論文題目：Applied Research of College English Writing Based on Contrast between English and Chinese Discourse Cohesive Devices
論文語(yǔ)種：英文
寫(xiě)作報(bào)酬：11000
您的研究方向：英語(yǔ)
是否有數(shù)據(jù)處理要求：是
您的學(xué)校背景：上海地方高校，所學(xué)專(zhuān)業(yè)為外國(guó)語(yǔ)言學(xué)及應(yīng)用語(yǔ)言學(xué)
要求字?jǐn)?shù)：25000英文單詞
論文用途：碩士畢業(yè)論文
是否需要盲審（博士或碩士生有這個(gè)需要）：否
補(bǔ)充要求和說(shuō)明：1.論文中需要用到實(shí)驗(yàn)和數(shù)據(jù)； 2.我有開(kāi)題報(bào)告，可否給我修改下； 3.論文參考文獻(xiàn)格式就按照上海這邊英語(yǔ)專(zhuān)業(yè)碩士論文的要求； 4.參考文獻(xiàn)數(shù)量在40本左右； 5.碩士論文，非在職，是學(xué)術(shù)類(lèi)，外國(guó)語(yǔ)言學(xué)及應(yīng)用語(yǔ)言學(xué)專(zhuān)業(yè)； 6.引用率不超過(guò)20%。
 

ABSTRACT

From the writing score analysis of Chinese CET-4 and CET-6 in recent years, it can be concluded that college students’ English writing competence exists obvious deficiency and needs to be improved. The first part in Chinese CET-4 and CET-6 is writing, and writing is always students’ weak spot with not ideal score. Li Hanqiang ever made statics in 2005. Taking CET-4 and CET-6 in 2002 as an example, according to the statics of CET-4 and CET-6 examining committee, the average score of CET-4 writing in Chinese key universities was 7.28 points, and was only 49 points in hundred-mark system; however, the non-key universities was 6.37 points, and was 42 points in hundred-mark system. According to related survey, in the four tests of listening, speaking, reading and writing, the greater pressure of students comes from the writing test part. Judging from this, it can be concluded that among all the English standardized tests, English writing is a hot potato confronted by students all the time.  
 From perspective of Chinese domestic research to contrast between English and Chinese, the research direction is quite clear. Conducting English teaching and research is based on English and compares English with Chinese. The target of contrastive analysis is to contrast the differences and similarities of pronunciation, vocabulary and grammar between learners’ mother tongue and target language, and analyze the source. In teaching process, teacher should contrast the differences of cohesive devices, writing style and text structure between English and Chinese, increase the discussion and analysis to the differences of cohesive devices, promote students to get rid of the influence of Chinese thinking mode, and write out more acceptable English writings. Through emphasizing discourse cohesion knowledge, it can help students master writing conception framework and improve structure planning ability.  
The practical value of this topic lies in cultivating students’ English and Chinese comparative consciousness in writing process, further cultivating the comparative consciousness of any output process, and finally improving students’ English writing level, through the objective carrier of college English writing teaching and practical application of research achievements in contrast between English and Chinese. 

 

摘   要

從近幾年大學(xué)英語(yǔ)四、六級(jí)寫(xiě)作成績(jī)分析來(lái)看，學(xué)生的英文寫(xiě)作能力存在明顯缺陷，亟需提高。大學(xué)英語(yǔ)四、六級(jí)考試的第一部分就是寫(xiě)作，這不僅是學(xué)生的弱項(xiàng)，而且得分也不近理想。李漢強(qiáng)于2005年對(duì)2002年的大學(xué)英語(yǔ)四、六級(jí)考試的寫(xiě)作成績(jī)做過(guò)統(tǒng)計(jì)分析，，全國(guó)重點(diǎn)大學(xué)的四級(jí)寫(xiě)作的平均成績(jī)?yōu)?.28分（換算成百分制為49分），然而非重點(diǎn)院校的四級(jí)寫(xiě)作的平均成績(jī)僅為6.37分（換算成百分制為42分）。根據(jù)相關(guān)調(diào)查，在聽(tīng)、說(shuō)、讀、寫(xiě)四個(gè)部分，學(xué)生最大的壓力來(lái)源于寫(xiě)作部分。從這點(diǎn)看來(lái)，在所有的英語(yǔ)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)化考試中，寫(xiě)作確實(shí)是學(xué)生面對(duì)的一大難題。

