A Corpus-​based Contrastive Study of the

Appraisal Systems in English and Chinese

Scientific Research Articles

Appraisal is the way language users express their attitude towards things,
people, behaviour or ideas. In the last few decades, significant achievements
have been made in Appraisal Theory research, yet little attention has been
paid to appraisal in scientific texts, especially in relation to the contrast in how
it is applied in English and Chinese.
This title examines the similarities and differences of Appraisal systems
in English and Chinese scientific research articles. Using a self-​constructed
corpus of scientific research articles, the authors make cross-​ linguistic
comparisons in terms of the quantity and distribution patterns of categories
of appraisals. They creatively categorize articles into theoretical scientific
research articles and applied studies and discover that for both languages,
each genre can have its own favourite mode of distribution for the realization
of appraisal systems. In addition, this research helps appraisal theory systems
to become more explicit, specific, and more applicable for the analysis of
scientific research articles.
Students and scholars of applied linguistics, comparative linguistics and
corpus linguistics will find this an essential reference.

Xu Yuchen is Professor of English at Foreign Languages and Literature

Research Institute, Xi’an International Studies University. His research
interests include Systemic Functional Linguistics, Semantics, and Discourse
Analysis. He has published three monographs and over 20 research articles.

Yan Xuan is Associate Professor in Stylistics, Lexicology and Psycholinguistics

in the Department of English, School of Foreign Studies at Chang’an
University.

Su Rui is lecturer at the School of Foreign Studies at Chang’an University,

interested in systemic functional linguistics.

Kou Ying is lecturer at the School of Foreign Language Studies of Chang’an

University, interested in systemic functional linguistics, vague language and
language evaluation.
China Perspectives

The China Perspectives series focuses on translating and publishing works

by leading Chinese scholars, writing about both global topics and China-​
related themes. It covers Humanities & Social Sciences, Education, Media
and Psychology, as well as many interdisciplinary themes.
This is the first time any of these books have been published in English for
international readers. The series aims to put forward a Chinese perspective,
give insights into cutting-​ edge academic thinking in China, and inspire
researchers globally.

To submit proposals, please contact the Taylor & Francis Publisher for the
China Publishing Programme, Lian Sun (Lian.Sun@informa.com)

Titles in linguistics currently include:

Teaching and Researching Chinese EFL/​ESL Learners in Higher Education

Edited by Zhongshe Lu, Meihua Liu and Wenxia Zhang

Perception and Metaphor

A Comparative Perspective Between English and Chinese
Qin Xiugui and Tie Yi

New Research on Cohesion and Coherence in Linguistics

Zhang Delu and Liu Rushan

A Corpus-​based Contrastive Study of the Appraisal Systems in English and

Chinese Scientific Research Articles
Xu Yuchen, Yan Xuan, Su Rui and Kou Ying

Toward Multimodal Pragmatics

A Study of Illocutionary Force in Chinese Situated Discourse
Lihe Huang

For more information, please visit www.routledge.com/​China-​Perspectives/​

book-​series/​CPH
A Corpus-​based Contrastive
Study of the Appraisal Systems
in English and Chinese Scientific
Research Articles

Xu Yuchen, Yan Xuan, Su Rui and

Kou Ying
First published in English 2022
by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
and by Routledge
605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
Originally written in Chinese by Xu Yuchen, Su Rui, Kou Ying, Yan Xuan
Revised and translated from Chinese into English by Xu Yuchen, Yan Xuan, Su Rui, Kou Ying
English translation copyright © 2022 Xu Yuchen, Yan Xuan, Su Rui, Kou Ying
The right of Xu Yuchen, Su Rui, Kou Ying, Yan Xuan to be identified as authors
of this work has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright,
Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised
in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or
hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information
storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks,
and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe.
This English version is published by arrangement with Shanghai Foreign Language
Education Press Co., Ltd, Shanghai, China.
British Library Cataloguing-​in-​Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging-​in-​Publication Data
A catalog record has been requested for this book
ISBN: 978-​1-​032-​16488-​5 (hbk)
ISBN: 978-​1-​032-​16491-​5 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-​1-​003-​24879-​8 (ebk)
DOI: 10.4324/​9781003248798
Typeset in Times New Roman
by Newgen Publishing UK
Contents

List of tables  vi
Preface  ix

1 Introduction  1

2 Modifications of the Appraisal Theory  11

3 The comparison of the appraisal systems in English and

Chinese scientific research articles  46

4 The quantitative contrast of appraisals in English and

Chinese scientific research articles  204

5 Conclusions  306

Appendices  312
References  335
Index  347
Tables

3.1 Modal verbs in Chinese grammar  164

4 Literature review of the available thermodynamic properties
of crystalline C-S-H  173
4.1 Descriptive statistics of the Attitude appraisals in English
and Chinese theoretical SRAs  208
4.2 Independent samples t-​tests  209
4.3 Descriptive statistics of the Engagement appraisals in
English and Chinese theoretical SRAs  214
4.4 Independent samples t-​tests  215
4.5 Descriptive statistics of the Graduation appraisals in English
and Chinese theoretical SRAs  219
4.6 Independent samples t-​tests  220
4.7 Descriptive statistics of the Attitude appraisals in English
and Chinese applied SRAs  224
4.8 Independent samples t-​tests  225
4.9 Descriptive statistics of the Engagement appraisals in
English and Chinese applied SRAs  230
4.10 Independent samples t-​tests  231
4.11 Descriptive statistics of the Graduation appraisals in English
and Chinese applied SRAs  236
4.12 Independent samples t-​tests  237
4.13 The overall distribution of appraisals in English and Chinese
theoretical SRAs (per cent)  241
4.14 The distribution of Attitude appraisals in English and
Chinese theoretical SRAs (per cent)  246
4.15 The distribution of Engagement appraisals in English and
Chinese theoretical SRAs (per cent)  257
4.16 The distribution of Graduation appraisals in English and
Chinese theoretical SRAs (per cent)  266
4.17 The overall distribution of appraisals in English and Chinese
applied SRAs (per cent)  274
 List of Tables vii
4.18 The distribution of Attitude appraisals in English and
Chinese applied SRAs (per cent)  277
4.19 The distribution of Engagement appraisals in English and
Chinese Applied SRAs (per cent)  287
4.20 The distribution of Graduation appraisals in English and
Chinese applied SRAs (per cent)  296
newgenprepdf

Preface

In my mind the biggest pleasure for a teacher is the progress and success
of his students. I am lucky enough to have such a pleasure quite often. The
latest one comes from Dr XU Yuchen, a former brilliant PhD candidate of
mine at Fudan University and now a leading and productive professor of
Xi’an International Studies University in China. His book A Corpus-​based
Contrastive Study of the Appraisal Systems in English and Chinese Scientific
Research Articles, co-​authored with three other researchers, was published by
Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press in 2018 with warm acceptance
by the Chinese audience. Its English version will be published very soon
by Routledge, a world-​famous publisher of quality academic books and
journals. I feel honoured to hear the good news and would like to send him
my congratulations together with brief comments.
There are roughly two points I want to make. First, the originality of
theorizing. This book has modified J. R. Martin’s appraisal system by
formalizing and extending the relevant concepts of the attitude subsystem, the
engagement subsystem and the graduation subsystem as well as the modality
subsystem. This modification has succeeded in making the whole appraisal
system more explicit and specific and thus more applicable for the analysis of
scientific research articles. Second, the approaches. This book has taken both
qualitative and quantitative approaches to the description and interpretation
of the lexico-​grammatical similarities and differences between English and
Chinese appraisal systems in the theoretical scientific research articles and
the applied ones and found out that even within the same language data, no
matter whether it is in English or in Chinese, each genre can have its own
favourite mode of distribution for the realization of the appraisal systems,
i.e. comprehensive mode or typological mode. These findings are certainly
significant and revealing, and will be further verified by follow-​up researches.
I am sure that the audience will find with their own pleasure that this book
is written by an exact man with three other researchers and it is not to be
tasted or swallowed but to be chewed and digested with delight.
Zhu Yongsheng
Professor, Fudan University, China
April 16, 2021
1 
Introduction

