中英文为母语的作者在英文硕士论文文献述评中评价资源使用的比较研究
发布时间：2018-09-17 16:10
【摘要】：近年来随着英语社团的快速扩张,能否熟练驾驭学术英文写作已成为研究者们的主要挑战之一。在学术研究文章中,由于文献述评自有的批评性,适当的运用评价语言能帮助作者阐明之前研究中的不足并澄清其研究的必要性。本研究以J.R.Martin的评价理论为框架审查由以汉语为母语(NSC)和英语为母语(NSE)的作者在硕士论文文献述评中评价资源的使用情况,同时尝试回答以下两个研究问题:一,两者在其文献述评写作中的评价资源的分布有何相同点和不同点?二,造成这些相同点和不同点的可能原因是什么?该研究采用质化和量化结合的研究方法,具体通过自建语料库和个案分析实现研究目的,共有23篇英文硕士论文中的文献述评被选中并在UAM corpus tool的帮助下被标注。该研究有以下发现:首先,在整个评价系统下三个子系统的分布上,两个语料库是相同的:态度资源占据最高比重,其次是介入资源和级差资源。由于其文献述评的数量和写作角度不同,NSC作者在总体上比NSE作者使用更多的评价资源。第二,在态度系统下,除了NSC语料库中发现少量的判断,两组作者都主要使用鉴赏资源,但重点有所不同。NSC作者更注重之前研究对社会的贡献上,尤其是其实用性,而NSE作者更注意研究的结构以及和其他研究的关联上。第三,NSC作者在总体上比采用更少的介入资源,说明他们可能有较少的读者意识。而在介入资源里,两组作者都借助多言来传达其他研究者的声音,而NSC作者通过使用更多的距离给过去的研究者更多的权威。最后,两组作者的表达方式也有所不同,NSC作者在总体上表达评价时更加含蓄,尤其是在表达负面评价和不同意见时。同时和NSE作者相比,NSC作者只有较单一的表达方法。结果表明,在文献述评写作中,来自两个语言社区的作者都会使用评价资源来评估过去的研究,而由于英文写作知识、文化和词汇上的差异,NSC作者在文献述评写作上与NSE作者表现不同。由于对学术英文写作理解不足和不同的文化背景,NSC作者的评价重点不同,方式不够简洁明确。有限的词汇量和运用能力也限制了NSC作者表达评价意义的多样化。因此该研究意味着在学术英语写作教学中,教师们可以介绍相关学术英文写作知识,培养跨文化思考能力,以及扩大学生词汇量和使用能力。尽管还有些许不足,该研究展示了两组语言社区作者在文献述评写作中评价语言的使用情况,希望可以给中国学术英语写作的教与学提供一些参考。
[Abstract]:In recent years, with the rapid expansion of English societies, proficiency in academic English writing has become one of the main challenges for researchers. In academic research articles, due to the critical nature of literature review, the proper use of evaluation language can help the author clarify the shortcomings of previous studies and clarify the necessity of his research. Based on J.R.Martin 's evaluation theory, this study examines the use of resources in the literature review of master thesis by the authors of native Chinese (NSC) and native English (NSE), and attempts to answer the following two research questions: 1. What are the similarities and differences in the distribution of evaluation resources between the two countries in their literature review? Second, what are the possible causes of these similarities and differences? This study adopts a qualitative and quantitative approach to achieve the purpose of the study through a self-built corpus and case analysis. A total of 23 literature reviews in English master's papers were selected and annotated with the help of UAM corpus tool. The findings of this study are as follows: firstly, in the distribution of the three subsystems in the whole evaluation system, the two corpora are the same: the attitude resource occupies the highest proportion, the second is the intervention resource and the differential resource. As a result of the number of reviews and the different perspectives of writing, NSC authors generally use more evaluation resources than NSE authors. Second, in the attitude system, except for a few judgments found in the NSC corpus, both groups mainly use appreciation resources, but the emphasis is different. The authors pay more attention to the contribution of previous research to society, especially its practicability. The NSE authors pay more attention to the structure of the study and its association with other studies. Third, NSC authors generally use fewer intervention resources, indicating that they may have less reader awareness. In the intervention resources, both groups used multiple words to convey the voices of other researchers, while the NSC authors gave more authority to past researchers by using more distance. Finally, the two groups of authors have different expressions, especially when expressing negative evaluation and different opinions. At the same time, compared with the authors of NSE, there is only a single expression method. The results show that in literature review, authors from both language communities use evaluation resources to evaluate past studies, and because of the knowledge of English writing, The cultural and lexical differences between NSC authors and NSE writers in literature review. Due to the lack of understanding of academic English writing and different cultural backgrounds NSC writers have different evaluation emphases and methods are not clear enough. Limited vocabulary and ability to use also limit the diversity of the evaluation meaning expressed by NSC authors. Therefore, this research means that in the teaching of academic English writing, teachers can introduce relevant academic English writing knowledge, develop cross-cultural thinking ability, and expand students' vocabulary and use ability. Although there are some shortcomings, the study shows that two groups of language community authors evaluate the use of language in literature review writing, hoping to provide some reference for the teaching and learning of Chinese academic English writing.
