2006 11 ( ) Nov .

2006
38 6 For eign L anguage T eaching and Research ( bimonthly) Vol. 38 No. 6

) ) ) 5 ) ) ) 6

: ,
Halliday M artin ,
, Halliday , ,
M ar tin ,

:

[ ] H0- 06 [ ] A [ ] 1000- 0429( 2006) 06-0423- 5

,
1.
Halliday ,
M art in 90 ( t he Ap- , / ,
praisal T heory) , 2005 W hite 5 ,
) ) ) 6( T he Language of Evaluation : , 0 ( Halliday &
A p p r aisal in English) , M atthiessen 1999: 68) ;
, , ,
, , ,
Halliday
( ibid. : 72- 82) ; ( 4) ,
, M artin
, /
, ) ) ) ) ) ) ,
: ( 1) , 0 ( Butler 2003:
,/ 488) M artin , /
,- , . , ,
( ) - . 0 ( Beaugrande 1991: 72) ; , ;
( 2) ,
, Dik , ;
/ 0 ( Dik 1978: 13) , ; , ,0( M artin & W hilte 2005: 1) ,
, , ,

; ( 3) , ( M artin &
# 423 #
 2006 6

White 2005: 9) 1.

, 1 2 3

,
, ,


,
, , ,
, , Halliday ,

Halliday : ( 1)
:
, M artin , M ar tin (
2000) ( involvement) ; ( 2)
,
2. Halliday
( 2
, ) ,
) ) ; ) )
,
, ,
, ,
) ) )
,
; M artin
; ,
3. Martin

1990 , 90 , M artin
M artin,
, , Halliday ) ) ) ( negotiation) ) ) )
( Halliday 1994/ 2004)
( Halliday 1984; M ar tin 1992; ,
Egg ins & Slade 1997) , ,
, , ,

, ,
: ( Halliday 1978) (
, ) (
)
Halliday 2 ( )
: , ,
; : , ( power ) ( sol-
i
, , darity ) ,

, ,

,
( 1) :
# 424 #
 ) ) ) 5 ) ) ) 6

2. ( Marti n & White 2005) , M ar tin

, ,
:

,
( & -. )
, ,
( )

M artin , Halliday
( ) , ,
( 3)
3.

( ) ( )
[ ]

-. , ,
, ,
:
( (

) )

( (

) )
(

)








, M artin
( attitude) : ( af-
,
fect)
( judgement) ( appr eciation)
, ( 4)
;
Halliday & M atthiessen ( 2004:
; ,
608-612) ,
( )

2 ( M artin &
( eng ag ement)
Rose 2003; K orner 2000; White 1998; M ar tin & White
, , ( projec-
2005) , ,
tion) ( modality ) ( polar ity) ( conces-
, ,
sion) ,
Halliday , :

( 1) ,
( gr aduation) ,
;
,
( 2)
, / 0 ( for ce)
;


( 3)
( ,
,
loathe for, really dislike ) ,
, :

( 1) I am happy t hat . . . ; It i s w onderf ul to do ( t hat ) . . . .
,
/ 0 ( focus)

# 425 #
 2006 6

4. ( Halliday 1994: 91)

they must have known
( possible
they cert ainly know
/ probable
( ) they cert ainly must have know n
/ cert ain)


it must happen
( som etimes
it alw ays happens
/ usually
( ) it must alw ays happen
/ alw ays)

( allow ed you must be patient

/ supposed youpre required t o be pat ient
/ required)


( w illing I must w in!

/ keen Ipm determin ed t o w in!
det ermined)

M artin ,
, White 5 ) ) ) 6

: , Halliday
1) , : , ,

( 2) I am [ happy , glad , pleased , sad , r egr et . . . ] that . . .
[ affect] , ,
I am [ happy , g lad , pl eased , sad , regret . . . ] to [ d o] ,
.... ; M artin
( 3 ) I t is [ good , excel lent , bad , not bad , f ai r . . . . ] t o , ,
[ d o] . . . . [ attitude] ,

2) ,
, , feel, fear, fright-

en, scar e, comfo rt good, ex cellent, bad, brig ht,

beautiful, ugly
3) Beaugrande, R. D. 1991. Linguistic T heory : T he D is-
, Hallidy & cour se of Fundamental Wor ks [ M ] . L ondon: Long-
Hasan ( 1987) , , man.
, Butler, C. 2003. Str uctur e and Function. Par t 1 &
: Par t 2 [ M ] . Amsterdam: Jo hn Benjamins.
, Dik, S. 1978. Functional Gr ammar [ M ] . Amsterdam:
Nort h- Holland Publishing Company .
4.
Egg ins, S. & D. Slade. 1997. A naly sing Casual Con-
ver sation [ M ] . London: Cassell.
, Halliday Halliday, M . A. K. 1984. Language as code and language
# 426 #
 ) ) ) 5 ) ) ) 6

as behaviour : A systemic- funct ional interpretat ion of Sy dney .

