TED健康主题英语演讲互动元话语的使用特征及其语用身份功能研究
Interactional Metadiscourse and Pragmatic Identity Construction in English TED Talks on Health
摘要: TED健康类演讲传播范围广、关注度高,近年来逐渐成为传播健康知识和讨论公共健康议题的一个重要平台。本研究结合语用身份论和Hyland互动元话语框架,以TED官网Health主题下收视率最高的20篇英语演讲转写文本为语料,采用语料库统计和语境核验的方式,考察互动元话语的分布特征,并解释其在身份建构中的作用。分析发现,自我提及语和介入标记语使用频率最高,表明演讲者对自我呈现与受众引导的重视;模糊语与强调语主要用于调节断言强度,平衡审慎论证与重点强化;态度标记相对较少。这些资源共同助力演讲者建构了“严谨论证者”“亲和沟通者”“互动组织者”等六种语用身份。进一步来看,演讲者建构这些身份是为了回应健康传播中的四项挑战:适配健康素养差异、解释风险信息、减轻信息过载以及维护受众信任。本研究对TED演讲与健康信息传播具有理论意义和实践意义。
Abstract: TED health talks have become an important platform for disseminating health knowledge and shaping public health issues, given their wide reach and strong public influence. Combining pragmatic identity theory and Hyland’s interactional metadiscourse framework, this study investigates the distribution patterns and identity functions of interactional metadiscourse in the transcripts of the top 20 English TED health talks on TED website. By employing a mixed approach of corpus-based statistics and contextual verification, the study finds that self-mention and engagement markers are used most frequently, emphasizing speakers’ self-presentation and audience guidance. Hedges and boosters are used together to adjust the strength of assertions, balancing cautious argumentation with strategic emphasis, whereas attitude markers are used less frequently. These resources enable speakers construct multiple identities, such as “rigorous arguer,” “affable communicator,” and “interaction organizer.” Further analysis reveals that these identity practices respond to four challenges in health communication: addressing differences in health literacy, explaining risk information, reducing information overload, and maintaining audience trust. This study holds both theoretical and practical significance for TED discourse and health communication.
文章引用:曹铭芳. TED健康主题英语演讲互动元话语的使用特征及其语用身份功能研究 [J]. 现代语言学, 2026, 14(3): 162-171. https://doi.org/10.12677/ml.2026.143209

参考文献

[1] Tajfel, H. (1974) Social Identity and Intergroup Behaviour. Social Science Information, 13, 65-93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[2] Stryker, S. and Burke, P.J. (2000) The Past, Present, and Future of an Identity Theory. Social Psychology Quarterly, 63, 284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[3] Gumperz, J.J. (1982) Discourse Strategies. Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[4] Zimmerman, D.H. (1998) Identity, Context and Interaction. In: Antaki, C. and Widdicombe, S., Eds., Identities in Talk, SAGE Publications, 87-106.
[5] Bucholtz, M. and Hall, K. (2005) Identity and Interaction: A Sociocultural Linguistic Approach. Discourse Studies, 7, 585-614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[6] 袁周敏. 自称语的语用身份建构: 作为语用行为的顺应[J]. 外语教学, 2012, 33(5): 32-35, 40.
[7] 陈新仁. 语用身份: 动态选择与话语建构[J]. 外语研究, 2013(4): 27-32, 112.
[8] 陈新仁. 语用学视角下的身份研究——关键问题与主要路径[J]. 现代外语, 2014, 37(5): 702-710, 731.
[9] 孙莉. 中国硕士学位论文英文摘要的语用身份建构研究[J]. 外语与外语教学, 2015(5): 15-21.
[10] 李娟. 语用身份视角下的博士论文致谢语研究[J]. 外语研究, 2016, 33(2): 33-38.
[11] Norton, B. (1997) Language, Identity, and the Ownership of English. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 409-429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[12] 杨信彰. 元话语与语言功能[J]. 外语与外语教学, 2007(12): 1-31.
