基于体裁分析的论文摘要中学术批评研究
|
摘要
在当今竞争加剧的学术界,符合学术规范、呈现新观点是论文发表的基本要求。随着研究领域的日趋国际化,许多中国学者都用英语来撰写科研论文并向国际期刊投稿,以便于他们的科研成果得到国际学术界的认可。作为学术论文的组成部分,论文摘要是关系到论文能否被录用、发表、检索及引起关注的重要因素之一;作为一种语篇组织形式,论文摘要语篇体现一定的交际目的,有其特定的谋篇原则。由此,论文摘要的研究引发了研究者的兴趣。
面对激烈的学术竞争,研究者必须首先证明其学术研究的创新所在,阐明前人研究中的空白与不足之处,从而为自己的立论预设空间。这就会涉及使用一些修辞策略来对自己的学术社团进行批评,即学术批评。而在当今英语为主流语言的国际学术团体中,特别是对于母语为非英语的研究者,在指出先前研究缺陷时,更重要的是符合国际论文写作及发表的规范。既要敢于明确地表明观点,确立研究地位,同时又要遵循学术写作的惯例,尤其要采取不同的策略来表达学术冲突,从而使自己的研究成果更易于得到广泛意义上的认同。目前针对这一现象——学术批评的研究还不多见,一些实证研究曾指出其必要性和不同语言文化下具体实施的差异性,但都没有对差异性进行更深入的分析。
基于这一原因,本研究主要采用语料库研究方法,随机抽取应用语言学领域中130篇学术论文摘要,其中50篇是由英语为第一语言的作者所写的论文摘要,50篇来自中国学者用英语撰写的在国内发表的论文摘要,另外30篇选自中国大陆作者在国际上发表的论文摘要。首先在宏观结构上分析了两组语篇的语步构建的异同,然后进一步研究了论文摘要中作者用来传递批评言语行为的各种不同策略。研究的理论框架是建立在两个基础之上:其一是Swales用于分析语步的I-M-R-C模式和分析引言的CARS模式,其二是在对前人学术批评相关研究分析的基础上,笔者初步总结出一个学术批评策略表达模式,然后以此对两组语料进行对比研究。
结果显示,一方面,中国作者虽然在论文摘要的宏观语步分析上和英语本族者趋于一致,但微观层面上,具体的语步和步骤构建上还存在差异,写作理念还存在分歧。另一方面,英文本族者摘要中批评言语行为的数量相对高于我国作者,而且英文作者更倾向于采用非所指的、间接的方式来传达批评言语行为;相比之下,中国作者更多地采取直接策略来进行学术批评。这和先前研究成果所指出的中国学者倾向于使用迂回模式,谨慎提出批评的观念相反。造成这一差异的主要原因在于论文发表环境方面的社会因素,即作者与言语社团的关系,毕竟两组语篇的作者所出的两个言语社团在规模与压力上有所不同。另外一个原因还在于英语为非母语的学者自己语言水平的限制和日常学术写作教学的不足。
此外,本研究还有着潜在的教学实践上的启示与应用价值,它能较好地帮助国内学术界了解国际刊物的写作规范,从而使我们的学术论文写作符合国际惯例与要求,更好地为国内科研服务。
In today’s competitive academic world, conforming to academic writing conventions and presenting new ideas are essential for publications. With the internationalization of scientific researches, many Chinese scholars have to engage themselves in this form of English writing, and submit their research articles to some international journals so as to get the results of their studies recognized by academic circles. As one part of research papers, abstracts may directly decide whether their articles can be published, retrieved, or even worth reading; meantime, as a textual pattern, abstracts represent some set of communicative purposes and possess certain schematic structures for the discourse. Therefore, researches on abstract writing have aroused great interest among scholars.
But the pressure to publish is continuously increasing and, in order to justify publication, the writers of scientific texts have to indicate a knowledge gap with regard to previously published work and create a research space that allows them to present new knowledge claims to the other members of the discourse community. This implies the use of a number of rhetorical strategies which involve the criticism of members of their own academic community, that is, the enactment of academic criticism. In present English-dominant international academia, the most important issues for scholars, especially non-native researchers, are to conform to the international writing conventions when pointing out the research gap. Linguists have done some researches on the necessity and rhetorical variations of academic criticism in different language cultures. However, so far not much deeper analyses on the discoursal level have been carried out form the aspect of genre analysis.