the nature and ontogenesis o f dialogue [ A ] . In R. M ar tin, J. R. & D. Rose. 2003. Wor king w ith D is-
P. Fawcett, M . A. K . Halliday, S. M . Lamb & cour se: M eaning Beyond the Clause [ M ] . L ondon:
A . M akkai ( eds. ) . T he Semiotics of Language and Continuum.
Cultur e: V ol . 1 : L anguage as Social Semiotic M ar tin, J. R. & P. White. 2005. T he L anguage of E-
[ C] . L ondon: Pinter. valuation: A p p raisal in English [ M ] . New Yor k:
Halliday, M . A . K . 1978. Language A s a Social Semi- Palgrave M acM illan.
otic: T he Social I nter p retation of L anguage and M ar tin, J. R. 1992. English T ex t, Sy stem and Str uc-
M eaning [ M ] . London: Edw ar d Arnold. tur e [ M ] . Philadelphia/ A mster dam: Jo hn Ben-
Halliday, M . A. K . 1994/ 2004. A n I ntr oduction to jamins.
Functional Grammar [ M ]. L ondon: Edward M ar tin, J. R. 2000. Beyond exchange: AP PRAISAL
A rnold. systems in English [ A ] . In S. Hunston & G.
Halliday, M . A. K . & R. Hasan. 1987. T he G ram- T hompson ( eds. ) . Evaluation in T ex t : A uthor ial
mar ianps dream: L ex is as mo re delicate grammar Stance and the Constr uction of Discour se [ C] . Ox-
[A ] . In M . A . K. Halliday & R. P. Fawcett ford: OU P .
( eds. ) . N ew Dev elop ments in Systemic L inguistics . White, P. 1998. T elling M edia T ales: T he News Sto ry as
V ol. 1 : T heory and Descr ip tion [ C ] . L ondo n: Rhetoric [ D] . U npublished PhD dissertation. Syd-
Pinter . ney: U niversity of Sy dney .
Halliday, M . A . K. & C. M . I. M . M atthiessen. 2004.
A n I ntr od uction to Functional Gr am mar [ M ] . : 2006) 2 ) 23;
London: Edward Arnold. , 2006 ) 9) 30
K orner , K. 2000. N ego tiating Author ity: T he Lo gogene- : 266071
sis of Dialog ue in Common Law Judg ments [ D] . Un- ( )
published P hD dissertation. Sydney: U niversit y of 250100 ( )

# 427 #
 2006 11 ( ) Nov . 2006
38 6 For eign L anguage T eaching and Research ( bimonthly) Vol. 38 No. 6

Abstracts of major papers in this issue

English indirect conditionals and their degrammaticalization ( II ) , by CH EN G uohua ( N atio nal Research Centre for
F oreign Language Education, Beijing Foreign Studies U niv. , Beijing 100089, P. R. China) , p. 403
In t his part of the paper the author arg ues t hat degrammaticalization should not be defined nar rowly to cov er only cas-
es w here a grammatical item becomes a lex ical item. It should also include t he g radual disappearance of a grammat ical item
and the acquisition of a pragmatic or lex ical function by a grammatical item plus the formal changes it underg oes in the
process. I n this broad definition the deconditionalization of addressee- satisfact ion conditionals such as if it p lease you is a
kind of degrammaticalization. T he author shows that the interjectio n p lease or iginated from the politeness conditional if it
p lease you, without ex cluding the possibility that the sentence- initial please or iginated fr om / Please you to + verb0 and
even / W ill it please you to + verb0, thus disproving the OEDps claim that please is the shor t form of / M ay it p lease
y ou0 and / Be Please to + verb0 . Among the four indirect conditionals that underwent deg rammaticalizat ion, if it p lease
you was completely deg rammaticalized when it w as reduced to a bare inter jection; if it like you became todayps if you
like, retaining the form of a conditio nal clause but expressing mainly politeness and metalinguistic conditions; if you w ill
has remained intact fo rmally, but is now used only to ex press metalinguistic condition; if you list w as the only one that
didnpt surv ive the pro cess.
English features in the spoken Chinese of Chinese speakers of English, by W U Yipan & JI A N G Suhua ( National Re-
search Centre for For eig n L anguage Educatio n, Beijing For eign Studies U niv. , Beijing 100089, P. R. China) , p. 411
T he study investig ates the English features in t he spoken Chinese of four Chinese speakers of Eng lish. T he results
show that: a) they switch fr equently between Chinese and English; b) their spoken Chinese has the following features:
( 1) increased use of pro nouns in subject posit ion and the / subject + shi. . . de0 structure, which result in an increased
number o f SV O constructio ns; ( 2) use of long modifiers before head nouns; ( 3) increased use of the structure of / yi +
quantifier0 ; c) striking differences between the spoken Chinese o f unbalanced bilinguals and that of balanced o nes.
A comparative study on redundancy of negators in Chinese and ne expl
tif in French, by WA N G Zhu ( French L anguage
Dept. , Beijing For eign Studies U niv. , Beijing 100089, P. R. China) , p. 418
In both Chinese and F rench, there is a similar linguistic pheno menon, i. e. some sentences w ith negative w ords have
no negative meaning , and they remain positive w ith or wit hout neg ative wor ds. T hese negativ e words ar e called redundan-
cy of neg ators in Chinese and ne ex p l
tif in French. T his paper analyses the differ ences and similarities of such neg ative
w ords in t he two languages.
Formal and semantic categorizations: A review of The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English, by ZH A N G
Delu & LI U Shiz hu ( School of For eig n L anguages, Ocean U niv. of China, Qingdao 266071, P. R. China) , p. 423
T he article first introduces four basic linguistic resear ch approaches w ith different aims and scopes, and then br iefly
compares Halliday. s systemic functional linguistics with M artinps appraisal theory to show the differences in t he aims of
t he linguistic resear ch in their theories. Hallidayps approach is comprehensive and mult-i leveled, but it is restricted by for-
mal catego rization. M artinps appr aisal theory gives the social semiotic aspects a more compr ehensive and systematic cover-
age, but it needs to perfect the relev ant formal categor ization that realizes the appr aisal system.
Politeness strategies, characterization theory, and drama stylistics: A synthetic case study with theoretical modif ica-
tions, by GA O Jianw u & SH EN Dan ( School of Foreign Lang uages, Peking U niv. , Beijing 100871, P. R . China) ,
# 479 #