[13] Goffman, E. (1981) Forms of Talk. University of Pennsylvania Press.
[14] Tracy, K. and Robles, J.S. (2013) Everyday Talk: Building and Reflecting Identities. 2nd Edition, Guilford Press.
[15] 袁周敏, 陈新仁. 语言顺应论视角下的语用身份建构研究——以医疗咨询会话为例[J]. 外语教学与研究, 2013, 45(4): 518-530, 640.
[16] 袁周敏. 语用身份建构的动态顺应性分析[J]. 外语教学, 2014, 35(5): 30-34.
[17] 谈谷雨. 语用身份论视角下英语演讲者身份建构研究——以TED演讲为例[J]. 通化师范学院学报, 2022, 43(7): 49-55.
[18] 穆心慧, 王勃然. TED演讲中第一人称表达的语用身份构建研究[J]. 外文研究, 2023, 11(2): 27-32, 106.
[19] Kopple, W.V. (1985) Some Exploratory Discourse on Metadiscourse. College Composition & Communication, 36, 82-93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[20] Crismore, A., Markkanen, R. and Steffensen, M.S. (1993) Metadiscourse in Persuasive Writing: A Study of Texts Written by American and Finnish University Students. Written Communication, 10, 39-71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[21] Hyland, K. (2004) Metadiscourse in Academic Writing: A Reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25, 156-177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[22] Ädel, A. (2010) Just to Give You Kind of a Map of Where We Are Going: A Taxonomy of Meta-Discourse in Spoken and Written Academic English. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 9, 69-97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[23] Ädel, A. and Mauranen, A. (2010) Metadiscourse: Diverse and Divided Perspectives. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 9, 1-11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[24] Hyland, K. (2005) Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing. Continuum.
[25] Scotto di Carlo, G. (2014) The Role of Proximity in Online Popularizations: The Case of TED Talks. Discourse Studies, 16, 591-606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[26] Scotto di Carlo, G. (2018) Patterns of Clusivity in TED Talks: When “You” and “I” Become “We”. Ibérica, 35, 119-144.
[27] Xia, S.A. and Hafner, C.A. (2021) Engaging the Online Audience in the Digital Era: A Multimodal Analysis of Engagement Strategies in TED Talk Videos. Ibérica, No. 42, 33-58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[28] 姜晖. TED演讲中受众元话语的元语用分析[J]. 外语与外语教学, 2020(4): 25-35, 147.
[29] 林美秀, 姜晖. 亚里士多德修辞劝说视角下TED演讲中的元话语研究[J]. 语言教育, 2021, 9(3): 53-59.
[30] Hyland, K. (2010) Constructing Proximity: Relating to Readers in Popular and Professional Science. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9, 116-127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[31] Caliendo, G. and Compagnone, A. (2014) Expressing Epistemic Stance in University Lectures and TED Talks: A Contrastive Corpus-Based Analysis. Lingue e Linguaggi, 11, 105-122.
[32] Mattiello, E. (2019) A Corpus-Based Analysis of Scientific TED Talks: Explaining Cancer-Related Topics to Non-Experts. Discourse, Context & Media, 28, 60-68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[33] Sørensen, K., Van den Broucke, S., Fullam, J., Doyle, G., Pelikan, J., Slonska, Z., et al. (2012) Health Literacy and Public Health: A Systematic Review and Integration of Definitions and Models. BMC Public Health, 12, Article No. 80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[34] McCray, A.T. (2004) Promoting Health Literacy. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 12, 152-163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[35] Covello, V.T. (1992) Risk Communication: An Emerging Area of Health Communication Research. Annals of the International Communication Association, 15, 359-373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[36] Hall, A. and Walton, G. (2004) Information Overload within the Health Care System: A Literature Review. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 21, 102-108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[37] Peters, R.G., Covello, V.T. and McCallum, D.B. (1997) The Determinants of Trust and Credibility in Environmental Risk Communication: An Empirical Study. Risk Analysis, 17, 43-54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]