【摘要】：已被廣泛認為是學術語篇中必不可少的一部分,因為它是學術語篇文章內(nèi)容和結構的重要窗口。目前,雖然有許多關于期刊論文及學生寫作中的語篇結構及語言特征的研究,但是在這些研究學生寫作的研究中,對碩士論文摘要寫作的關注卻極少。詞塊在學術語言中普遍使用并且是流利的語言產(chǎn)出的重要成分,研究詞塊使用與語步的關系,有助于更好地理解碩士論文摘要的結構和功能。本研究延續(xù)以往的研究,著重分析了碩士論文摘要中的語步結構及各個語步中詞塊使用的特點。本研究有三個研究問題:1.兩組摘要的語步結構上的特征如何?有何異同?2.各個語步上的目標詞塊的結構特征如何?兩組摘要有何異同?3.各個語步上的目標詞塊的功能特征如何?兩組摘要有何異同?本研究的兩組語料均由60篇2010至2015年的碩士論文英文摘要組成,其中中國作者的摘要來自中國知網(wǎng),英語母語作者摘要來自Proquest數(shù)據(jù)庫。我們比較分析了應用語言學專業(yè)兩組語料的語步結構及各個語步中四字詞塊的結構和功能。我們首先基于Santos’(1996)的五語步模型分析了摘要的語步結構,然后利用antconc 3.4.4提取目標詞塊,并基于Biber et al.’s(1999)的詞塊結構分類及Hyland’s(2008b)的詞塊功能分類先后分析各個語步中詞塊使用的結構特點和功能特點。本研究主要發(fā)現(xiàn)有:第一,語步結構分析表明兩組摘要的語步結構呈現(xiàn)出較大差異。98%中國作者寫的摘要中有語步一,而本族語作者的摘要中只有67%有語步一。這表明中國作者傾向于給讀者提供豐富的相關背景知識,而本族語作者習慣于直奔主題。另外,中國作者和本族語作者都較少使用語步五,這表明兩組作者都缺乏為研究結果提供解釋的意識或能力。第二,目標詞塊的結構分析表明兩組作者都較多使用介詞詞塊和名詞詞塊,但在寫作過程中有不同的側重。同時,都很少使用動詞詞塊。第三,相關的功能發(fā)現(xiàn)表明兩組作者都較多使用研究導向型詞塊和文本導向型詞塊,然而很少使用參與者導向型詞塊。本研究有助于老師了解學生摘要寫作中語步結構和詞塊使用的總體情況,從而引導學生增強規(guī)范摘要的寫作意識并滲透到實際教學中,促使學生寫出結構完整、內(nèi)容恰當?shù)膶W術摘要。也就是說,教師在教授學術寫作方面的課程時,不僅僅要關注學生的語言表達的連貫性和流利度,還要普及寫作各個部分(如:摘要,引言等)的體裁知識,讓學生在寫作中能言之有物、言之有綱。
[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.
【學位授予單位】：江西師范大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2017
【分類號】：H315;H15

【參考文獻】

相關期刊論文 前10條

1 李夢驍;劉永兵;;基于語料庫的中外學者學術語篇詞塊使用對比研究[J];現(xiàn)代外語;2016年04期

2 楊紅燕;石琳霏;;學位論文語篇的語言學研究[J];外語教學;2016年01期

3 胡新;;中外科技論文英文摘要的語步詞塊特征對比研究[J];現(xiàn)代外語;2015年06期

4 魯莉;王敏;;英語學術論文中詞塊使用的學科間差異研究[J];西安外國語大學學報;2015年03期

5 牛桂玲;;中外學術期刊論文中英文摘要平行語料庫的創(chuàng)建[J];西安外國語大學學報;2014年03期

6 王麗;李清婷;;二語學習者學位論文引言中詞塊的結構、功能以及語步特征[J];解放軍外國語學院學報;2014年04期

7 李萍;Josta van Rij-Heyligers;;基于語料庫的學術論文摘要體裁對比分析[J];西安外國語大學學報;2011年01期

8 龐萍;;中國英語專業(yè)大學生英語議論文寫作中四詞詞塊的使用研究——基于WECCL和LOCNESS語料庫的對比研究(英文)[J];Teaching English in China;2009年03期

9 王春艷;;免費綠色軟件AntConc在外語教學和研究中的應用[J];外語電化教學;2009年01期

10 鞠玉梅;體裁分析與英漢學術論文摘要語篇[J];外語教學;2004年02期

，

本文編號：2211574