评价理论视域下中外学者期刊论文评论结果语步词块比较研究  

A Comparative Study of Lexical Bundles Used in “Comment on Results” Move in Chinese and Native Expert Academic Writings:Taking Appraisal Theory Perspective

作　　者：李梦骁[1] 刘永兵[1] 

机构地区：[1]东北师范大学外国语学院,吉林长春130024

出　　处：《外语与外语教学》2017年第5期73-80,121,共9页Foreign Languages and Their Teaching

基　　金：教育部人文社会科学规划基金一般项目"中学生外语语言能力发展的系统性和差异性研究"(项目编号:12YJA740050)的阶段性研究成果

摘　　要：本文从评价理论视角出发,比较分析中外学者在应用语言学期刊论文评论结果语步上词块使用的结构与评价意义的异同,旨在探究中国学者使用评价性语言资源的系统性和差异性特征。基于语料库的数据分析显示,中国学者在结构上倾向于更多使用动词词块和句干词块,而本族语学者则较多使用短语词块,这种差异说明中国学者对信息密集型语言结构操控不足。在语篇评价上,与本族语学者相比,中国学者较少使用引导词块、数量词块及限定词块且基本不使用模糊词块,这些差异说明中国学者在学术写作中引导读者理解的意识薄弱,缺乏对评价性词块资源的有效利用,因此致使语篇的客观性、协商性受损,互动性与对话性不足。基于研究发现,本研究对中国学者英语学术语篇写作有一定的启示。Comparing evaluative meanings of lexical bundles used in'comment on results'move in journal articles by Chinese expert w riters and their native counterparts,this article,taking Appraisal Theory as its analytical framework,explores the systematic and distinctive features of evaluative language resources used by Chinese expert w riters.Corpus-based data analyses show that Chinese w riters used more verbal bundles and clausal bundles,while their native counterparts used more phrasal bundles,which may indicate that Chinese w riters could not use informationintensive bundles effectively.Comparatively,Chinese w riters used fewer guiding bundles,quantifying bundles and framing bundles than their counterparts,and the use of hedging bundles were rare.The low frequency of use also show s,on the one hand,the lack of know ledge of evaluative resources and necessary strategies to guide the reader on the part of Chinese w riters,and on the other hand,inability to construct a space where they can negotiate their'comment on results'effectively with the reader.The findings of this research may offer some implications on academic w riting by Chinese w riters.

关 键 词：评价理论 学术词块 评论结果语步 

分 类 号：H0[语言文字—语言学]