中外英文摘要中的语步及词块特征对比分析
发布时间：2018-08-29 15:06
【摘要】：已被广泛认为是学术语篇中必不可少的一部分,因为它是学术语篇文章内容和结构的重要窗口。目前,虽然有许多关于期刊论文及学生写作中的语篇结构及语言特征的研究,但是在这些研究学生写作的研究中,对硕士论文摘要写作的关注却极少。词块在学术语言中普遍使用并且是流利的语言产出的重要成分,研究词块使用与语步的关系,有助于更好地理解硕士论文摘要的结构和功能。本研究延续以往的研究,着重分析了硕士论文摘要中的语步结构及各个语步中词块使用的特点。本研究有三个研究问题:1.两组摘要的语步结构上的特征如何?有何异同?2.各个语步上的目标词块的结构特征如何?两组摘要有何异同?3.各个语步上的目标词块的功能特征如何?两组摘要有何异同?本研究的两组语料均由60篇2010至2015年的硕士论文英文摘要组成,其中中国作者的摘要来自中国知网,英语母语作者摘要来自Proquest数据库。我们比较分析了应用语言学专业两组语料的语步结构及各个语步中四字词块的结构和功能。我们首先基于Santos’(1996)的五语步模型分析了摘要的语步结构,然后利用antconc 3.4.4提取目标词块,并基于Biber et al.’s(1999)的词块结构分类及Hyland’s(2008b)的词块功能分类先后分析各个语步中词块使用的结构特点和功能特点。本研究主要发现有:第一,语步结构分析表明两组摘要的语步结构呈现出较大差异。98%中国作者写的摘要中有语步一,而本族语作者的摘要中只有67%有语步一。这表明中国作者倾向于给读者提供丰富的相关背景知识,而本族语作者习惯于直奔主题。另外,中国作者和本族语作者都较少使用语步五,这表明两组作者都缺乏为研究结果提供解释的意识或能力。第二,目标词块的结构分析表明两组作者都较多使用介词词块和名词词块,但在写作过程中有不同的侧重。同时,都很少使用动词词块。第三,相关的功能发现表明两组作者都较多使用研究导向型词块和文本导向型词块,然而很少使用参与者导向型词块。本研究有助于老师了解学生摘要写作中语步结构和词块使用的总体情况,从而引导学生增强规范摘要的写作意识并渗透到实际教学中,促使学生写出结构完整、内容恰当的学术摘要。也就是说,教师在教授学术写作方面的课程时,不仅仅要关注学生的语言表达的连贯性和流利度,还要普及写作各个部分(如:摘要,引言等)的体裁知识,让学生在写作中能言之有物、言之有纲。
[Abstract]:It has been widely regarded as an essential part of academic discourse because it is an important window to the content and structure of academic discourse. At present, although there are many researches on the discourse structure and language characteristics of journal papers and students' writing, there is little attention paid to the summary writing of master's thesis in these studies. Lexical chunks are widely used in academic languages and are an important component of fluent language production. The study of the relationship between lexical chunks use and the use of lexical chunks is helpful to better understand the structure and functions of the abstracts of Master's thesis. The present study continues previous studies and focuses on the analysis of the structure of step and the characteristics of lexical chunks in each step in the abstracts of Master's thesis. This study has three research questions: 1. What are the features of the two sets of abstracts? What are the similarities and differences? What are the structural characteristics of the target lexical chunks in each step? What are the similarities and differences between the two groups of abstracts? What are the functional features of the target lexical chunks in each step? What are the similarities and differences between the two sets of abstracts? The two groups of data are composed of 60 English abstracts from 2010 to 2015. The Chinese authors' abstracts are from China.net and the native English authors' abstracts are from the Proquest database. We compare and analyze the structure and function of the two groups of corpus of applied linguistics and the structure and function of four word chunks in each step. In this paper, we first analyze the step structure of the abstract based on Santos' 's (1996) five-step model, and then extract the target lexical chunks using antconc 3.4.4. Based on Biber et al.'s (1999) and Hyland's (2008 b), the structure and function of lexical chunks are analyzed. The main findings of this study are as follows: first, the analysis of step structure shows that there is a significant difference between the two groups of abstracts. 98% of the abstracts written by Chinese authors have a step 1, while only 67% of native abstracts have a step 1. This indicates that Chinese authors tend to provide readers with rich background knowledge, while native language writers tend to go straight to the topic. In addition, both Chinese authors and native language authors seldom use step 5, which indicates that both groups lack the consciousness or ability to explain the results of the study. Secondly, the structural analysis of the target lexical chunks shows that both groups use prepositional chunks and noun chunks, but they have different emphases in the process of writing. At the same time, verb chunks are rarely used. Thirdly, the related functional findings show that both groups use research-oriented lexical chunks and text-oriented lexical chunks, but rarely use participation-oriented lexical chunks. This study is helpful for teachers to understand the general situation of the use of step structure and lexical chunks in students' abstract writing, so as to guide students to enhance their writing consciousness of normative abstracts and infiltrate them into practical teaching, so as to promote students to write structural integrity. An appropriate academic abstract. In other words, when teaching academic writing courses, teachers should not only pay attention to the consistency and fluency of the students' language expression, but also popularize the genres of various parts of the writing (such as abstracts, prefaces, etc.). Let students in writing can speak of things, words have the outline.
