CHAPTER FOURMETHODOLOGY.......................................37
4.1 Research methods.....................................37
4.2 Data collection............................................38
CHAPTER FIVERESULTS&DISCUSSIONS..................................44
5.1 A summary of intertextuality in both corpuses...............................44
5.1.1 Similarities and differences in Intertextuality.............................44
5.1.2 Analysis of intertextuality types idendified.....................................47
CHAPTER FIVERESULTS&DISCUSSIONS
5.1 A summary of intertextuality in both corpuses
On the basis of the analysis procedures mentioned above,intertextuality types in30 pieces of Chinese CSRRs and 30 pieces of American CSRRs are identified andsub-categorized in accordance with the criteria listed in Table 4.2,whose frequenciesare listed in Table 5.1.Similarities and differences in intertextuality,as well as theanalysis of identified intertextuality in Chinese and American CSRRs will beapproached with concrete samples.
5.1.1 Similarities and differences in Intertextuality
To begin with,similarities of the use of intertextuality in Chinese and AmericanCSRRs can be discovered in the selected corpuses.In the first place,both Chinese andAmerican CSRRs are tended to apply varied intertextual strategies to constructcorporate identity.Taking a closer look at the preferences of using intertextuality,wecan see that both Chinese and American CSRRs writers prone to employ quotation interms of specific intertextuality rather than reference and literary allusion,with thefrequency of 310 and 192 respectively.When it comes to the application of genericintertextuality,it is found that both mixture of genres and mixture of modalities arefrequently adopted by both Chinese and American CSRRs.Taking a closer look at the employment of mixture of modalities,pictures rather than charts are preferred to beused in both Chinese and American CSRRs,whose frequencies are 312 and 330respectively,much higher than the use of charts,whose frequencies are 54 and 102respectively.Such similarities can be explained by Verchueren’s Linguistic AdaptationTheory.Even though the selected discourses are from two countries sharing differentcultural backgrounds and political institutions,they share the common mental world.Achievements and awards they have got,regulations and standards they firmly stickto and relevant figures for reference are the indispensable evidences to be mentionedwhen narrating their contributions to CSR.What’s more,presenting picture is a morestraightforward,direct,and easy instrument to illustrate and prove the authenticity ofCSRRs than designing charts.What’s more,in accordance with common sense,presenting concrete and accurate evidence is persuasive to manifest what they havefulfilled in CSR rather than purely stating the facts with dull words.
CHAPTER SIXCONCLUSION
6.1 Major findings
In the first place,in accordance with Chapter Five,intertextuality is commonlyapplied in both Chinese and American CSRRs,which contribute to the diversity andreadability of Chinese and American CSRRs,as well as help advance thepersuasiveness of the information in CSRRs.Similarities of the use of intertextualityin Chinese and American CSRRs can be discovered.Both Chinese and AmericanCSRRs are tended to apply varied intertextual strategies to construct corporateidentity.Taking a closer look at the preferences of using intertextuality,we can seethat both Chinese and American CSRRs writers prone to employ quotation in terms ofspecific intertextuality.When it comes to the application of generic intertextuality,itis found that both of them are more likely to use pictures rather than charts.What’smore,differences can be found in terms of the intertextuality types in Chinese andAmerican CSRRs.From the facets of the overall frequency,it is noticeable thatChinese CSRRs writers are tended to use more specific intertextuality in