1.1 Research background

1.1.1 The origin and development of the notion of “appraisal/​evaluation”

Language is used not only to make factual statements about the world,
describing the state of the world, the events that take place in it, and the
circumstances relevant to the events, but also to express emotion, judgement,
and attitudes toward such descriptions. In regard to the latter, there is no
consensus in linguistics as to what term is the most appropriate. As a
matter of fact, linguists from different perspectives use different terms. For
example, as Lyons (1977:175–​6) points out, “connotation” as an opposite to
“denotation” was initiated by J. S. Mill and can be used as a general term for
the emotive or affective component within the meaning of words. A similar
expression is “connotative meaning” as in Leech (1974: 12). Such terminology
is used to describe a function of language itself. On the other hand, from
the perspective of the language user, a number of terms are used, such as
“affect”, “attitude”, “affective meaning”, “appraisal”, “evaluation”, “stance”,
“modality”, and “evidentiality”, with different foci and scopes. To Chinese
readers, “evaluation” and “appraisal” are very similar in sense, as they are
usually rendered into Chinese in the same way. But there are some differences
between them when they are used by different researchers. For example,
Labov (1972: 354–​96; Labov and Waletzky 1967: 12–​44) uses “evaluation”
to refer to the part in the structure of the narrative that conveys the writer’s
emotion and attitude toward the story, while Patricia V. Lunn (in Bybee and
Fleischman 1995: 429–​50) uses “evaluation” to mean the speaker’s judgement
of the information value of the clause. Martin (2000:145), however, uses the
term “appraisal” for “the semantic resources used to negotiate emotions,
judgments, and valuations, alongside resources for amplifying and engaging
with these evaluations”.
Whichever term may be employed, the function they designate comes under
what is termed by “interpersonal function” in Systemic Functional Linguistics.
In the tradition of Systemic Functional Linguistics, the interpersonal function
has been studied on the lexico-​ grammatical foundation, with mood and

DOI: 10.4324/9781003248798-1
2 Introduction
modality as the main grammatical realizations. But linguists in this school
came to understand that this function of language might be realized by devices
other than mood and modality and began to explore evidence from the 1980s.
Some (e.g. Poynton 1984, 1990) explored the interpersonal function of names
as vocatives and the social relationships they construe, some (e.g. Hunston
1993, 1994; Hunston and Thompson 2000; Lemke 1992, 1998a) studied the
evaluations and their examples in texts, and others (e.g. Irvine 1990; Lutz
1986; Ochs 1989; Wierzbicka 1986, 1990) discussed the lexical realizations of
emotion in texts.
The Appraisal Theory proposed by Martin et al. (Martin 2000; Martin
and Rose 2003; Martin and White 2005) was a fruitful attempt to develop
the interpersonal function in the lexical orientation on the level of discourse
semantics. The three systems in the theory are intended to describe the
negotiation between the writer and the reader about emotions, judgements,
valuations, and engagements as well as their amplifications in texts. The
appraisal systems, i.e. Attitude, Engagement, and Graduation, are taken as
the point of departure of the present study.

