中英学生硕士论文英文摘要中的照应衔接手段比较研究

发布时间：2018-09-07 12:57

【摘要】：自1976年韩礼德和哈桑发表《英语的衔接》一书以来,衔接手段对于实现语篇连贯的重要性便受到了广泛的关注和研究,照应作为一项重要的衔接手段也受到长期的重视。然而,纵观以往的相关研究,很少有研究从二语教学和习得的角度比较英语本族语者和非本族语者对于照应衔接手段的使用,且将英语本族语者和非本族语者硕士论文英文摘要作为语料比较照应衔接手段使用的研究更加少见,这些都表明了本论文的必要性。本文以中英学生硕士论文中的英文摘要为语料,中国学生所写的100篇英文摘要来自CNKI,英国学生所写的100篇英文摘要来自PQDT。本文采取定性与定量相结合的办法,旨在回答三个研究问题:(1)中英学生在硕士论文英文摘要的写作中对于照应衔接手段的使用存在哪些相似点和不同点?(2)中国学生在英文摘要的写作中存在哪些照应衔接手段的误用?(3)产生这些相似点和不同点以及误用情况的可能因素有哪些?本论文的研究发现如下:(1)在对三种照应衔接手段的使用上均发现了相同点和不同点。两组学生使用这些衔接手段的总体趋势相近,中国学生使用人称照应、指示照应、比较照应的频率为(12.2%,80.7%,6.9%),英国学生使用这些衔接手段的频率为(16%,75.6%,8%),两组学生均使用指示照应最频繁,比较照应最不频繁。在对人称照应的使用上,两组学生对第二人称照应(0%,0.7%),某些第三人称照应(39.78%,40.4%)以及“one”/“one’s”(12.1%,10.9%)的使用相类似,而对单数第一人称照应(0.29%,23.3%)和“it”/“its”(41.5%,17.2%)的使用则区别很大。在对指示照应的使用上,他们对“this”,“those”,“now”和“here”,“there”和“then”(8.22%,10.94%)的使用存在相似点,但对于“these”(1.14%,4.3%),“that”(6.46%,13.8%)和“the”(84.18%,70.94%)的使用则有所不同。在对比较照应的使用上,两组学生均未使用如“identical”,“identically”,“equal”,“equally”,“else”,“likewise”,“additional”等比较照应,对于“other”(9.09%,12.02%),“otherwise”(0%,0.48%)和比较级(36.36%,38.94%)的使用颇为相似。然而,英国学生对于其它比较照应如“same”,“similar”和“similarly”,“different”和“differently”的使用均比中国学生频繁地多。(2)中国学生对人称照应、指示照应、比较照应的误用率分别为35.16%,19.62%和8.08%,最常被误用的是人称照应,最少被误用的是比较照应。在人称照应上,中国学生误用第三人称照应(41%),第一人称照应(20%),“one”/“one’s”(2%)。在指示照应上,中国学生误用“the”(20.51%),“this”/“these”(20%),“that”/“those”(12.26%)。在比较照应上,中国学生误用比较级(13.89%),“so”(12.12%),“other”(11.11%)。(3)两组学生在照应衔接手段的使用上存在一些相似点,如鲜少使用第二人称照应,大量使用第三人称照应以及对于“the”的频繁使用,引起这些相似点的因素也许可以归结为对于英语学术文章写作的相似要求;而两组学生不同的文化背景或许可以视作其对于第一人称照应尤其是第一人称单数照应使用上存在不同的一个原因,不同的语言环境和语言能力也许是作为英语本族语者的英国学生对比较照应的使用比中国学生更具多样性的可能因素;至于中国学生对于照应衔接手段的误用,语内迁移和语际迁移或可视作主要的影响因素。通过分析中英学生对照应衔接手段的使用存在的相似点和不同点以及中国学生对其的误用情况,本论文指出了这些相似点、不同点以及两组学生在照应衔接手段使用上的差距,希望本论文的研究成果可以为二语教学和习得提供一些启示。尽管有了这些发现,本研究仍存在一些不可避免的局限性,包括语料的范畴,收集语料的过程,以及分析可能因素的过程,这些都将在未来的研究中一一克服。
[Abstract]:Since Halliday and Hasan published the book Cohesion in English in 1976, the importance of cohesive devices in achieving discourse coherence has attracted much attention and research. As an important cohesive device, cohesive devices have also received much attention for a long time. Compared with native English speakers and non-native English speakers, there are less studies on the use of cohesive devices and the use of English abstracts as corpus-based cohesive devices. All these indicate the necessity of this thesis. The 100 English abstracts written by Chinese students are from CNKI and the 100 English abstracts written by British students are from PQDT. This paper adopts a qualitative and quantitative approach to answer three research questions: (1) What similarities and differences exist between Chinese and English students in the use of cohesive devices in the writing of English abstracts of master's theses? Similarities? (2) What are the misuses of cohesive devices in Chinese students'writing of English abstracts? (3) What are the possible factors that lead to these similarities and differences and misuses? (1) Similarities and differences have been found in the use of the three cohesive devices. The general trend of these cohesive devices is similar. Chinese students use personal reference, directive reference, and the frequency of comparative reference is (12.2%, 80.7%, 6.9%). British students use these cohesive devices (16%, 75.6%, 8%). Both groups of students use directive reference the most frequently, and the frequency of comparative reference is the least. The use of second person reference (0%, 0.7%), some third person reference (39.78%, 40.4%) and "one" / "one's" (12.1%, 10.9%) were similar, while the use of singular first person reference (0.29%, 23.3%) and "it" / "it s" (41.5%, 17.2%) were quite different. There were similarities in the use of ow, here, there and then (8.22%, 10.94%) but there were differences in the use of these (1.14%, 4.3%), "that" (6.46%, 13.8%) and "the" (84.18%, 70.94%). However, the use of "other" (9.09%, 12.02%), "otherwise" (0%, 0.48%) and "comparative" (36.36%, 38.94%) is similar to that of "other" (9.09%, 12.02%). (2) Chinese students misused the third person reference (41%) and the first person reference (20%). "/"one's"(2%). Chinese students misused"the"(20.51%),"this"/"these"(20%),"that"/"those"(12.26%). In comparative care, Chinese students misused comparative grades (13.89%),"so"(12.12%) and"other"(11.11%). If the use of the second person reference is rare, the use of the third person reference and the frequent use of the "the" may be attributed to similar requirements for English academic writing, and the different cultural backgrounds of the two groups of students may be regarded as their first person reference, especially the first person reference. One reason for the difference in the use of singular anaphora is that different linguistic environments and abilities may be a possible factor for English learners as native speakers to use comparative anaphora more diversified than Chinese learners; as for the misuse of anaphoric cohesive devices by Chinese learners, intralingual and interlingual transfer may be regarded as By analyzing the similarities and differences between Chinese and English students in the use of cohesive devices and the misuse of cohesive devices by Chinese students, this paper points out these similarities, differences and the gap between the two groups of students in the use of cohesive devices. It is hoped that the research findings of this paper can be used in second language teaching. Despite these findings, there are still some unavoidable limitations in this study, including the scope of the corpus, the process of collecting the corpus, and the process of analyzing possible factors, which will be overcome one by one in future studies.
【学位授予单位】：东北师范大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：H315

【参考文献】