中英文為母語(yǔ)的作者在英文碩士論文文獻(xiàn)述評(píng)中評(píng)價(jià)資源使用的比較研究
發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-09-17 16:10
【摘要】：近年來(lái)隨著英語(yǔ)社團(tuán)的快速擴(kuò)張,能否熟練駕馭學(xué)術(shù)英文寫(xiě)作已成為研究者們的主要挑戰(zhàn)之一。在學(xué)術(shù)研究文章中,由于文獻(xiàn)述評(píng)自有的批評(píng)性,適當(dāng)?shù)倪\(yùn)用評(píng)價(jià)語(yǔ)言能幫助作者闡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的評(píng)價(jià)理論為框架審查由以漢語(yǔ)為母語(yǔ)(NSC)和英語(yǔ)為母語(yǔ)(NSE)的作者在碩士論文文獻(xiàn)述評(píng)中評(píng)價(jià)資源的使用情況,同時(shí)嘗試回答以下兩個(gè)研究問(wèn)題:一,兩者在其文獻(xiàn)述評(píng)寫(xiě)作中的評(píng)價(jià)資源的分布有何相同點(diǎn)和不同點(diǎn)?二,造成這些相同點(diǎn)和不同點(diǎn)的可能原因是什么?該研究采用質(zhì)化和量化結(jié)合的研究方法,具體通過(guò)自建語(yǔ)料庫(kù)和個(gè)案分析實(shí)現(xiàn)研究目的,共有23篇英文碩士論文中的文獻(xiàn)述評(píng)被選中并在UAM corpus tool的幫助下被標(biāo)注。該研究有以下發(fā)現(xiàn):首先,在整個(gè)評(píng)價(jià)系統(tǒng)下三個(gè)子系統(tǒng)的分布上,兩個(gè)語(yǔ)料庫(kù)是相同的:態(tài)度資源占據(jù)最高比重,其次是介入資源和級(jí)差資源。由于其文獻(xiàn)述評(píng)的數(shù)量和寫(xiě)作角度不同,NSC作者在總體上比NSE作者使用更多的評(píng)價(jià)資源。第二,在態(tài)度系統(tǒng)下,除了NSC語(yǔ)料庫(kù)中發(fā)現(xiàn)少量的判斷,兩組作者都主要使用鑒賞資源,但重點(diǎn)有所不同。NSC作者更注重之前研究對(duì)社會(huì)的貢獻(xiàn)上,尤其是其實(shí)用性,而NSE作者更注意研究的結(jié)構(gòu)以及和其他研究的關(guān)聯(lián)上。第三,NSC作者在總體上比采用更少的介入資源,說(shuō)明他們可能有較少的讀者意識(shí)。而在介入資源里,兩組作者都借助多言來(lái)傳達(dá)其他研究者的聲音,而NSC作者通過(guò)使用更多的距離給過(guò)去的研究者更多的權(quán)威。最后,兩組作者的表達(dá)方式也有所不同,NSC作者在總體上表達(dá)評(píng)價(jià)時(shí)更加含蓄,尤其是在表達(dá)負(fù)面評(píng)價(jià)和不同意見(jiàn)時(shí)。同時(shí)和NSE作者相比,NSC作者只有較單一的表達(dá)方法。結(jié)果表明,在文獻(xiàn)述評(píng)寫(xiě)作中,來(lái)自兩個(gè)語(yǔ)言社區(qū)的作者都會(huì)使用評(píng)價(jià)資源來(lái)評(píng)估過(guò)去的研究,而由于英文寫(xiě)作知識(shí)、文化和詞匯上的差異,NSC作者在文獻(xiàn)述評(píng)寫(xiě)作上與NSE作者表現(xiàn)不同。由于對(duì)學(xué)術(shù)英文寫(xiě)作理解不足和不同的文化背景,NSC作者的評(píng)價(jià)重點(diǎn)不同,方式不夠簡(jiǎn)潔明確。有限的詞匯量和運(yùn)用能力也限制了NSC作者表達(dá)評(píng)價(jià)意義的多樣化。因此該研究意味著在學(xué)術(shù)英語(yǔ)寫(xiě)作教學(xué)中,教師們可以介紹相關(guān)學(xué)術(shù)英文寫(xiě)作知識(shí),培養(yǎng)跨文化思考能力,以及擴(kuò)大學(xué)生詞匯量和使用能力。盡管還有些許不足,該研究展示了兩組語(yǔ)言社區(qū)作者在文獻(xiàn)述評(píng)寫(xiě)作中評(píng)價(jià)語(yǔ)言的使用情況,希望可以給中國(guó)學(xué)術(shù)英語(yǔ)寫(xiě)作的教與學(xué)提供一些參考。
[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.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：東北師范大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2016
【分類號(hào)】：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.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：東北師范大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2016
【分類號(hào)】：H319.3
【相似文獻(xiàn)】
相關(guān)期刊論文 前4條
1 朱鶴;吳丹;陳露瑤;林妍;;主觀幸福感的經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)研究綜述[J];產(chǎn)業(yè)與科技論壇;2013年03期
2 譚紅麗;;民間木版紙馬藝術(shù)研究文獻(xiàn)述評(píng)[J];美術(shù)學(xué)報(bào);2014年04期
3 賈學(xué)鋒;;異域與本土——國(guó)內(nèi)外有關(guān)裕固族薩滿教的幾篇典型文獻(xiàn)述評(píng)[J];河西學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2012年06期
4 ;[J];;年期
相關(guān)會(huì)議論文 前2條
1 葉寶忠;;文獻(xiàn)述評(píng)寫(xiě)作之我見(jiàn)[A];學(xué)術(shù)交流質(zhì)量與科技研發(fā)創(chuàng)新——中國(guó)科協(xié)第三屆學(xué)術(shù)交流理論研討會(huì)論文集（下）[C];2008年
2 葉初升;;經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展中的協(xié)調(diào)失靈及其矯正:文獻(xiàn)述評(píng)[A];用科學(xué)發(fā)展觀統(tǒng)領(lǐng)中國(guó)經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展——全國(guó)高校社會(huì)主義經(jīng)濟(jì)理論與實(shí)踐研討會(huì)第十九次大會(huì)論文集[C];2005年
相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前1條
1 徐愛(ài)U，
本文編號(hào)：2246443
本文鏈接：http://sikaile.net/wenshubaike/kjzx/2246443.html
最近更新
教材專著