To carry out the present research, 130 pieces of abstracts in the field of applied linguistics selected randomly have been analyzed. 50 of them are chosen from foreign journals by native English writers, 50 English-version abstracts from Chinese journals, and another 30 from overseas journals by native Chinese from the mainland of China. The analysis of data was carried out on two models, one is Swales’IMRC structure of whole research article and CARS model for the introduction part, aiming to find the similarities and differences of move construction among three groups of samples; and the other, based on previous studies, is a tentative model summarized by the present author, used to analyze different rhetorical strategies to enact this phenomenon of academic criticism.
The results of this research show that, on the one hand, Chinese writers tend to be in accordance with international writing conventions on the macrostructure of the abstracts, but at micro level, there are obvious discrepancies on specific move construction and writing philosophy. On the other hand, the total number of occurrence of AC is relatively higher in abstracts written by native English, and more impersonal and indirect critical speech acts are employed in these texts, whereas in the Chinese text, the writers opted more frequently for the use of personal and direct academic criticism. These findings are contrary to previous researches that Chinese prefer to convey criticism in a discursive and cautious way. The rhetorical variation is mainly due to the influence of the social context of publication, that is, the relationship between the writers and the discourse community they are addressing, which is different both in terms of size and pressure. The language barrier of Chinese writers and the defect of academic writing in tertiary education may be the other reasons.
Moreover, this study also has some basic pedagogical implications. It can help foreign language learners, especially Chinese researchers, write effective English abstracts to meet the international scientific community's expectations.
面对激烈的学术竞争,研究者必须首先证明其学术研究的创新所在,阐明前人研究中的空白与不足之处,从而为自己的立论预设空间。这就会涉及使用一些修辞策略来对自己的学术社团进行批评,即学术批评。而在当今英语为主流语言的国际学术团体中,特别是对于母语为非英语的研究者,在指出先前研究缺陷时,更重要的是符合国际论文写作及发表的规范。既要敢于明确地表明观点,确立研究地位,同时又要遵循学术写作的惯例,尤其要采取不同的策略来表达学术冲突,从而使自己的研究成果更易于得到广泛意义上的认同。目前针对这一现象——学术批评的研究还不多见,一些实证研究曾指出其必要性和不同语言文化下具体实施的差异性,但都没有对差异性进行更深入的分析。
基于这一原因,本研究主要采用语料库研究方法,随机抽取应用语言学领域中130篇学术论文摘要,其中50篇是由英语为第一语言的作者所写的论文摘要,50篇来自中国学者用英语撰写的在国内发表的论文摘要,另外30篇选自中国大陆作者在国际上发表的论文摘要。首先在宏观结构上分析了两组语篇的语步构建的异同,然后进一步研究了论文摘要中作者用来传递批评言语行为的各种不同策略。研究的理论框架是建立在两个基础之上:其一是Swales用于分析语步的I-M-R-C模式和分析引言的CARS模式,其二是在对前人学术批评相关研究分析的基础上,笔者初步总结出一个学术批评策略表达模式,然后以此对两组语料进行对比研究。
结果显示,一方面,中国作者虽然在论文摘要的宏观语步分析上和英语本族者趋于一致,但微观层面上,具体的语步和步骤构建上还存在差异,写作理念还存在分歧。另一方面,英文本族者摘要中批评言语行为的数量相对高于我国作者,而且英文作者更倾向于采用非所指的、间接的方式来传达批评言语行为;相比之下,中国作者更多地采取直接策略来进行学术批评。这和先前研究成果所指出的中国学者倾向于使用迂回模式,谨慎提出批评的观念相反。造成这一差异的主要原因在于论文发表环境方面的社会因素,即作者与言语社团的关系,毕竟两组语篇的作者所出的两个言语社团在规模与压力上有所不同。另外一个原因还在于英语为非母语的学者自己语言水平的限制和日常学术写作教学的不足。
此外,本研究还有着潜在的教学实践上的启示与应用价值,它能较好地帮助国内学术界了解国际刊物的写作规范,从而使我们的学术论文写作符合国际惯例与要求,更好地为国内科研服务。
In today’s competitive academic world, conforming to academic writing conventions and presenting new ideas are essential for publications. With the internationalization of scientific researches, many Chinese scholars have to engage themselves in this form of English writing, and submit their research articles to some international journals so as to get the results of their studies recognized by academic circles. As one part of research papers, abstracts may directly decide whether their articles can be published, retrieved, or even worth reading; meantime, as a textual pattern, abstracts represent some set of communicative purposes and possess certain schematic structures for the discourse. Therefore, researches on abstract writing have aroused great interest among scholars.