筆者嘗試將英漢對(duì)比的相關(guān)理論運(yùn)用于大學(xué)英語(yǔ)寫(xiě)作教學(xué)當(dāng)中，以期尋求一種更加有效的大學(xué)英語(yǔ)寫(xiě)作教學(xué)的方法。然而，英漢對(duì)比的相關(guān)理論繁多復(fù)雜，為應(yīng)用研究選取合適的理論視角特別重要。在綜合分析研究學(xué)生寫(xiě)作水平之后，筆者決定選取英漢語(yǔ)篇銜接手段對(duì)比這一切入點(diǎn)來(lái)進(jìn)行分析。對(duì)比分析的目標(biāo)在于對(duì)比和比較兩種語(yǔ)言在語(yǔ)音、詞匯和語(yǔ)法等方面的相似點(diǎn)和不同點(diǎn)并分析其原因。因此，教師在教學(xué)中應(yīng)該主動(dòng)向?qū)W生介紹英漢兩種語(yǔ)言在銜接手段、寫(xiě)作風(fēng)格和文章結(jié)構(gòu)等方面的異同，增加學(xué)生對(duì)英漢銜接手段對(duì)比的討論和分析，從而促進(jìn)學(xué)生擺脫中式思維的寫(xiě)作模式，寫(xiě)出更加地道的英文作文。
本論文的實(shí)際價(jià)值在于培養(yǎng)學(xué)生在寫(xiě)作過(guò)程中的英漢語(yǔ)篇銜接手段的對(duì)比意識(shí)，從而提高任何輸出型表達(dá)的對(duì)比意識(shí)，最終提高學(xué)生的英文寫(xiě)作能力。

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT i
TABLE OF CONTENTS iv
CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Research Background 1
1.2 Research Aims 3
1.3 Research Methods 4
1.4 Outline 4
CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW 6
2.1 Previous Studies on Discourse Cohesion 6
2.1.1 The Definition of Discourse 6
2.1.2 The Definition of Discourse Cohesion 6
2.1.3 Introduction of Cohesion 7
2.1.4 The Studies on Cohesion Abroad 10
2.1.5 The Studies on Cohesion at Home 12
2.1.6 Applied Research in China 14
2.2 Previous studies on College English writing 16
.....................
2.2.4 The Studies on EFL Writing Teaching At Home 25
2.3 Problems in College English Writing 27
2.3.1 Problems 28
2.3.2 Teaching Difficulties 30
CHAPTER 3 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 32
3.1 Discourse Cohesion 32
3.2 College English writing in the framework of Discourse cohesion 36
3.2.1 Current Situation 36
3.2.2 Suggestions to College English Teaching 38
CHAPTER FOUR EXPERIMENT AND DATA ANALYSIS 40
4.1 Questionnaire designing 40
4.1.1 The Objectives 40
4.1.2 The Subjects 40
4.1.3 The Methods 41
4.2 Experiment 43
4.2.1 The Preparatory Phase 43
..................................
4.5 Analysis in the Framework of Discourse Cohesion 56
4.5.1 Analysis of the Research 56
4.5.2 Reflection of the Research 60
4.5.4 Suggestions for College English Writing 64
CHAPTER FIVE CONCLUSION 70
5.1 Major Findings 70
5.1.1 Current Research Condition 70
5.1.2 Value of the Research 71
5.1.3 Discourse Cohesion 71
5.1.4 Second Language Writing Teaching 73
5.1.5 Contrastive Analysis 74
5.1.6 College English Writing Teaching 76
5.1.7 Research Method 77
5.1.8 Limitations 78
5.1.9 Recommendations 78
5.2 Recommendations for Future Research 81
REFERENCES 83
中文參考文獻(xiàn) 84
APPENDIX 1 87
APPENDIX 2 90

