The Attitudinal Meaning of Nature Writing Discourse and Its Interpretation in Historical Context：A Case Study on “The Land Ethic” in <i>A Sand County Almanac</i>

HUANG Fang; ZENG Lei

doi:10.19979/j.cnki.issn10082689.2021120077

Volume 38 Issue 3

Jun. 2022

Turn off MathJax

Article Contents

Article Navigation > Journal of University of Science and Technology Beijing ( Social Sciences Edition) > 2022 > 38(3): 264-271

HUANG Fang, ZENG Lei. The Attitudinal Meaning of Nature Writing Discourse and Its Interpretation in Historical Context：A Case Study on “The Land Ethic” in A Sand County Almanac[J]. Journal of University of Science and Technology Beijing ( Social Sciences Edition), 2022, 38(3): 264-271. doi: 10.19979/j.cnki.issn10082689.2021120077

Citation:

HUANG Fang, ZENG Lei. The Attitudinal Meaning of Nature Writing Discourse and Its Interpretation in Historical Context：A Case Study on “The Land Ethic” in A Sand County Almanac[J]. Journal of University of Science and Technology Beijing ( Social Sciences Edition), 2022, 38(3): 264-271. doi: 10.19979/j.cnki.issn10082689.2021120077

Citation:

PDF( 993 KB)

The Attitudinal Meaning of Nature Writing Discourse and Its Interpretation in Historical Context：A Case Study on “The Land Ethic” in A Sand County Almanac

doi: 10.19979/j.cnki.issn10082689.2021120077

HUANG Fang¹,
ZENG Lei²

1.
School of Foreign Languages / Library, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510275, China
2.
School of International Studies, Sun Yat-sen University, Zhuhai 519082, China

Received Date: 2021-12-20
Available Online: 2022-06-01
Publish Date: 2022-06-23

Abstract

Abstract

Every text is endowed with certain attitude or stance that arises in a specific social context. Based on natural sciences, nature writing discourse displays the equality and harmony between human beings and nature through unique literary forms. Historical context helps us have a better and deeper understanding of literary texts. This paper applies Appraisal Theory to the analysis of the attitudinal meaning of “The Land Ethic”, the representative text in A Sand County Almanac and interprets it in historical context. It is found that both inscribing and invoking attitude are contained in “The Land Ethic” and Appreciation is described most frequently, followed by Judgment and Affect. Through these attitudinal resources, the author Leopold expressed his full appreciation of the value of the land, his criticism of the U.S. conservation system at that time, and his ecological awareness of calling on people to protect the ecology and promote the human-nature harmonious coexistence. And through its interpretation in historical context, it is found that Leopold’s life and work experience, the social-economic background and the conservation system of the U.S., scientific theories at that time, etc. are the important reasons that Leopold highlighted his ecological thoughts of human-nature equality and harmony through scientific, objective and detailed exposition. The present study will not only help dig out the literary, ecological and historical significance of A Sand County Almanac, but also test the interpretive power of the Appraisal Theory on literary works and the importance of historical context in the interpretation of literary works. At the same time, it is also an attempt to apply Appraisal Theory to analyzing texts in cultural context.
- attitudinal meaning,
- nature writing,
- historical context,
- A Sand County Almanac,
- the Land Ethic

FullText(HTML)

References(45)

