本文選題：農(nóng)業(yè)類期刊論文 + 結論��； 參考：《重慶大學》2014年碩士論文

【摘要】：中國是一個農(nóng)業(yè)大國，科技興農(nóng)是發(fā)展農(nóng)業(yè)的重要舉措。農(nóng)業(yè)科研的國際學術交流對于農(nóng)業(yè)發(fā)展極為重要。國際農(nóng)業(yè)類英文期刊就是一個很好的學術交流平臺。要想在此類型期刊發(fā)表論文，除了要有獨創(chuàng)科學研究以外，了解中外期刊結構和語言的差異也是必不可少的。在語篇分析領域，有關學術語篇的研究起到了很大作用。然而，目前中外對于學術類文章的分析研究多涉及摘要，前言，討論部分，結論部分的研究不多，對比性研究更是嚴重滯后。因此，對中外農(nóng)業(yè)期刊結論部分的對比分析有著重要意義。 隨著語篇分析研究的不斷深入,有關學術語篇的研究也由語言現(xiàn)象轉向人際意義分析。學術語篇的作用不再單純地被認為是學術信息傳遞,也存在著作者為交際目運用一些語言策略。語篇的交際功能需要特定的宏觀體裁結構，也要有某些微觀語言信號來表達。因此，在本研究中，對于中英農(nóng)業(yè)類期刊結論部分的對比分析將從宏觀和微觀兩個方面來進行。在宏觀的結構分析方面采用的理論是Hasan的語類結構潛勢理論和YangAllison對應用語言學結論部分的語步劃分。在微觀層面上，研究焦點放在立場標記語上：模糊語限制語，確定表達語，態(tài)度標記語以及自我指稱語。立場標記語可以透露出作者對命題的態(tài)度，從而會對讀者產(chǎn)生間接影響。 本研究從宏觀和微觀方面分析的語料是60篇中英農(nóng)業(yè)類期刊結論部分。30篇中文農(nóng)業(yè)學術論文源自CNKI期刊庫的三種影響因子大于1.3的農(nóng)業(yè)類核心期刊：《草業(yè)科學》，《生態(tài)學報》，《土壤學報》，本研究的30篇英文農(nóng)業(yè)學術論文源自ELSEVIER期刊庫的三種影響因子大于1.9的農(nóng)業(yè)類核心期刊：Agricultural WaterManagement, Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, Animal Feed Science andTechnology。所選期刊的發(fā)表時間段為2007-2011年。每年每種期刊隨機抽取兩篇帶有獨立結構的實證研究類論文。采用wordsmith軟件進行標注統(tǒng)計分析，再對所得結果進行討論。 通過對比分析,本研究得出以下結果： 在宏觀的體裁結構層面：(1)中文類期刊側重于對研究結果的總結陳述，多以展示研究結果和重申觀點的方式。英文類期刊則在對研究總結的基礎上進行擴展，闡明研究的應用性，，推薦深層研究。(2)中文類期刊側重于凸顯研究意義，獲得讀者的認同度。英文類期刊對研究意義闡明較少，在讀者交流方面更為重視。 在微觀的立場標記語層面：(1)就總體而言，英文結論的立場標記語言使用頻率要高于中文。(2)漢語結論模糊限制語側重于表精確度的限制語，英語結論側重于可信度的模糊限制語的使用；(3)漢語結論的確定表達語側重于表重要性，而英語的分布較為平均；(4)在態(tài)度標記語和自我指稱方面，漢語結論使用頻率極低，沒有自我提及，英語的則仍然有一定的使用頻率。 綜合分析可得：中文作者更側重與強調(diào)論文的客觀性，而英文結論作者比較側重于介紹研究應用以及推薦深層次的研究。中文結論作者傾向于將自己隱藏在文章中以彰顯文章客觀性，英文結論作者與讀者交流意識更強。中文論文作者注重自身和讀者的積極面子而英文論文作者更注重消極禮貌策略的使用。 本研究一方面拓展了結構潛勢和立場標記語理論在學術類語篇分析領域的應用，另一方面則為研究者的論文寫作以及學術寫作的教學提供了一些參考。
[Abstract]:China is an agricultural country, and it is an important measure to develop agriculture by science and technology. The international academic exchange of agricultural scientific research is very important to the development of agriculture. The international agricultural English periodicals are a good platform for academic exchange. To publish the papers in this type of journal, in addition to the original scientific research, the Chinese and foreign periodicals are also understood. The difference between structure and language is also essential. In the field of discourse analysis, the research on academic discourse has played a great role. However, the analysis of academic articles in China and foreign countries involves abstracts, prefaces, discussion parts, little research on the conclusion, and a serious lag in the comparative study. Therefore, the agricultural periodicals in China and foreign countries have been seriously lagged. The comparative analysis of parts is of great significance.
With the deepening of the study of discourse analysis, the study of academic discourse has also shifted from linguistic phenomenon to interpersonal meaning analysis. The role of academic discourse is no longer considered simply as the transmission of academic information, but also by the author's use of some language strategies for communicative purposes. In this study, the comparative analysis of the conclusion part of the Chinese and English agricultural periodicals will be carried out in the two aspects of the macro and micro aspects in this study. The theory of the macro structural analysis is Hasan's linguistic structure potential theory and the step division of the corresponding linguistic conclusion part of the YangAllison. On the view level, the focus of the research is on the position markers: the hedges, the expressions, the attitudinal markers and the self denotations. The position markers can reveal the author's attitude to the proposition, which will have an indirect effect on the reader.
The corpus of this study from the macro and micro aspects is the 60 Chinese and English Agricultural Journals conclusion part.30 of the Chinese agricultural academic papers from the CNKI journal library from the three factors of more than 1.3 of the agricultural core periodicals: < Grass Science > < ecological Journal >, < soil Journal >, 30 English Agricultural academic papers originate from the ELSEVIER period. Three kinds of agricultural core journals are more than 1.9, Agricultural WaterManagement, Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, and Animal Feed Science andTechnology. periodicals are published for 2007-2011 years. Each periodical selects two empirical research papers with independent structure. Smith software was used for statistical analysis of tagging, and the results were discussed.
Through comparative analysis, the results of this study are as follows:
In the macro genre structure level: (1) Chinese periodicals focus on the summary of the results of the study, more to show the results of the study and the way to reiterate the point of view. English periodicals are expanded on the basis of the summary of the research, expound the applicability of the research, and recommend deep research. (2) Chinese periodicals focus on the significance of the research and obtain the research significance. The English periodicals have less research significance and pay more attention to readers' communication.
On the microcosmic standpoint language level: (1) generally speaking, the use frequency of the position marker language of the English conclusion is higher than that of the Chinese. (2) the Chinese conclusion hedges focus on the limit language of the accuracy, and the English conclusion focuses on the use of the fuzzy hedges with confidence, and (3) the definite expression of the Chinese conclusion focuses on the importance of the table, while the conclusion of the Chinese conclusion focuses on the importance of the table. The distribution of English is more average; (4) in the aspect of attitude markers and self reference, the use of Chinese conclusions is very low, without self reference, and the English is still used in a certain frequency.
Comprehensive analysis can be obtained: Chinese authors emphasize and emphasize the objectivity of the paper, and the English conclusion author focuses on the introduction of research and application and recommends deep research. The Chinese conclusion author tends to hide himself in the article in order to highlight the objectivity of the article, and the English conclusion is more aware of the communication with the reader. We should pay more attention to the positive face of our readers and readers, while English writers should pay more attention to the use of negative politeness strategies.
On the one hand, this study expands the application of structural potential and position marker theory in the field of academic discourse analysis. On the other hand, it provides some references for the author's thesis writing and the teaching of academic writing.