But the pressure to publish is continuously increasing and, in order to justify publication, the writers of scientific texts have to indicate a knowledge gap with regard to previously published work and create a research space that allows them to present new knowledge claims to the other members of the discourse community. This implies the use of a number of rhetorical strategies which involve the criticism of members of their own academic community, that is, the enactment of academic criticism. In present English-dominant international academia, the most important issues for scholars, especially non-native researchers, are to conform to the international writing conventions when pointing out the research gap. Linguists have done some researches on the necessity and rhetorical variations of academic criticism in different language cultures. However, so far not much deeper analyses on the discoursal level have been carried out form the aspect of genre analysis.
To carry out the present research, 130 pieces of abstracts in the field of applied linguistics selected randomly have been analyzed. 50 of them are chosen from foreign journals by native English writers, 50 English-version abstracts from Chinese journals, and another 30 from overseas journals by native Chinese from the mainland of China. The analysis of data was carried out on two models, one is Swales’IMRC structure of whole research article and CARS model for the introduction part, aiming to find the similarities and differences of move construction among three groups of samples; and the other, based on previous studies, is a tentative model summarized by the present author, used to analyze different rhetorical strategies to enact this phenomenon of academic criticism.
The results of this research show that, on the one hand, Chinese writers tend to be in accordance with international writing conventions on the macrostructure of the abstracts, but at micro level, there are obvious discrepancies on specific move construction and writing philosophy. On the other hand, the total number of occurrence of AC is relatively higher in abstracts written by native English, and more impersonal and indirect critical speech acts are employed in these texts, whereas in the Chinese text, the writers opted more frequently for the use of personal and direct academic criticism. These findings are contrary to previous researches that Chinese prefer to convey criticism in a discursive and cautious way. The rhetorical variation is mainly due to the influence of the social context of publication, that is, the relationship between the writers and the discourse community they are addressing, which is different both in terms of size and pressure. The language barrier of Chinese writers and the defect of academic writing in tertiary education may be the other reasons.
Moreover, this study also has some basic pedagogical implications. It can help foreign language learners, especially Chinese researchers, write effective English abstracts to meet the international scientific community's expectations.
引文
[1] Allison, D., & Yang Ruiying. Research articles in applied linguistics: moving from results to conclusions [J]. English for Specific Purposes, 2003(22): 365-385.
[2] Bazerman, C. Shaping written knowledge [M]. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. 1988.
[3] Berkenkotter, C., and Huckin, T.N. Genre Knowledge in disciplinary communication: cognition, culture, power [M]. Hillsdate, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 1995.
[4] Bhatia,V. K. Analyzing Genre: Language Use in Professional Settings [M]. London: Longman. 1993.
[5] Bloch, J. Creating materials for teaching evaluation in academic writing: Using letters to the editor in L2 composition courses [J]. English for Specific Purposes, 2003(22): 347–364.
[6] Bloch, J. & L. Li. A comparison of the use of citations in Chinese and English academic discourse [A]. In D. Belcher & G. Braine, Academic writing in a second language: seeays on research and pedagogy [C]. Norwood, NJ:Ablex. 1995. 231-77.
[7] Booth, V. Communicating Science: Writing and Speaking [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2000.