References

[1]	STUBBS M. Text and Corpus Analysis [M]. Oxford: Blackwell, 1996.
[2]	BAKHTIN M. Speech Genres and Other Late Essays [M]. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1986.
[3]	FRYE N. Anatomy of Criticism [M]. Princeton: Princeton University, 1957.
[4]	陶水平. “文学的历史性”与“历史的文本性”的双向阐释−试论格林布拉特文化诗学研究的理论与实践[J]. 江汉论坛,2007(8):133-137. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1003-854X.2007.08.031
[5]	胡作友. 在史实与文学之间穿行−解读新历史主义的文学批评[J]. 中国社会科学院研究生院学报,2009(1):89-94.
[6]	HASAN R. The place of context in a systemic functional model [C] // HALLIDAY M A K & WEBSTER J J. Companion to Systemic Functional Linguistics. London & New York: Continuum, 2009: 166-189.
[7]	MARTIN J R & ROSE D. Working with Discourse: Meaning beyond the Clause [M]. London & New York: Continuum, 2003.
[8]	刘世铸. 评价理论在中国的发展[J]. 外语与外语教学,2010(5):33-37.
[9]	王振华. “硬新闻”的态度研究−“评价系统”应用研究之二[J]. 外语教学,2004,25(5):31-36. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-5544.2004.05.008
[10]	赖彦,辛斌. 英语新闻语篇互文修辞功能分析−从评价理论的视角[J]. 当代修辞学,2012(3):25-32. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1674-8026.2012.03.003
[11]	刘飞飞,常晨光. 报纸社论中作者-潜在受众联合关系话语建构策略−系统功能语言学个性化视角[J]. 北京科技大学学报(社会科学版),2022,38(1):44-50.
[12]	李战子. 学术话语中认知型情态的多重人际意义[J]. 外语教学与研究,2001,33(5):353-358, 399-400. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-0429.2001.05.006
[13]	徐玉臣. 科技语篇中的态度系统研究[J]. 外语教学,2009,30(4):37-44.
[14]	王振华. 法治社会需要语言学[C]//本书编委会. 当代外语研究——上海交通大学外语论丛(第一辑). 上海: 上海交通大学出版社, 2009: 1-9.
[15]	陈瑜敏. 奥运电视公益广告多模态评价意义的构建[J]. 北京科技大学学报(社会科学版),2008,24(3):108-114.
[16]	冯德正,亓玉杰. 态度意义的多模态构建−基于认知评价理论的分析模式[J]. 现代外语,2014,37(5):585-596, 729.
[17]	曾蕾,洪丹. 德育教材生态话语之图文态度评价模式探讨[J]. 中国外语,2020,18(1):53-62.
[18]	毛明勇,桑红艳. 人际意义视阈下新媒体语篇图文关系探究−以微信公众号China Daily文章为例[J]. 北京科技大学学报(社会科学版),2021,37(2):147-153.
[19]	王振华. “物质过程”的评价价值−以分析小说人物形象为例[J]. 外国语,2004(5):41-47. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-5139.2004.05.006
[20]	尚必武. 《灿烂千阳》中的态度系统及其运作: 以评价理论为研究视角[J]. 山东外语教学,2008(4):18-23. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-2643.2008.04.004
[21]	李鸿春. 评价理论视域下《论语·述而》态度意义分析[J]. 湖北社会科学,2015(1):137-140. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1003-8477.2015.01.026
[22]	程虹. 寻归荒野(增订版)[M]. 北京: 生活·读书· 新知三联书店, 2011.
[23]	FINCH R & ELDER J. The Norton Book of Nature Writing [M]. Norton: W. W. Norton & Company, 1990.
[24]	FRITZELL P A . Nature Writing and America: Essays upon a Cultural Type [M]. Iowa: Iowa State University Press, 1990.
[25]	SCHEESE D. Nature Writing: the Pastoral Impulse in America [M]. New York: Twayne Publisher, 1996.
[26]	LYON T J. This Incomparable Land: A Guide to American Nature Writing [M]. Minneapolis: Milkweed Editions, 2001.
[27]	约翰·巴勒斯. 醒来的森林 [M]. 程虹, 译. 北京: 生活·读书·新知三联书店, 2004.
[28]	程虹. 宁静无价: 英美自然文学散论 [M]. 上海: 上海人民出版社, 2014.
[29]	程虹. 自然文学的美学价值[J]. 外国文学,2016(4):3-12.
[30]	岳国法,谭琼琳. 可然性模仿: 自然文学文本世界的生态符号学阐释[J]. 解放军外国语学院学报,2016,39(5):129-136, 160.
[31]	韩清玉. 对自然文学之哲学基础的反思与重构[J]. 西南民族大学学报(人文社科版),2017,38(2):192-196.
[32]	吴俊龙. 论约翰·巴勒斯自然文学的创作特点[J]. 外语教学,2019,40(2):104-108.
[33]	张琳. 《寂静的春天》的生态话语分析[D]. 广州: 中山大学, 2019.
[34]	刘立华. 评价理论研究 [M]. 北京: 外语教学与研究出版社, 2010.
[35]	HALLIDAY M A K & HASAN R. Language, Context and Text: Aspects of Language in a Social-semiotic Perspective [M]. Geelong: Deakin University Press, 1985/ Beijing: World Publishing Corporation, 2012.
[36]	徐玉臣. 中国评价理论研究的回顾与展望[J]. 外语教学,2013,34(3):11-15.
[37]	LEOPOLD A. A Sand County Almanac: And Sketches Here and There [M]. New York: Oxford University Press, 1949.
[38]	CALLICOTT J B. Companion to A Sand County Almanac, Interpretive and Critical Essays [M]. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1987.
[39]	奥尔多·利奥波德. 沙乡年鉴 [M]. 侯文惠, 译. 北京: 商务印书馆, 2019.
[40]	MARTIN J R & WHITE P P R. The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English [M]. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005.
[41]	陈晓燕. 英汉社论语篇态度资源对比分析[J]. 外国语,2007(3):39-46. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-5139.2007.03.006
[42]	FAIRCLOUGH N. Critical Language Awareness [M]. London: Longman, 1992.
[43]	陈中竺. 批评语言学述评[J]. 外语教学与研究,1995(1):21-27, 80.
[44]	方红. 环境伦理观与社会语境−对比研究《老人与海》与《沙乡年鉴》[J]. 当代外国文学,2010,31(4):59-65.
[45]	侯文蕙. 美国环境史观的演变[J]. 美国研究,1987(3):136-154, 5-6.