英语科技论文结论部分中英作者使用模糊限制语的对比研究

论文摘要

英语已成为国际学术领域的通用语言,能否熟练准确并灵活的用英语来写作学术论文,成为科研工作者提高对外学术交流不可或缺的技能。而作为科技论文的结尾部分,是对全文结果的概要总结,对将来的研究提出一定的展望。因而结论部分往往能体现该论文的价值,读者也可从结论看出该论文是否对自己有帮助从而决定是否有必要通读全文。模糊限制语作为科技论文常用的语用策略,能体现作者对命题和读者的态度,给作者和读者留下讨论的余地,同时也体现了作者对科学的态度和对同行的尊重。本文以Hyland(1998)对科技论文中模糊限制语的定义和分类为理论基础,建立了两个英语科技论文结论部分的语料库,即以英语为母语的作者所写的论文结论和中国作者所写的英语论文结论。这两个语料库各包含45篇科技论文的结论部分,其中物理、化学和生物各占15篇。这些论文均选自国内和国际高水平的期刊。按照Hyland对模糊限制语的分类,作者统计了两个语料库里各类模糊限制语所出现的频率。统计发现,中美两国作者均在论文结论部分大量地使用模糊限制语,但是就使用频率而言,英语本族语作者使用模糊限制语的频率远远高出中国作者,并且在模糊限制语的使用类别上也有所差异。本研究认为,造成这种差异的原因是中国作者对使用模糊限制语的意识不强,英语水平有限,还有可能是因为这些作者不熟悉学术论文写作的一些规则,同时也有一些文化差异的缘故等。此外,通过对模糊限制语的详细分析,作者发现了模糊限制语在结论中的作用。中国作者和英语本族语作者在科技论文中使用模糊限制语的差异提示中国作者要提高使用模糊限制语的意识,并且有意识地增强恰当运用模糊限制语的能力。此外,对中国的英语教学而言,老师应该在教学中有意识地训练学生使用模糊限制语,从而提高他们恰当运用模糊限制语的能力。

论文目录

• Abstract
• 摘要
• List of Figures
• List of Tables
• List of Abbreviations
• Introduction
• Chapter One Literature Review
• 1.1 An Overview of Previous Studies on Hedging Abroad
• 1.1.1 Studies on Hedging from the Perspective of Logic
• 1.1.2 Studies on Hedging from the Perspective of Semantics
• 1.1.3 Studies on Hedging from the Perspective of Psychology
• 1.1.4 Studies on Hedging from the Perspective of Pragmatics
• 1.2 An Overview of Previous Studies on Hedging in China
• 1.2.1 Wu Tieping's Studies on Hedging
• 1.2.2 Post-Wu Tieping's Studies on Hedging
• 1.3 Theoretical Background
• 1.3.1 Definitions of Hedging
• 1.3.2 Categorizations of Hedging
• 1.3.2.1 Semantic Categorizations
• 1.3.2.2 Grammatical categorizations
• 1.3.2.3 Pragmatic Categorizations
• 1.3.3 Hedging in Scientific Research Articles
• 1.3.3.1 Studies on Hedging in Scientific Research Articles Abroad
• 1.3.3.2 Studies on Hedging in Scientific Research Articles in China
• 1.3.3.3 A Brief Introduction to Conclusion in Scientific Writing
• 1.4 Insights for Present Study
• Chapter Two Theoretical Framework and Methodology
• 2.1 Theoretical Framework
• 2.1.1 Working Definition of Hedging in the Present Study
• 2.1.2 Classifications of Hedging Adopted in the Present Study
• 2.2 Methodology
• 2.2.1 Research Questions
• 2.2.2 Data Collection
• 2.2.3 Data Analysis Procedures
• Chapter Three Results and Discussion
• 3.1 Frequency and Interpretations of Hedging in Both Corpora
• 3.1.1 Lexical Hedges
• 3.1.1.1 Epistemic Verbs
• 3.1.1.2 Modal Auxiliary Verbs
• 3.1.1.3 Epistemic Adverbs
• 3.1.1.4 Epistemic Adjectives
• 3.1.1.5 Epistemic Nouns
• 3.1.2 Non-lexical hedges
• 3.1.2.1 Reference to limiting experimental conditions
• 3.1.2.2 Reference to a model, theory or methodology
• 3.1.2.3 Admission to a lack of knowledge
• 3.2 Comparison between the Two Corpora
• 3.2.1 Similarities concerning Hedging Use between the Two Corpora
• 3.2.2 Differences concerning Hedging Use between the Two Corpora
• 3.3 Possible Interpretations for the Differences between Two Corpora
• 3.4 Functions of Hedges in Scientific Conclusion Writing
• Chapter Four Conclusion
• 4.1 Major Findings
• 4.2 Some Implications and Limitations
• 4.3 Suggestions for Future Study
• Appendix A
• Appendix B
• Bibliography
• Acknowledgements
• 学位论文评阅及答辩情况表