【学位授予单位】：江西师范大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：H315;H15
本文编号：2211574
[Abstract]:It has been widely regarded as an essential part of academic discourse because it is an important window to the content and structure of academic discourse. At present, although there are many researches on the discourse structure and language characteristics of journal papers and students' writing, there is little attention paid to the summary writing of master's thesis in these studies. Lexical chunks are widely used in academic languages and are an important component of fluent language production. The study of the relationship between lexical chunks use and the use of lexical chunks is helpful to better understand the structure and functions of the abstracts of Master's thesis. The present study continues previous studies and focuses on the analysis of the structure of step and the characteristics of lexical chunks in each step in the abstracts of Master's thesis. This study has three research questions: 1. What are the features of the two sets of abstracts? What are the similarities and differences? What are the structural characteristics of the target lexical chunks in each step? What are the similarities and differences between the two groups of abstracts? What are the functional features of the target lexical chunks in each step? What are the similarities and differences between the two sets of abstracts? The two groups of data are composed of 60 English abstracts from 2010 to 2015. The Chinese authors' abstracts are from China.net and the native English authors' abstracts are from the Proquest database. We compare and analyze the structure and function of the two groups of corpus of applied linguistics and the structure and function of four word chunks in each step. In this paper, we first analyze the step structure of the abstract based on Santos' 's (1996) five-step model, and then extract the target lexical chunks using antconc 3.4.4. Based on Biber et al.'s (1999) and Hyland's (2008 b), the structure and function of lexical chunks are analyzed. The main findings of this study are as follows: first, the analysis of step structure shows that there is a significant difference between the two groups of abstracts. 98% of the abstracts written by Chinese authors have a step 1, while only 67% of native abstracts have a step 1. This indicates that Chinese authors tend to provide readers with rich background knowledge, while native language writers tend to go straight to the topic. In addition, both Chinese authors and native language authors seldom use step 5, which indicates that both groups lack the consciousness or ability to explain the results of the study. Secondly, the structural analysis of the target lexical chunks shows that both groups use prepositional chunks and noun chunks, but they have different emphases in the process of writing. At the same time, verb chunks are rarely used. Thirdly, the related functional findings show that both groups use research-oriented lexical chunks and text-oriented lexical chunks, but rarely use participation-oriented lexical chunks. This study is helpful for teachers to understand the general situation of the use of step structure and lexical chunks in students' abstract writing, so as to guide students to enhance their writing consciousness of normative abstracts and infiltrate them into practical teaching, so as to promote students to write structural integrity. An appropriate academic abstract. In other words, when teaching academic writing courses, teachers should not only pay attention to the consistency and fluency of the students' language expression, but also popularize the genres of various parts of the writing (such as abstracts, prefaces, etc.). Let students in writing can speak of things, words have the outline.
【学位授予单位】：江西师范大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：H315;H15
【参考文献】
相关期刊论文 前10条
1 李梦骁;刘永兵;;基于语料库的中外学者学术语篇词块使用对比研究[J];现代外语;2016年04期
2 杨红燕;石琳霏;;学位论文语篇的语言学研究[J];外语教学;2016年01期
3 胡新;;中外科技论文英文摘要的语步词块特征对比研究[J];现代外语;2015年06期
4 鲁莉;王敏;;英语学术论文中词块使用的学科间差异研究[J];西安外国语大学学报;2015年03期
5 牛桂玲;;中外学术期刊论文中英文摘要平行语料库的创建[J];西安外国语大学学报;2014年03期
6 王丽;李清婷;;二语学习者学位论文引言中词块的结构、功能以及语步特征[J];解放军外国语学院学报;2014年04期
7 李萍;Josta van Rij-Heyligers;;基于语料库的学术论文摘要体裁对比分析[J];西安外国语大学学报;2011年01期
8 庞萍;;中国英语专业大学生英语议论文写作中四词词块的使用研究——基于WECCL和LOCNESS语料库的对比研究(英文)[J];Teaching English in China;2009年03期
9 王春艳;;免费绿色软件AntConc在外语教学和研究中的应用[J];外语电化教学;2009年01期
10 鞠玉梅;体裁分析与英汉学术论文摘要语篇[J];外语教学;2004年02期
，本文编号：2211574
本文链接：https://www.wllwen.com/waiyulunwen/yingyulunwen/2211574.html