【学位授予单位】：东北师范大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2016
【分类号】：H319.3
[Abstract]:In recent years, with the rapid expansion of English societies, proficiency in academic English writing has become one of the main challenges for researchers. In academic research articles, due to the critical nature of literature review, the proper use of evaluation language can help the author clarify the shortcomings of previous studies and clarify the necessity of his research. Based on J.R.Martin 's evaluation theory, this study examines the use of resources in the literature review of master thesis by the authors of native Chinese (NSC) and native English (NSE), and attempts to answer the following two research questions: 1. What are the similarities and differences in the distribution of evaluation resources between the two countries in their literature review? Second, what are the possible causes of these similarities and differences? This study adopts a qualitative and quantitative approach to achieve the purpose of the study through a self-built corpus and case analysis. A total of 23 literature reviews in English master's papers were selected and annotated with the help of UAM corpus tool. The findings of this study are as follows: firstly, in the distribution of the three subsystems in the whole evaluation system, the two corpora are the same: the attitude resource occupies the highest proportion, the second is the intervention resource and the differential resource. As a result of the number of reviews and the different perspectives of writing, NSC authors generally use more evaluation resources than NSE authors. Second, in the attitude system, except for a few judgments found in the NSC corpus, both groups mainly use appreciation resources, but the emphasis is different. The authors pay more attention to the contribution of previous research to society, especially its practicability. The NSE authors pay more attention to the structure of the study and its association with other studies. Third, NSC authors generally use fewer intervention resources, indicating that they may have less reader awareness. In the intervention resources, both groups used multiple words to convey the voices of other researchers, while the NSC authors gave more authority to past researchers by using more distance. Finally, the two groups of authors have different expressions, especially when expressing negative evaluation and different opinions. At the same time, compared with the authors of NSE, there is only a single expression method. The results show that in literature review, authors from both language communities use evaluation resources to evaluate past studies, and because of the knowledge of English writing, The cultural and lexical differences between NSC authors and NSE writers in literature review. Due to the lack of understanding of academic English writing and different cultural backgrounds NSC writers have different evaluation emphases and methods are not clear enough. Limited vocabulary and ability to use also limit the diversity of the evaluation meaning expressed by NSC authors. Therefore, this research means that in the teaching of academic English writing, teachers can introduce relevant academic English writing knowledge, develop cross-cultural thinking ability, and expand students' vocabulary and use ability. Although there are some shortcomings, the study shows that two groups of language community authors evaluate the use of language in literature review writing, hoping to provide some reference for the teaching and learning of Chinese academic English writing.
【学位授予单位】：东北师范大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2016
【分类号】：H319.3
【相似文献】
相关期刊论文 前4条
1 朱鹤;吴丹;陈露瑶;林妍;;主观幸福感的经济学研究综述[J];产业与科技论坛;2013年03期
2 谭红丽;;民间木版纸马艺术研究文献述评[J];美术学报;2014年04期
3 贾学锋;;异域与本土——国内外有关裕固族萨满教的几篇典型文献述评[J];河西学院学报;2012年06期
4 ;[J];;年期
相关会议论文 前2条
1 叶宝忠;;文献述评写作之我见[A];学术交流质量与科技研发创新——中国科协第三届学术交流理论研讨会论文集（下）[C];2008年
2 叶初升;;经济发展中的协调失灵及其矫正:文献述评[A];用科学发展观统领中国经济发展——全国高校社会主义经济理论与实践研讨会第十九次大会论文集[C];2005年
相关硕士学位论文 前1条
1 徐爱U，
本文编号：2246443
本文链接：https://www.wllwen.com/wenshubaike/kjzx/2246443.html