1.1.2 Literature review

The Appraisal Theory has received increasing attention in linguistics since it
came into being. Statistics on “China National Knowledge Infrastructure”
and the search engine “Google Scholar” show that there are approximately
800 published research articles on Appraisal Theory dating between 2001 and
2014, with a general annual increase in quantity. For example, only around
ten research articles on this topic were published in 2003, and the number
of articles did not rise markedly in the next three years. But the quantity of
such research articles tripled to over 30 in 2007, and exceeded 50 annually in
the following two years. The number of articles climbed up to over 90 in 2010
and over 120 annually in the following three years. The year of 2014 saw the
publication of over 130 such research articles.
The studies on the Appraisal Theory fall into the following four
categories: theoretical explorations and critiques, interdisciplinary studies,
application studies in foreign language teaching and learning, but, primarily,
studies in discourse analysis.
First, theoretical studies and critiques, though not large in number (only
about ten articles), made deep explorations into the three systems of the
Appraisal Theory. Zhu Yongsheng (2009) examined the significance and
realization of implicit evaluation from the ideational perspective to prove the
importance of implicit evaluation in the further development of the Appraisal
Theory. Wang Zhenhua (2004a) explored the composition of character images
in novels by applying the framework of Appraisal values of Material Processes
and their components. Wang Zhenhua and Ma Yulei (2007) discussed the
charms of the Appraisal Theory in such aspects as its innovativeness,
consistency, abstractness, and applicability. Cheng Wei (2010) analysed the
 Introduction 3
structure and characteristics of the attitudinal prosody on the levels of aim,
mode, and structure from the perspective of the holistic theory. Liu Shizhu
and Zhang Zheng (2011) discussed the structural model and the semantic
configuration of Judgement in the Appraisal Theory from the perspectives
of sociopsychology and corpus linguistics. Fang Hongmei (2014) argued that
the Appraisal Theory advances interpersonal studies in Systemic Functional
Linguistics from traditional clause grammar to discourse semantics, shifting
from exchange-​orientation to stance-​orientation in the study of tenor. Feng
Dezheng and Qi Yujie (2014) tried to develop an interdisciplinary framework
to systematically explain the multimodal construction of attitudinal meaning
by combining cognitive appraisal theory and systemic functional semiotics.
Moreover, some studies (e.g. Hood and Martin 2005: 195–​220; Zhang Peiwen
2010) focused on the system of Graduation, and others (e.g. Huang Xuee
2011; Wu Anping and Li Fagen 2009) explored appraisal framework, dialogic
perspective, and intertextuality. Among the critiques on the Appraisal Theory
are Wang Zhenhua (2001, 2010); Li Zhanzi (2004); Liu Shizhu (2010), and Xu
Yuchen (2013), to name a few.
Second, scholars who made interdisciplinary studies of the Appraisal
Theory with other linguistic theories, literary theories, and philosophy achieved
significant success. Peng Xuanwei (2011) examined the aesthetic stance of
the history of Western literary criticism according to the categories of the
Appraisal Theory in Systemic Functional Linguistics, arguing that literature
in itself is interactive discourse of, by, and for appraisal. Wei Zaijiang (2011)
studied the textual appraisal functions of pragmatic presuppositions, aiming
to provide a new perspective for the study of pragmatic presuppositions. Chen
Gangni (2009) probed into the appraisals in metaphors, proving that metaphors
involve three types of appraisal: affect, judgement, and appreciation. Xu Jun
(2011) attempted to investigate the applicability of the Appraisal Theory to
the analysis of business discourses as well as their relationship to social and
cultural contexts. In addition to this, some scholars (e.g. Chen Lingjun 2007;
Hu Wenhui 2010) scrutinized the Appraisal Theory from the vantagepoint
of language philosophy, and others (e.g. Bu Zhanting 2010;Wu Anping and
Zhong Shouman 2010) explored the appraisal functions of figures of speech
and some syntactic structures by combining the Appraisal Theory with
rhetoric and syntax.
Third, research articles (e.g. Li Jinshi 2009; Wang Xue 2011, etc.) on the
application of the Appraisal Theory to foreign language teaching concentrated
on reading, though some (e.g. Liao Chuanfeng 2011, etc.) focused on writing
and speaking. In particular, Xiang Ping & Xiao Defa (e.g. Xiang Ping and Xiao
Defa 2009) attempted to explore the characteristics of Engagement recourse
in Chinese EFL learners’ argumentative writing through contrastive analysis.
Zhou Hui and Liu Yongbing (2014) compared texts by Chinese learners
of English and those by native English speakers in light of the evaluative
meaning of projection, based on a framework developed from Engagement
in the Appraisal Theory.
4 Introduction
Finally, research articles on the application of the Appraisal Theory
to discourse analysis are rich in quantity and content, and constitute the
majority in the repertoire of research on the Appraisal Theory, making
up around 60 per cent. Most of them analysed English texts, with a small
number of them studying Chinese texts and a few others comparing English
and Chinese texts.
Among the studies on the appraisal resources in English texts, the research
articles on English literary texts are dominant in quantity, the majority of
which take English fiction as the object of research. Guan Shuhong (2011)
discussed the appraisal functions of Virginia Woolf’s stream-​of-​consciousness
novel Mrs Dalloway, particularly in regard to the functions of Engagement
and Attitude as encoded in free indirect thought. Zhao Xia and Chen Li (2011)
exploited the Attitude system in the Appraisal Theory to study Elizabeth’s
speech in Pride and Prejudice, trying to reveal how attitudes are expressed
through dialogues. Peng Xuanwei (2012, 2013a, 2013b) studied the role of
a subcategory under Engagement, i.e. Acknowledge, in organizing local and
holistic events, the aesthetic effects of a subcategory under Appreciation,
i.e. Reaction, and the function of a subcategory under Judgement, i.e.
Tenacity, in depicting Kincaid, the male protagonist in the narrative text The
Bridges of Madison County. Xiao Yi et al. (2013) explored the attitudinal
resources in The House on Mongo Street written by Sandras Cisneros, one
of the masterpieces in minority literary works. Han Ying (2014) examined
the attitudinal meanings in Grimms’ fairy tales from the perspective of the
Appraisal Theory. As well as this, some researchers studied the appraisal
resources in the English translations of Chinese literary works. Yu Jiying
(2010) analysed the role that the appraisal resources play in the ideological
manipulation in translation, taking the translation of The True Story of Ah
Q as an example. Liu Xiaolin (2010) employed the Appraisal Theory in her
comparison of two English versions of Hong Lou Meng (The Dream of Red
Mansion) with the source version in order to investigate faithfulness and the
reasons for unfaithfulness in translation.
There are also a large number of studies on the appraisal resources in
English texts on mass media such as news reports, editorials in newspapers,
and interviews on TV. Wang Zhenhua (2004b) applied the system of Attitude
to the analysis of hard news both in Chinese and in English, finding that there
were more Judgement resources than Affection and Appreciation resources
in the data. Liu Shizhu and Han Jinlong (2004) discussed the features of
the Appraisal system in news discourse and proposed a new way of reading
news texts, i.e., evaluative reading. Li Jun and Zhang Delu (2010) explored
the Engagement features in TV interviews by using interpretive analysis of
the Engagement resources in the CCTV9 interview programme “Dialogue”.
Tang Liping (2010) took the Appraisal Theory as a critical discourse analysis
tool in her study of an editorial from the New York Times and letters written
by English learners in China as their mock correspondence to the editorial.
Hu Meixin and Huang Yinju (2014) made a contrastive study of attitudinal
 Introduction 5
resources in the news report on the American military action in Libya in
China Daily and that in the New York Times.
There are quite a few research articles on the appraisal resources in English
speech texts. Wei Xingshun and Yao Xiaoying (2009), for the purpose of
finding out the realizations of interpersonal meaning in public speeches,
studied the appraisal resources in the 22 speeches made by Barack Obama
in his presidential campaigns. Hu Shekao et al. (2010) discussed the role
that the appraisal devices play in speech discourse construction using former
American presidents’ inaugural addresses as examples. Pang Chaowei (2013)
made a contrastive analysis of the speeches made by the former US President
G. W. Bush before and after the Iraq War, taking the Appraisal system as
the framework of analysis, in order to find out how Bush re-​constructed the
legitimacy of the war in the post-​war context.
The research into the Appraisal system in legal discourse, though not large
in quantity, has continued for quite a few years and is acknowledged to be of
good professional depth. For example, Wang Zhenhua (2006) made a detailed
analysis of a legal case concerning voluntary surrender within a framework
of the three metafunctions in Halliday’s systemic functional grammar and its
Appraisal systems. Yuan Chuanyou and Hu Jinfen (2011) tried to discover
the regularities in the use of Engagement resources by a lawyer in a court
representation and to explicate how the resources were used to adapt to
contextual correlates and communicative goals.
Research into the appraisal resources in scientific and academic texts
has been growing in quantity and quality. For example, Xu Yuchen (2009a)
attempted to expand the scope of Veracity and refine Propriety into Properness
and Necessity, and revealed unique properties of Judgement in the Attitude
system in scientific texts through a thorough analysis of 22 scientific research
articles. Yan Xuan and Xu Yuchen (2011) explored the evaluative mechanisms
of the Appreciation system and their semantic manifestations in scientific
discourse and disclosed the unique features of Appreciation resources in
scientific texts based on the corpus analysis of 35 scientific research papers.
Xu Yuchen et al. (2014) revealed the distribution of attitudinal resources in
scientific texts through a quantitative analysis of 90 scientific research articles
which were published in international academic journals. Zhang Jidong and
Huang Yating (2014) studied the evaluative function of the structure “BE＊
to” in medical research articles. Tang Liping (2005) attempted to explore the
flexible evaluation strategies of the English academic review genre through
a statistical analysis of Engagement resources in ten linguistic reviews. Yao
Yinyan and Chen Xiaoyan (2012) studied the role of concession in the
Engagement system in sourcing resources in English academic reviews based
on the Appraisal Theory.
Apart from the studies on English texts, there are some research articles
that take Chinese texts as their object of study. These articles fall into the
following categories. One category includes the articles that study the appraisal
devices in the Chinese language. For example, Liu Yueming (2011) discussed
6 Introduction
the evaluative meanings of the measure words in Mandarin Chinese, i.e.
the meanings that fall into the systems of Attitude and Graduation in the
Appraisal Theory. Another category consists of articles that study appraisal
resources in Chinese literary works. For example, Xu Suping (2011) analysed
Attitude and Engagement resources in some poems by Wen Tingyun, a poet
of the Tang Dynasty in ancient China, finding that the poet took advantage
of the appraisal resources in his poems to express extremely negative attitudes
toward females and enjoy their sentiments and heavily made-​up appearances
in fondling. Moreover, there are some articles that study appraisal resources
in applied genres of Chinese writing, such as news reports (e.g. Men Haiyan
2011) and legal discourse (e.g. Wang Lei 2010).
The research of appraisals in discourse analysis also includes contrastive
studies of appraisal resources in Chinese and English texts. For example,
Tian Fen (2011) contrasted the attitudinal resources in Chinese economic
hard news with those in English in regard to the differences in application
of appraisals between the two languages. Guan Binyao and Yang Yuchen
(2011) made a contrastive study of appraisal resources in Chinese and English
recruitment advertisements to investigate the differences in the distribution
of the appraisals between the two languages. Xu Jun and Xia Rong (2013)
made a contrastive study of the attitudinal resources in 20 English and
Chinese company profiles for the differences in distribution and realization of
attitudinal appraisals between the two languages. In addition to this, there are
contrastive studies of appraisals in Chinese literary works and their English
translations (e.g. Jiang Ping and Wang Linlin 2010) and in Chinese and
Western political reports (e.g. He Ting 2011).