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION 

1.1 Research Background

Along with Chinese entering into WTO and constant changes of international market economy, global exchanges day by day. China has frequently communicate with the outside world; as a result, more institutions and companies put forward higher demands for undergraduates’ English ability of listening, speaking, reading and writing. Among all these abilities, English writing is an important skill. In many fields like science and technology, economy, culture and physical education, people usually use different literary forms (including dissertation, report and letter) to communicate with the outside world. Therefore, University English Syllabus has clear requirements for writing; in order to adapt to this demand, various English examinations list writing as significant content in examination, and CET-4 and CET-6 even set the minimum score for writing (Li Hanqiang, 2003). All of these phenomena require students pay more attention to writing. However, no matter in class, practice after class or all kinds of examinations, students’ general performance in English writing is poor, such as grammatical mistake, expression does not convey the idea, sentence structure is in disorder, genre and form are not clear, viewpoint is ambiguous, and content is inane (Lian Shuneng, 2010). Writing is always an intractable link in college English teaching. On the one hand, many teachers think it is difficult to teach writing, and their great efforts have little effect; on the other hand, students response that writing is difficult, and though after repeated practice, it is not easy to improve the writing competence. 
From the writing score analysis of Chinese CET-4 and CET-6 in recent years, it can be concluded that college students’ English writing competence has deficiency which needs to be improved. The first part in Chinese CET-4 and CET-6 is writing, and writing is always students’ weak spot with not ideal score. Li Hanqiang ever made statics in 2003. Taking CET-4 and CET-6 in 2002 as an example, according to the statics of CET-4 and CET-6 examining committee, the average score of CET-4 writing in Chinese key universities was 7.28 points, and was only 49 points in hundred-mark system; however, the non-key universities was 6.37 points, and was 42 points in hundred-mark system. The average score of CET-4 writing was 7.32 points and 7.18 points (Li Hanqiang, 2003). According to related survey, in the four tests of listening, speaking, reading and writing, the greater pressure of students comes from the writing test part. Judging from this, it can be concluded that among all the English standardized tests, English writing is a hot potato confronted by students all the time. 
From the analysis to writing score in CET-4 and CET-6 in recent years, it can be learned that students’ English writing level has obvious deficiency. English and Chinese belong to different language families with distinctive differences. The author feels that writing does is students’ stumbling block in colleague English writing. There are many students unwilling to write, not good at writing or making short shrift of writing practice. Some surveys find that 75% students think reading is the part they can get the fastest progress; secondly, it is listening; and students regard writing and speaking ability improving has slow rapid (Zou Xiaoling, 2000：26). Cai Jigang also points out that Chinese students’ writing ability lags far behind of their grammar, vocabulary, and reading capacity (Cai Jigang, 2002:51). This also appears in the author’s writing teaching. Most students’ oral expression ability is not equal to their writing (these two parts are members of output of the language).   

 

REFERENCES

Beaugrande, R. De & Dressler,W.U. (1981). Introduction to Text Linguistics. London：Longman
Brown,G. & Yule,G. (1983). Discourse Analysis. London：Longman
Brown, Douglas. Principles of Language Learning and Teaching[M]. New Jersey: Prentice hall Regents,1994.
Fisiak, J.(ed). (1981). Contranstive Linguistics and the Language Teacher. Oxford: Pergamon Press
Fries,C.C. (1947). Teaching and Learning English as a Foreign Language. University of Michigan Press
Halliday, M.A.K. & Hasan, R. (2001). Cohesion in English. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press
Halliday, M.A.K. (2008). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press
James,C. (1980). Contrastive Analysis. Singapore: Longman
Krashen,S.(1984).Writing: Research, Theory and Applications. Oxford: Pergoman Institute of English
Lado,R. (1957). Linguistics Across Cultures. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press
Weigle,S,C. (2002). Assessing Writing. Cambridge University Press
Zamel, V. (1982). Writing: The process of discovering meaning. TESOL Quarterly, 16： 195-209

 

本文編號(hào)：19268