中国英语专业学生二语写作中的发展特征 ——一项探索性研究

论文摘要

随着国际上二语写作研究热潮的出现,国内的学者就中国学生(专业学生和非专业学生)英语写作的现状也作了不少研究。相当数量的研究得出同一结论,即中国学生写作能力较弱。但是这些研究存在一些问题;它们大多数是静态的,同时缺少数据的论证。为此,本研究希望能够填补国内相关研究的空白,对中国英语专业学生的写作状况,特别是一些发展特征,作一个全面而客观的分析。此外,本研究通过问卷调查对英语写作成功者的一些特征进行探讨。为了研究英语专业学生写作中的发展特征,本研究挑选了100名学生,对他们2003年英语专业四级测试和2005年英语专业八级测试中的写作卷共200份进行分析。这100名学生分别来自复旦大学、上海外国语大学、上海师范大学和上海理工大学。研究者对四级和八级作文的流利度、句式复杂度、词汇复杂度、语体正式度和语言准确度这些客观指标以及总体得分进行比较。统计分析表明被抽样的学生在流利度、词汇复杂度和语体正式度这三方面表现出显著的提高,在句式复杂度和总体得分上略有提高,但这种进步经统计验证表明不具有显著性。在语言准确度方面被抽样的学生有显著的退步。为了说明学生们在语言准确度和总体得分方面的不尽如人意的表现,本研究进行了学校间的比较。结果发现,尽管这100个学生的平均语言准确度呈显著下降,复旦大学的学生是个例外,他们在这一指标上有一定的提高(虽然这一进步不具有统计上的显著性)。作文总体得分方面不同学校显示出更大的差异。复旦大学学生的八级作文同四级作文相比总体上有很大提高,上海理工大学学生有一定的提高,但不具备统计显著性,而上海外国语大学和上海师范大学则有一定的退步,同样不具备统计显著性。引起这种差异可能多方面的原因,而本研究对其中一个变量进行了探讨,即四所学校在写作课程设置方面的不同。上海外国语大学和上海师范大学在三、四年级不再开设专门的写作课,由此导致学生写作联系的缺乏。为此,研究者对写作课程设置和专四写作成绩这两个因素对专八写作总体得分的影响作了回归分析,结果表明这两个自变量对八级写作得分的差异具有重要解释意义。对写作成功者的研究已经总结出一些共性,但在国内类似研究不多见。本研

论文目录

• 声明
• 学位论文使用授权声明
• Acknowledgements
• Abstract
• 摘要
• List of Tables
• Chapter 1 Introduction
• 1.1 The importance of writing in the test of language proficiency
• 1.2 Growing Attention to Writing as a Research Discipline
• 1.3 Purpose and significance of the present study
• 1.4 Research Questions
• 1.5 Structure of the Study
• Chapter 2 Literature Review
• 2.1. W riting proficiency of Chinese learners of English
• 2.1.1 Writing proficiency of both English and non-English majors
• 2.1.2 Writing proficiency of non-English majors
• 2.1.3 Writing proficiency of English majors
• 2.1.4 Summary
• 2.2 Development in L2 writing
• 2.2.1 Cross-sectional studies
• 2.2.2 Longitudinal studies
• 2.2.3 Cross-linguistic studies
• 2.2.4 Summary
• 2.3 Linguistic measures of written products
• 2.3.1 Fluency measures
• 2.3.2 Grammatical
• 2.3.3 Lexical complexity measures and measures of lexical features
• 2.3.4 Accuracy measures
• 2.3.5 Formality measures
• 2.3.6 Summary
• 2.4 Explanatory variables of writing proficiency
• 2.4.1 L2 proficiency
• 2.4.2 L1 writing competence and thinking in L1 or L2
• 2.4.3 Writing process
• 2.4.4 Reading
• 2.4.5 Writing practice
• 2.4.6 Summary
• 2.5 Holistic vs. analytic measures
• 2.6 Summary
• Chapter 3 Methodology
• 3.1 Sample
• 3.2 Design of the research
• 3.2.1 Developmental features in TEM writings
• 3.2.1.1 Linguistic measures of writing
• 3.2.1.2 Subjective rating of writings
• 3.2.1.3 Hypotheses
• 3.2.2 Explanatory Variables for Good Writings
• 3.2.2.1 Dependent variable
• 3.2.2.2 Independent variables
• 3.2.2.3 Hypotheses
• Chapter 4 Developmental Features in TEM Writings
• 4.1 Fluency
• 4.1.1 Clause length
• 4.1.2 T-unit length
• 4.1.3 Summary
• 4.2 Grammatical
• 4.2.1 T-unit complexity ratio
• 4.2.2 Clause ratio
• 4.2.3 Summary
• 4.3 Lexical Complexity
• 4.3.1 Word type variation
• 4.3.2 Lexical sophistication
• 4.3.3 Summary
• 4.4 Formality
• 4.5 Accuracy
• 4.5.1 Error free T units per T unit
• 4.5.2 Errors per T-unit
• 4.5.3 Summary
• 4.6 General writing proficiency
• 4.7 Summary
• Chapter 5 Explanatory Variables for Successful Writers
• 5.1 The role of individual explanatory variables
• 5.1.1 General language proficiency
• 5.1.2 Amount of writing per week
• 5.1.3 Time on reading in Chinese
• 5.1.4 Time on reading in English
• 5.1.5 Planning prior to writing
• 5.1.6 Strategies used in writing
• 5.1.7 Attention paid to different aspects of composition
• 5.1.8 Revision
• 5.2 An examination of the effects of explanatory variables
• 5.3 Summary
• Chapter 6 Conclusion
• 6.1 A summary of the findings
• 6.2 Implications for the design of TEM writing task and language teaching
• 6.3 Future research
• References
• Appendix I. Requirements of TEM4 2003 and TEM8 2005 compositions
• Appendix II. Guidelines for T-units, Clauses, and Errors （taken from Polio 1997）
• Appendix III. Error Classification System （taken from Polio 1997）
• Appendix IV. Marking scheme for TEM4 and TEM8 composition
• Appendix V. Questionnaire Concerning English Writing
• Appendix VI. Essay Sample Essays with Maximum and Minimum Values of Fluency
• Appendix VII. Essay Sample Essays with Maximum and Minimum Values of Syntactic Complexity
• Appendix VIII. Essays with the Maximum and Minimum Values of Lexical Complexity
• Appendix IX. Essay Sample Essays with the Maximum and Minimum Values of formality
• Appendix X. Essay Sample Essays with the Maximum and Minimum Values of accuracy
• Appendix XI. Essay Sample Essays with the Maximum and Minimum Holistic Ratings