1.1.3 Critique of the review

The Appraisal Theory research has made great strides in theoretical exploration
and practical application in the last two decades. Theoretical exploration is
significant, covering implicit appraisals, the evaluative role of the ideational
metafunction, and subsystems of the Appraisal Theory such as Attitude and
Graduation. Equally significant are interdisciplinary studies, involving the
combination of the Appraisal Theory with critical literary theories, pragmatics,
metaphor theories, syntax, and rhetoric. These explorations provide a solid
foundation for the development of the Appraisal Theory.
The applicable research ranges widely from studies of appraisals in English
texts of different genres, investigations into the appraisal mechanisms and
resources in the Chinese language, and the contrastive studies of appraisals
in English and Chinese, to the application of the Appraisal Theory in foreign
language teaching and learning. Such empirical investigations bear testimony
to the validity and the applicability of the Appraisal Theory in different fields
such as applied linguistics and discourse analysis.
It can be seen that although significant achievements have been made in
Appraisal Theory research, especially in theoretical exploration and discourse
 Introduction 7
analysis, insufficient attention has been paid to appraisals in scientific texts,
and the contrastive research of appraisals in English and Chinese remains
in its embryo stage. Therefore, more work needs to be done to investigate
the differences in the employment of appraisals between English and Chinese
scientific texts.

1.2 A brief introduction to the present study

1.2.1 The purpose of the study

The present study aims to reveal the differences and similarities in the
quantitative use and the realizations of Attitude, Engagement, and Graduation
between English and Chinese texts by contrasting the deployment modes of
the appraisal resources in English scientific research articles (SRAs henceforth)
with those in their Chinese counterparts on the basis of the Appraisal
framework proposed by Martin and White (2005). We hoped to understand
what similarities English authors and their Chinese counterparts share and
what differences they exhibit in exploiting the subsystems of appraisals when
they construct their texts. Meanwhile, we expected the present study to shed
light on the development of the Appraisal Theory through analysis of a large
quantity of scientific texts and hoped that the findings would help the teachers
of academic English writing. In particular, the study addresses the following
questions:

1 Does the Appraisal Theory need modifying when it is applied to the

analysis of scientific texts?
2 What are the differences and similarities in the realizations of evaluation
between English and Chinese scientific texts?
3 Are there any differences in the quantitative use of appraisals between
English and Chinese scientific texts?
4 Are there any differences in the distribution of appraisals between English
and Chinese scientific texts?

To achieve our research goal, we established a corpus of scientific texts,

which consists of four sub-​corpora: (1) a sub-​corpus of 106 English theoretical
research articles in natural sciences (CET henceforth), (2) a sub-​corpus of 95
English applied research articles in natural sciences (CEA henceforth), (3) a
sub-​corpus of 88 Chinese theoretical research articles in natural sciences (CCT
henceforth), and (4) a sub-​corpus of 94 Chinese applied research articles in
natural sciences (CCA henceforth). The corpus comprises 1,372,621 tokens of
English words and 802,520 tokens of Chinese characters.
To avoid the disturbance of intervening variables, we set some criteria for
selecting the research articles of the corpus. First, the articles were selected
from the journals that experts from different research fields recommended to
us. These international journals and journals issued in China are acknowledged
8 Introduction
to be authoritative in their own research fields, including eight SCI source
journals and eleven EI source journals. The SCI source journals included
three in mathematics, four in physics and one in chemistry. The EI source
journals included two in aeronautics and astronautics, two in hydraulics, two
in architecture, two in chemical engineering, one in material engineering, one
in energy and power engineering, and one in mechanical engineering. The
articles were published in these journals between 2008 and 2011. Second, we
selected articles that were written by native speakers of English and Chinese.
We made a judgement of the native language of the English authors according
to their names and their employer institutions. The Chinese identity of the
authors of the Chinese research articles was easy to confirm by means of
their names. Third, the classification of research articles into theoretical and
applied categories was made according to the opinions of the experts from the
relevant research fields.

1.2.2 The line of thought and innovative properties of the study

We took both a qualitative and a quantitative approach in our contrastive study
of Attitude, Engagement, and Graduation in English and Chinese scientific
texts for their differences and the similarities. Our research progressed in the
following line of thought.
First, we attempted to make modifications to the Appraisal Theory through
analysis of scientific texts. On the basis of our thorough understanding of the
Appraisal Theory and the achievements of relevant studies, we applied the
theory to our analysis of five English and five Chinese research articles, only
to find that the Appraisal Theory as it stood failed the need of our analysis.
So, we made some modifications to the theory by consulting experts of the
Appraisal Theory including J. R. Martin, the founder of the theory, and some
others in China, scrutinizing the places where the problem lay, and discussing
our divergence until we reached a consensus. Then we applied the modified
framework of appraisals to the analysis of another ten research articles (five
in English and five in Chinese), and made more modifications in the way
aforementioned. The process was repeated for a third time before we finalized
the modified framework of appraisals for our analysis of all materials in the
corpus.
Second, the appraisals in the articles were identified and counted
manually on the printed materials due to the ambiguity and indeterminacy
of appraisals. The specific, exact evaluative meanings of many appraisals
could only be precisely understood and recognized when they were analysed
in context. This involved the analysis of large chunks of text with the help of
semantic differentiation. The complexity of the semantic differentiation in the
appraisal identification and analysis necessitated human involvement.
Third, we made a comprehensive, systematic contrastive analysis of the
appraisals in all the texts to figure out the differences and similarities in
the lexico-​grammatical realizations of the evaluative meanings of the three
 Introduction 9
categories, i.e. Attitude, Engagement, and Graduation, between the English
and Chinese texts.
Fourth, on the basis of the qualitative contrastive analysis of the
appraisals, we made a quantitative contrast of the appraisals in the English
and Chinese texts in two respects. First of all, we made a statistical contrast
in the quantitative use of appraisals in English and Chinese texts, using SPSS
as the statistical tool. Then, we contrasted the distributions of appraisals in
the two languages. The contrast of the appraisal distribution was made in two
modes, each on two dimensions, as will be detailed in Chapter 4.
The innovative properties of the present study lay in the development of the
theory and the novel approach of research. In regard to the development of
the theory, we made modifications to the Appraisal Theory based on analysis
of scientific texts. In particular, we ameliorated the definitions of some
key concepts in the subsystems of Attitude, Engagement, and Graduation
by specifying the conceptional intension and expanding the extension, so
that the concepts became more tangible and practicable for application in
discourse analysis. We also incorporated modality into the appraisal systems
and studied the different evaluative meanings of modal expressions. The
theoretical modifications were validated from a semantic perspective. As a
methodological innovation, we proposed for the first time the method of
contrasting distributions in two modes and on two dimensions. The two modes
were the comprehensive distribution mode and the typological distribution
mode. The two dimensions of the distribution were the distribution structure
and the distribution evenness. These new concepts are elaborated in
Chapter 4 and applied in our quantitative study.

