下,那些共享相同的话语(捕鲸)用作者倾向于同意作者的观点甚至没有注意到过度使用的感情色彩的语言。或者说,他们使用了相同的积极的,情绪化的语言表述他们同意作者,确认他们反对捕鲸的立场观测的答案英语反对捕鲸的受访者(协议不会(-)意识),而支持捕鲸的日本受访者大多不同意作者(分歧)(见表2)。结论最后,可以这样说,读者的文化背景、价值观和信仰似乎影响了解释和感知文本虽然需要进一步的研究来支持任何声称读者的文化pretextual假设有一个直接影响文本解释。这项研究也暗示了语言教学法因为一些指标之间的关系的信息量被调查者曾经和他们的解释和感知的文献观察。然而,这还需要进一步的研究而专门设计的把告密者的学习背景和经验方面考虑。尽管还需要进一步的研究,本文清楚的表明,不同pretextual假设可能带来不同的解释和知觉,它显示了两个的重要性提高读者的关键从早期阶段和意识的pretextual意识到不同假设读者带给解读文字。 选自华尔街日报的教学的设计师