【學位授予單位】：重慶大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2014
【分類號】：H315;H15

【參考文獻】

相關期刊論文 前10條

1 丁建新;;體裁分析的傳統(tǒng)與前沿[J];外語研究;2007年06期

2 蔣躍;陶梅;;英漢醫(yī)學論文討論部分中模糊限制語的對比研究[J];外語學刊;2007年06期

3 方琰;Hasan的“語體結構潛勢”理論及其對語篇分析的貢獻[J];外語學刊(黑龍江大學學報);1995年01期

4 吳玉花;;英語經(jīng)濟新聞的語類結構潛勢理論——基于語料庫的研究方法[J];齊齊哈爾大學學報(哲學社會科學版);2008年01期

5 孫迎暉;;中國學生英語碩士論文引言部分轉述語使用情況的語類分析[J];外語教學;2009年01期

6 徐宏亮;;中國高級英語學習者學術語篇中的作者立場標記語的使用特點——一項基于語料庫的對比研究[J];外語教學;2011年06期

7 滕延江;;英漢學術論文摘要中限定修飾語使用分布的對比分析[J];外語與外語教學;2008年11期

8 方琰;淺談語類[J];外國語(上海外國語大學學報);1998年01期

9 史文霞;;科技論文英文摘要的經(jīng)濟性研究——一項基于語料庫的中美科技論文摘要對比分析[J];西安外國語大學學報;2008年01期

10 董敏;;論當前中國民事一審判決書的語類結構潛勢[J];修辭學習;2006年04期

本文編號：1832776