1.3 The structure of the book

This book, which reports the research results of our research project
sponsored by The National Social Science Fund of China, comprises
five chapters. Chapter 1, i.e. the present chapter, introduces the research
background, the research purpose and questions, the line of thought in
research, the methodology and the innovative properties of the study as well
as the structure of the book. Chapter 2 describes the theoretical modifications
of the Appraisal Theory, including the refined concepts in the systems of
Attitude, Engagement and Graduation, and the incorporation of modality
into the appraisal systems. As a result of the modifications, the Appraisal
Theory became more delicate in structure, more powerful in explanation,
and more applicable and practicable in application. Chapter 3 applies the
modified theory to the comparative study of the appraisals in English and
Chinese research articles to find the differences and similarities in the lexico-​
grammatical realizations of evaluative meanings between the two languages.
Chapter 4 describes the results of the quantitative contrast of the appraisals
in English and Chinese texts. We contrasted the quantity of the appraisals in
CET with that in CCT, and the quantity of the appraisals in CEA with that in
10 Introduction
CCA, using SPSS as the statistical analysis tool. We also made the following
contrasts: In terms of the distribution structure and the distribution evenness,
we contrasted the comprehensive distribution mode of the appraisals in CET
with that in CCT; the comprehensive distribution mode of the appraisals in
CEA with that in CCA; the typological distribution mode of the appraisals in
CET with that in CCT; and the typological distribution mode of the appraisals
in CEA with that in CCA. Chapter 5 contains the conclusions, generalizing
from the findings of the study and discussing their implications.
References
Adams-Smith, D. E. (1984). Medical discourse: aspects of author’s comment. The ESP Journal,
3: 25–36.
Allwood, J ., Andersson L-G . and Dahl, O . (2006). Logic in Linguistics. Peking: Peking
University Press.
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Baynham, M . (1999). Double-voicing and the scholarly “I”: the incorporation of the words of
others in academic discourse. Text, 19(4): 485–504.
Bazerman, C . (1984). Modern evolution of the experimental report in physics: spectroscopic
articles in Physical Review, 1893–1980. Social Studies of Science, 14: 163–96.
Bazerman, C . (1988). Shaping Written Knowledge. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin
Press.
Bazerman, C . and Paradis, J . (1991). Introduction. In C. Bazerman and J. Paradis (eds),
Textual Dynamics of the Professions: Historical and Contemporary Studies of Writing in
Professional Communities. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, pp. 3–10.
Berkenkotter, C . and Huckin, T. N. (1995). Genre Knowledge in Disciplinary Communication:
Cognition/Culture/Power. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Bhatia, V. K. (1993). Analyzing Genre: Language Use in Professional Settings. London:
Longman.
Biber, D., Johannson, S., Leech, L., Conrad, S. and Finegan, E. (1999). Longman Grammar of
Spoken and Written English. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Butler, C. S. (1990). Qualifications in science: modal meanings in scientific texts. In W. Nash
(ed.), The Writing Scholar: Studies in Academic Discourse. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, pp.
137–70.
Bybee, J . and Fleischman, S . (1995). Modality in Grammar and Discourse. Amsterdam:
Benjamins.
Chafe, W . (1986). Evidentiality in English conversation and academic writing. In W. L. Chafe
and J. Nichols (eds), Evidentials: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology. Norwood, NJ: Ablex,
pp. 261–72.
Chafe, W. L. and Nichols, J. (eds) (1986). Evidentials: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology.
Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Chao, Yuen Ren . (1968). A Grammar of Spoken Chinese. Berkeley: University of California
Press.
Coates, J . (1983). The Semantics of Modal Auxiliaries. London and Canberra: Croom Helm.
Dahl, O . (2000). Grammaticalization and the Lift Cycles of Construction. Stockholm: Stockholm
University.
Fahnestock, J . (1986). Accommodating science: the rhetorical life of scientific facts. Written
Communication, 3: 275–96.
Firth, J. R. (1935). The technique of semantics. Transactions of the Philological Society, 34 (1):
36–72.
Fuoli, M . (2018). A step-wise method for annotating appraisal. Functions of Language, 25 (2):
229–58.
Geng, Y . and Wharton, S . (2019). How do thesis writers evaluate their own and others’
findings? An appraisal analysis and a pedagogical intervention. English for Specific Purposes,
56 (2019): 3–17.
Gilbert, G . and Mulkay, M . (1984). Opening Pandora’s Box: A Sociological Analysis of
Scientific Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Givón, T . (1995). Functionalism and Grammar. Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Goffman, E . (1981). Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1970) Functional diversity in language as seen from a consideration of
modality and mood in English. Foundations of Language: International Journal of Language and
Philosophy, 6: 322–61.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An Introduction to Functional Grammar (2nd edn). London: Edward
Arnold (Publishers) Ltd.
Halliday, M. A. K. (2007). The Language of Science. Peking: Peking University Press.
Halliday, M. A. K. (2014). An Introduction to Functional Grammar (4th edn). (Revised by
Matthiessen, Christian M. I. M.). London and New York: Routledge.
Hanania, E. A. S. and Akhtar, K . (1985). Verb form and rhetorical function in science writing: a
study of MS theses in biology, chemistry, and physics. ESP Journal, 4: 49–58.
Hare, M. R. (1952). The Language of Morals. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Hare, M. R. (1970). Meaning and speech acts. The Philosophical Review, 79 (1): 3–24.
Harwood, N . (2003). “Person Markers and Interpersonal Metadiscourse in Academic Writing: a
Multidisciplinary Corpus-based Study of Expert and Student Texts.” Ph.D Dissertation,
University of Birmingham.
Harwood, N . (2005a). “I hoped to counteract the memory problem, but I made no impact
whatsoever”: discussing methods in computing science using I. English for Specific Purposes,
24: 243–67.
Harwood, N . (2005b). “Nowhere has anyone attempted — In this article I aimed to do that”: a
corpus-based study of self-promotional I and we in academic writing across four disciplines.
Journal of Pragmatics, 37: 1207–31.
Heine, B ., Ulrike, C . and Friederike, H . (1991). Grammaticalization: A Conceptual Framework.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Hoey, M . (2001). Textual Interaction: An Introduction to Written Discourse Analysis. London
and New York: Routledge.
Hood, S . (2004). “Appraising Research: Taking a Stance in Academic Writing.” Ph.D
Dissertation, University of Technology Sydney.
Hood, S . (2010). Appraising Research: Evaluation in Academic Writing. London: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Hood, S . and Martin, J. R. (2005). Invoking attitude: the play of graduation in appraising
discourse. Revista Signos, 38(58): 195–220.
Hunston, S . (1993). Evaluation and ideology in scientific writing. In M. Ghadessy (ed.), Register
Analysis: Theory and Practice. London: Pinter (Open Linguistics Series), pp. 57–73.
Hunston, S . (1994). Evaluation and organization in a sample of written academic discourse. In
M. Coulthard (ed.), Advances in Written Text Analysis. London: Routledge, pp. 191–218.
Hunston, S . and Thompson, G . (2000). Evaluation: an introduction. In S. Hunston and G.
Thompson (eds), Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1–26.
Hunston, S and Thompson G. (eds.). (2000). Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the
Construction of Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hyland, K . (1996a). Talking to the academy: forms of hedging in scientific research articles.
Written Communication, 13: 251–81.
Hyland, K . (1996b). Writing without conviction? Hedging in scientific research articles. Applied
Linguistics, 17(4): 433–54.
Hyland, K . (1998). Hedging in Scientific Research Articles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Hyland, K . (2000). Hedges, boosters and lexical invisibility. Language Awareness, 9: 179–97.
Hyland, K . (2002). Directive: Argument and engagement in academic writing. Applied
Linguistics, 23(2): 215–39.
Irena, V . (1998). Who am I/who are we in academic writing? A contrastive analysis of authorial
presence in English, German, French, Russian and Bulgarian. International Journal of Applied
Linguistics, 8(2): 163–90.
Irvine, J . (1990). Registering affect: heteroglossia in the linguistic expression of emotion. In C.
A. Lutz and L. Abu-Lughod (eds), Language and the Politics of Emotion. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, pp. 126–61.
Ivanic, R . (1994). I is for interpersonal: discoursal construction of writer identities and the
teaching of writing. Linguistics and Education, 1: 3–15.
Ivanic, R . (1998). Writing and Identity: The Discoursal Construction of Identity in Academic
Writing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Jaszczolt, K. M. (2004). Semantics and Pragmatics Meaning in Language and Discourse.
Peking: Peking University Press.
Knorr-Cetina, Karin D . (1981). The Manufacture of Knowledge: An Essay on the Constructivist
and Contextual Nature of Science. Oxford: Pergamon.
Kuhn, T . (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (2nd edn). Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Labov, W . (1972). Transformation of Experience in Narrative Syntax. Language in the Inner
City. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, pp. 354–96.
Labov, W . and Waletzky, J . (1967). Narrative analysis. In J. Helm (ed.), Essays on the Verbal
and Visual Arts. Seattle: University of Washington Press, pp. 12–44.
Lakoff, G . and Johnson, M . (1980). Metaphors We Live By. The University of Chicago Press.
Latour, B . and Woolgar, S . (1979). Laboratory Life: The Social Construction of Scientific Facts.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Lau, H. H. (1999). Hedging expressions as signals of evidence in academic journal discourse.
Paper presented at the 8th symposium of English Teaching, Taipei.
Lawani, S . (1982). On the heterogeneity and classification of author self-citations. Journal of
American Society for Information Science, 33: 281–4.
Leech, G . (1974). Semantics. New York: Penguin.
Lemke, J. L. (1992). Interpersonal meaning in discourse: value orientations. In M. Davies and L.
Ravelli (eds), Advances in Systemic Linguistics: Recent Theory and Practice. London: Pinter,
pp. 82–104.
Lemke, J. L. (1998a). Resources for attitudinal meaning: evaluative orientations in text
semantics. Functions of Language, 5(1): 33–56.
Lemke, J. L. (1998b). Multiplying meaning: visual and verbal semiotics in scientific text. In J. R.
Martin and R. Vee (eds), Reading Science: Critical and Functional Perspectives on Discourses
of Science. London: Routledge, pp. 87–113.
Longino, H . (1990). Science as Social Knowledge: Values and Objectivity in Scientific Inquiry.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, pp. 45–67.
Lutz, C. A. (1986). Emotion, thought and estrangement: emotion as a cultural category. Cultural
Anthropology, 1: 405–36.
Lyons, J . (1977). Semantics. London and New York: Cambridge University Press.
MacRoberts, M. H. and MacRoberts, B. R. (1996). Problems of citation analysis.
Scientometrics, 36(3): 435–44.
Martin, J. R. (2000). Beyond exchange: appraisal systems in English. In S. Hunston and G.
Thompson (eds), Evaluation in Text. Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 142–75.
Martin, J. R. and Rose, D . (2003). Working with Discourse: Meaning beyond the Clause.
Peking: Peking University Press.
Martin, J. R. and White, P. R. R. (2005). The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. New
York: Palgrave MacMillan.
Morris, M . (2007). An Introduction to the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Myers, G . (1989). The pragmatics of politeness in scientific articles. Applied Linguistics, 10(1):
1–35.
Myers, G . (1990). Writing Biology: Texts in the Social Construction of Scientific Knowledge.
Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
Nash, W . (1990). Introduction: The stuff these people write. In W. Nash (ed.), The Writing
Scholar: Studies in Academic Discourse. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, pp. 8–30.
Ochs, E. (ed.) (1989). Text, 9(1) (Special Issue on the pragmatics of affect): 1–129.
Overington, M . (1977). The scientific community as audience: toward a rhetoric analysis of
science. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 10(3): 143–64.
Palmer, F. R. (1986). Mood and Modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Palmer, F. R. (1990). Modality and the English Modals (2nd edn). London: Longman.
Palmer, F. R. (2001). Mood and Modality (2nd edn). Peking: Peking World Publishing
Corporation.
Pilar, Mur D . (2007). “I/we focus on …”: a cross-cultural analysis of self-mentions in business
management research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6: 143–62.
Portner, P . (2009). Modality. New York: Oxford University Press Inc.
Poynton, C . (1984). Names as vocatives: forms and functions. Nottingham Linguistic Circular,
13: 1–34.
Poynton, C . (1985). Language and Gender: Making the Difference. Geelong, Victoria: Australia
Deakin University Press.
Poynton, C . (1990). “Address and the Semiotics of Social Relations: a Systemic-Functional
Account of Address Forms and Practices in Australian English.” Ph.D Dissertation, University of
Sydney.
Quirk, R ., Greenbaum, S ., Leech, G . and Svartvik, J . (1985). A Comprehensive Grammar of
the English Language. London: Longman.Rice, R. E., Borgman, C. L. and Reeves, B. (1998).
Citation networks of communication Journals (1977-1985): Cliques and positions, citations
made and citations received. Human Communication Research, (15): 256–83.
Saeed, J. I. (2000). Semantics. Peking: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Salager-Meyer, F . (1994). Hedges and textual communicative function in medical English
written discourse. English for Specific Purposes, 13(2): 149–70.
Sheldon, E . (2009). From one I to another: discursive construction of self-presentation in
English and Castilian Spanish research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 28: 251–65.
Swales, J . (1990). Genre Analysis: English Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Sweetser, E . (1990). From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of
Semantic Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tang, R . and John, S . (1999). The “I” in identity: exploring writer identity in student academic
writing through the first person pronoun. English for Specific Purposes, 18: 23–39.
Thomas, S . and Hawes, T . (1994). Reporting verbs in medical journal articles. English for
Specific Purposes, 13: 129–48.
Thompson, G . (2000). Introducing Functional Grammar. Foreign Language Teaching and
Research Press, Edward Arnold (Publishers) Limited.
Thompson, G . and Hunston, S . (2000). Evaluation: an introduction. In G. Thompson, and S.
Hunston (eds), Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, pp. 1–27.
Thompson, G . and Ye, Y . (1991). Evaluation of the reporting verbs used in academic papers.
Applied Linguistics, 4: 365–82.
Vihla, M . (1999). Medical Writing: Modality in Focus. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Wierzbicka, A . (1986). Human emotions: universal or culture-specific? American
Anthropologist, 3: 584–94.
Wierzbicka, A . (1990). The semantics of emotions: fear and its relatives in English. Australian
Journal of Linguistics (Special Issue on the Semantics of Emotions), 2: 359–75.
Xu, Y . (2006). A Multivariate Perspective on CMH Hypothesis. Xi’an: Xi’an Jiaotong University
Press.
Ziman, J . (1984). An Introduction to Science Studies. Cambridge: CUP.
Bu, Z . (2010). Kuazhang xiuci de taidu yiyi yanjiu. Contemporary Rhetoric, 4, 53–9.
Cai, S. (2006). Daodu. In J. Allwood, L-G. Andersson and O. Dahl (eds), J. Allwood, L-G.
Andersson and O. Dahl(). Logic in Linguistics. Beijing: Peking University Press, pp. F01–F30.
Chen, G . (2009). Yinyu de pingjia yiyi yanjiu. Journal of Language and Literature Studies(), 9,
33–5.
Chen, L . (2007). Pingjialun dui yuyan pingjia yiyi yanjiu de qishi . Seeker, (11), 197–226.
Cheng, W . (2010). Taidu yunlv de zhengtixing yanjiu. Foreign Language Research, 3, 68–73.
Chu, Z . (2001). “Ming + Shuliang” yuxu yu zhuyi jiaodian“+”. Studies of the Chinese Language,
5, 411–17.
Ding, J . (1984). Sange kexuejia he yizhi sugelan heiyang. World Vision, 7, 47.
Ding, S et al. . (1961/1999). Xiandai hanyu yufa jianghua. Beijing: The Commercial Press.
Fang, H . (2014). Pingjialun dui xitong gongneng yuyanxue de fazhan. Modern Foreign
Languages, 3, 303–11.
Feng, D & Qi, Y . (2014). Taidu yiyi de duomotai jiangou——jiyu renzhi pingjia lilun de fenxi
moshi——. Modern Foreign Languages, 5, 585–96.
Feng, P . (2013). “Zhengshi” yu “Zheng” de bijiao kaocha“”“”. Journal of Changzhou Institute of
Technology (Social Science Edition) (), 1, 75–9.
Gao, M . (1948/1986). Hanyu yufalun. Beijing: The Commercial Press.
Guan, B & Yang, Y . (2011). Youxing yupianzhong wusheng yuyan de buduichen
xianxiang——dui yinghan zhaopin guanggao renji yiyi de duoyuan wenhua chayi tantao——.
Foreign Language Education, 2, 11–14.
Guan, S . (2011). Daluowei furen de renwu sixiang biaoda de pingjia gongneng——xushuxue
yu wentixue de fenxi—. Shandong Foreign Language Teaching, 3, 77–81.
Guo, Z . (1999). Xiandai hanyu zhuanzhe ciyu yanjiu. Beijing: Beijing Language and Culture
University Press.
Han, Y . (2014). Gelin tonghua de jiaoyu gongneng tanxi——yi pingjia yiyi wei shijiao——.
Foreign Languages and Their Teaching, 3, 5–10.
He, T . (2011). Cong pingjia xitong kan zhongxi guanfang zhengzhi baogao de renji yiyi
chayi——yi 2020nian zhongguo zhengfu gongzuo baogao he meiguo guoqing ziwen weili——
2010. Northern Literature, 9, 200–1.
Hu, M & Huang, Y . (2014). Zhongguo ribao he niuyue shibao taidu ziyuan yunyong duibi
yanjiu——yi meijun zai libiya junshi xingdong baodao weili——. Foreign Languages Research ,
4, 24–30.
Hu, S , Cheng, H & Che, C . (2010). Jiuzhi yanjiang yupian jiangou de pingjia shijiao. Journal of
Hebei Normal University (Philosophy and Social Sciences) (), 4, 105–8.
Hu, W . (2010). Yuyan pingjia lilun de jiazhi zhexue yanjiu. Boshi xuewei lunwen. Shanghai
International Studies University .
Hu, Y . (1962/1981). Xiandai hanyu (chongdingben)(). Shanghai: Shanghai Education
Publishing House.
Hu, Z , Zhu, Y , Zhang, D & Li, Z . (2008). Xitong gongneng yuyanxue gailun. Beijing: Peking
University Press.
Huang, B & Liao, X . (1991/1997). Xiandai hanyu. Beijing: Higher Education Press.
Huang, D & Zhong, Y & Zhang, Y . (2008). Diyi rencheng daici de huayu gongneng: jiyu
zhongwai kexuejia cailiao kexue lunwen yinyan de duibi yanjiu: . Chinese Journal of Scientific
and Technical Periodicals, 5, 803–8.
Huang, G . (2007). Zuowei putong yuyanxue de xitong gongneng yuyanxue. Foreign Languages
in China, 5, 14–9.
Huang, X . (2011). Bahejin “huwenxing” sixiang dui pingjia lilun de yingxiang“”. Journal of
Shantou University (Humanity and Social Science Edition)(), 2, 52–6.
Jiang, P & Wang, L . (2010). Beiying jiqi yingyi de taidu yiyi bijiao. Contemporary Foreign
Languages Studies, 6, 23–7.
Li, B . (2008). “Keyi” he “may” yinghan qingtai ciyu duibi yanjiu “”“may”. Shuoshi xuewei lunwen.
Shanghai Normal University .
Li, J . (2009). Pingjia lilun zai yingyu yuedu jiaoxuezhong de yingyong . Modern Education
Science, (S1), 201–2.
Li, J & Zhang, D . (2010). Dianshi xinwen fangtan jieru tezheng de yunlvxing moshi tansuo .
Foreign Language Education, 4, 6–10.
Li, Z . (2004). Pingjia lilun: zai huayu fenxizhong de yingyong he wenti. Foreign Languages
Research, 5, 1–6.
Li, Z . (2013). Pingjia lilun: zai huayu fenxizhong de yingyong he wenti. In Y. Zhu & Z. Hua ,
(eds), Mading xueshu sixiang yanjiu. Beijing: Peking University Press, pp. 52–61.
Li, Z . (2012). “A de shi”duanyu de teshu gongneng “A”. Chinese Language Learning, 4, 22–8.
Lian, S . (2002). Lun zhongxi siwei fangshi. Foreign Languages and Their Teaching, 2, 40–6.
Lian, S . (2010). Yinghan duibi yanjiu. Beijing: Higher Education Press.
Liao, C . (2011). Pingjia lilun zai waiyu xiezuo jiaoxuezhong de yingyong yanjiu. Journal of Xi’an
Foreign Languages University, 2, 109–12.
Lin, C & Yang, Z . (2004). Xinlixue dacidian. Shanghai: Shanghai Education Publishing House.
Liu, S . (2010). Pingjia lilun zai zhongguo de fazhan. Foreign Languages and Their Teaching, 5,
33–7.
Liu, S & Han, J . (2004). Xinwen huayu de pingjia xitong. Technology Enhanced Foreign
Languages, 4, 17–21.
Liu, S & Zhang, Z . (2011). Pingpan de jiegou qianshi yu yuyi gouxing. Foreign Languages in
China, 1, 22–7.
Liu, X . (2010). Pingjia xitong shiyuzhong de fanyi yanjiu——yi Honglongmeng liangge yiben
duibi weili——. Foreign Language Research, 3, 161–3.
Liu, Y & Yao, X . (2011). “Kejian” de qingtaihua yu guanlianhua——jianlun hanyu lianglei
shijueci de yanhua chayi “”——. Chinese Linguistics, 4, 27–33.
Liu, Y and Pan, W. (1983). Shiyong xiandai hanyu yufa. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching
and Research Press.
Liu, Y . (2011). Xiandai hanyu liangci de pingjia yiyi fenxi. Foreign Language Research, 2, 62–7.
Lu, X . (1979). Nahan. Beijing: People’s Literature Publishing House.
Lv, S . (1980). Xiandai hanyu babaici. Beijing: The Commercial Press.
Ma, Q . (1988). Nengyuan dongci de lianyong. Studies in Language and Linguistics, 1, 18–28.
Ma, Q . (1992/2005). Hanyu dongci he dongcixing jiegou. Beijing: Peking University Press.
Men, H . (2011). Wangluo xinwen biaotizhong “nvjiaoshi” de taidu yanjiu“ ”. People’s Tribune, 2,
188–9.
Pang, C . (2013). Yilake zhanzheng hefaxing de huayu chongjian——yixiang jiyu bushi yizhan
yanjiang yuliaoku de pingjia yanjiu——. Foreign Languages Research, 4, 41–8.Peng, X .
(2010). Hanyu de jieru yu jicha xianxiang . Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies , 10,
55–63.
Peng, X . (2011). Xifang wenxue pipingshi chonggou——yi pingjia fanchou wei yiju de shenmei
lichang zongguan——. Journal of Beijing Normal University (Social Sciences)(), 4, 69–81.
Peng, X . (2012). Xiaochengfen zhi dashiye——Langqiao yimeng xuancheng chengfen de gushi
zuzhi gongneng——. Foreign Language and Literature, 3, 37–40.
Peng, X . (2013a). Kai yu fulangxisika xianghu xiyin de yuyanxue yiju——Lang qiao yimeng
fanyingxing jianshang chengfen de wenti tezheng——. Foreign Language Research, 6, 18–24.
Peng, X . (2013b). Luobote•jinkai de meili hezai?——cong Langqiao yimeng kekaoxing
chengfen kan nanzhurengong de kehua fangshi•——. Foreign Language Education, 1, 19–29.
Qi, F . (2011). “X de shi”: cong huayu biaoji dao jiaodian biaoji“X” . Chinese Language Learning,
8, 107–12.
Qing, F & Lang, M . (2013). Rencheng daici we zai yingyu keji lunwenzhong de renji yiyiwe.
Journal of Xidian University, 5, 161–6.
Shen, J . (1993). “Yuyong fouding” kaocha “”. Studies of the Chinese Language , 5, 321–31.
Shi, J & Sun, H . (2010). “Dan(shi)” lei zhuanzhe lianci de neibu chayi jiqi xingcheng jizhi “”.
Linguistic Researches, 4, 34–40.
Tang, L . (2005). Yingyu xueshu shuping de pingjia celue——cong duihua shijiao de jieru fenxi
——. Foreign Language Research, 4, 1–7.
Tang, L . (2010). Yingyu xuexizhe yuedu lichang zhi piping huayu fenxi jiqi qishi. Journal of
Foreign Languages, 3, 60–6.
Tang, Q . (2004). Xueshu yupianzhong de zhuanshu xianxiang. Foreign Languages and Their
Teaching, 2, 3–6.
Tian, F . (2011). Yinghanyu jingjilei yingxinwen de caijue xitong duibi yanjiu. Shandong Foreign
Language Teaching Journal, 2, 32–6.
Wang, L . (2010). Funv quanyi baozhangfa zhong de taidu xitong yanjiu. Foreign Language
Research, 3, 62–7.
Wang, L . (1943/1985). Zhongguo xiandai yufa. Beijing: The Commercial Press.
Wang, X . (2011). Qiantan jichu yingyu jiaoxuezhong pingjia lilun shijiaoxia de yupian fenxi.
Journal of Heilongjiang College of Education, 1, 167–9.
Wang, Z . (2001). Pingjia xitong jiqi yunzuo——xitong gongneng yuyanxue de xinfazhan——.
Journal of Foreign Languages, 6, 13–20.
Wang, Z . (2004a). “Wuzhi guocheng” de pingjia jiazhi——yi fenxi xiaoshuo renwu xingxiang
weili “”——. Journal of Foreign Languages , 5, 41–7.
Wang, Z . (2004b). “Yingxinwen”de taidu yanjiu——“pingjia xitong”yingyong yanjiu zhier “”——“”
. Foreign Language Education, 5, 31–6.
Wang, Z . (2006). “Zishou”de xitong gongneng yuyanxue shijiao“”. Modern Foreign Languages,
1, 1–9.
Wang, Z . (2010). Yuyan de gongneng weidu——“pingjia lilun”: yanjiu yu yingyong——“”.
Foreign Language Research, 3, 55–63.
Wang, Z & Ma, Y . (2007). Pingjia lilun: meili yu kunhuo. Foreign Language Education, 6,
19–23.
Wei, X & Yao, X . (2009). Yuyan de yishu taidu de zaiti——pingjia xitongxia aobama jingxuan
yanjiang de renji yiyi fenxi——. Journal of Xi’an International Studies University, 3, 32–4.
Wei, Z . (2011). Yuyong yushe de yupian pingjia gongneng——yupian yuyongxue jiemian yanjiu
——. Foreign Languages in China, 2, 23–9.
Wu, A & Li, F . (2009). Yupian zhuti yu cihui yufa pingjia moshijian de renzhi yanjiu. Jiangxi
Social Sciences, 9, 247–9.
Wu, A & Zhong, S . (2010). Pingjiaxing xingrongci xingshi fachouhua de yuyi jiegou moshi
yanjiu. Foreign Languages and Their Teaching, 5, 29–32.
Xiang, P & Xiao, D . (2009). Zhongguo daxuesheng yingyu yilunwen jieru ziyuan yanjiu.
Foreign Languages and Their Teaching, 4, 22–6.
Xiao, Y , Wang, Y & Su, H . (2013). Shaoshu zuyi wenxue zuopinzhong de taidu yiyi
yanjiu——jiyu pingjia lilun de gean fenxi——. Journal of Sichuan International Studies
University, 6, 34–8.
Xing, F . (1996). Hanyu yufaxue. Changchun: Northeast Normal University Press.
Xing, F . (2002). Hanyu fuju yanjiu. Beijing: The Commercial Press.
Xu, J . (2011). Pingjia lilun shiyuzhong de shangwu fanyi yanjiu. Journal of PLA University of
Foreign Languages, 6, 88–91.
Xu, J & Xia, R . (2013). Pingjia lilun shiyuzhong de yinghan shangwu yupian duibi yanjiu .
Foreign Language Education, 3, 16–21.
Xu, S . (2011). Duihua de queshi——cong pingjia lilun de jiaodu kan Huajianji Zhong de
wentingjun de ci——. Journal of Southeast University (Philosophy and Social Science) (), (S1):
37–9.
Xu, Y . (2009a). Keji yupianzhong de taidu xitong yanjiu. Foreign Language Education, 4,
37–44.
Xu, Y . (2009b). Mingcihua de shengcheng jizhi leixing ji gongneng de xinshiye. Foreign
Language Learning Theory and Practice, 2, 32–7.
Xu, Y . (2013). Zhongguo pingjia lilun yanjiu de huigu yu zhanwang. Foreign Language
Education, 3, 11–15.
Xu, Y , Yan, X & Su, R . (2010). Keji yupianzhong yuyan pingjia xitong yanjiu . Beijing: Foreign
Language Teaching and Research Press.
Xu, Y , Yan, X & Su, R . (2014). Taidu pingjia shouduan de pianzhang fenbu guilv yanjiu.
Foreign Language Research, 4, 28–32.
Yan, X & Xu, Y . (2011). Keji yupianzhong jianshang xitong jiqi pingjia jizhi. Foreign Language
Learning Theory and Practice, 1, 60–7.
Yang, L . (2009). Yingyu keyan lunwenzhong de yanjuxing. Xiamen daxue boshi lunwen.
Yang, L . (2015). Yingwen xuehsu lunwenzhong de zuozhe shenfen goujian: yanjuxing shijiao :.
Foreign Language Education, 2, 21–5.
Yao, Y & Chen, X . (2012). Yingyu xueshu shuping yupian rangbu yuyi ziyuan de jieru yiyi.
Foreign Language Learning Theory and Practice , 1, 39–46.
Yu, B . (2015). Kuaxueke boshi xuewei lunwen zhaiyao de yanjuxing jiqi renji yiyi.
Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 4, 29–36, 77.
Yu, J . (2010). Pingjia yiyi yu yiwen yishi xingtai——yi A Q zhengzhuan yingyi weili——Q.
Foreign Language Learning Theory and Practice, 2, 83–90.
Yuan, C & Hu, J . (2011). Lvshi dailicizhong jieru ziyuan de shunyingxing fenxi. Language
Teaching and Linguistic Studies, 3, 87–94.
Zeng, L & Yu, H . (2005). “Toushe fuhao” de renji yiyi jiqi dengji moshi zhi goujian“”. Foreign
Language Education, 6, 25–9.
Zhang, J & Huang, Y . (2014). Yixue xueshu yupian dapei kuangjia BE* to de pingjia gongneng
yanjiuBE* to. Journal of PLA University of Foreign Languages, 2, 54–61.
Zhang, P . (2010). Xushu he Chanshu ticai de fenji ziyuan duibi yanjiu . Foreign Languages in
China, 4, 41–6.
Zhang, Y .(2008). Xueshu huayuzhong de jicha fanchouhua jii xiuci quanshuo goujian. Journal
of Foreign Languages , 6, 33–40.
Zhao, X & Chen, L .(2011). Jiyu pingjia lilun de renji yiyi yanjiu——yi Aoman yu Pianjian zhong
Elizabeth de huayu fenxi weili——Elizabeth. Journal of Jiangsu University (Social Science
Edition) , (), 6, 54–7.
Zhou, H & Liu, Y . (2014). Zhongguo yingyu xuexizhe toushe yuyan de yupian pingjia yanjiu.
Modern Foreign Languages, 3, 390–9.
Zhu, Y . (1997). Huayu jidiao de hanyi yu zhuyao neirong. Journal of Foreign Languages, 1,
25–30.
Zhu, Y . (2009). Gainian yiyizhong de yinxing pingjia. Foreign Language Education, 4, 1–5.
Zhuang, Z et al . (). (2007). Xin niujin yinghan shuangjie dacidian. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign
Language Education Press.
English Dictionaries Referenced
A Dictionary of Conversational English. 2004. Peking: Foreign Language Teaching and
Research Press.
Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English. 2004. London: Longman.
Longman Modern English Dictionary. 1976. Longman Group Limited.
MacMillan English Dictionary. 2003. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (Tenth Edition). 2001. Springfield: Merriam-Webster,
Incorporated.
The Merriam-Webster English Dictionary. 2004. Merriam Webster U.S.
The New Oxford English — Chinese Dictionary. 2007. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language
Teaching Press.