[8] Brett, P. A genre analysis of the Results section of sociology articles [J]. English for Specific Purposes, 1994(1): 47-59.
[9] Brawn, G., & Levinson, S. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1987.
[10] Cai Jigang. A contrastive Study of English and Chinese Writing [M]. 2001. (蔡基刚, 2001,《英汉写作对比研究》.复旦大学出版社.)
[11] Canagarajah, A. S.“Nondiscursive”requirements in academic publishing, material resources of periphery scholars, and the politics of knowledge production [J]. Written Communication, 1996(13): 435-472.
[12] Cmejrkova, S., & Danes, F. Academic writing and cultural identity: the case of Czech academic writing [A]. In A. Duszak (Ed.) Culture and styles of academic discourse [C]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 1997(9): 41-63.
[13] Connor, Ulla. Contrastive rhetoric: Cross-cultural aspects of second language writing [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1996.
[14] Duszak, A. Academic discourse and intellectual styles [J]. Journal of Pragmatics , 1994(21):291-313.
[15] Day, R. A. How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper [M]. Cambridge University Press. 1988.
[16] Duszak, A. Culture and styles of academic discourse [M]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 1997.
[17] Flowerdew, J. Writing for scholarly publication in English: The case of Hong Kong [J]. Journal of Second Language writing, 1999(8): 123-145.
[18] Flowerdew, J. Attitudes of journal editors to nonnative speaker contributions [J]. TESOL Quarterly, 2001(35): 121-147.
[19] Ge Dongmei &Yang Ruiying. A genre analysis of research article abstracts [J]. Modern Foreign Languages,2005(2):138-146. (葛冬梅,杨瑞英, 2005,“学术论文摘要的体裁分析”.《现代外语》,第2期,138-146.)
[20] Gibson, T. R. Towards a Discourse Theory of Abstracts and Abstracting [M]. Nottingham: University of Nottingham Press. 1993.
[21] Gosden, H. Discourse functions of subject in scientific research articles [J]. Applied Linguistics, 1993(1):56-75.
[22] Henry, Alex., & Robert, L. Roseberry. A narrow-angled corpus analysis of moves and strategies of the genre: Letter of Application [J]. English for Specific Purposes, 2001(20):153-167.
[23] Han Jinlong. Teaching of English writing: process writing and genre analysis [J]. Foreign Language world, 2001(4):35-40. (韩金龙, 2001,“英语写作教学:过程体裁教学法”.《外语界》,第4期,35 - 40.)
[24] Han Jinlong. & Qin Xiubai. Genre Analysis and Genre-based Teaching Approaches [J]. Foreign Languages, 2000(1):11-18. (韩金龙,秦秀白,2000,“体裁分析与体裁教学法”,《外语界》,第1期,11-18.)
[25] Holmes, R. Genre analysis and the social sciences: an investigation of the structure of research article discussion sections in three disciplines [J]. English for SpecificPurposes, 1997(4):321-337.
[26] Hunson, S. Professional conflict: disagreement in academic discourse [A]. In M. Baker, G. Francis & E. Togini-Boneli, Text and technology: in honor of John Sinclair [C]. Amsterdam: Hohn Benjamins. 1993. 115-133.
[27] Hyland, K. Writing without conviction? Hedging in scientific research articles [J]. Applied Linguistics, 1996(4):433-454.
[28] Hyland, K. Disciplinary Discourses: Social Interactions in Academic [M]. London: Longman. 2000.
[29] Hyland, K. & John Milton .Qualification and certainty in L1 and L2 students' writing [J]. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1997(2):183-205.
[30] Ju Yumei. A contrastive study of the articles of English and Chinese academic papers [J]. Foreign Language Education, 2004(2):32-36. (鞠玉梅, 2004,“体裁分析与英汉学术论文摘要语篇”,《外语教学》,第2期,32-36.)
[31] Kaplan, R. B., Cantor, S. On abstract writing [J]. Text, 1994(3): 401-426.
[32] Li Yongyan, Negotiating knowledge contribution to multiple discourse communities: A doctoral student of computer science writing for publication [J]. Journal of Second Language Writing, 2006(3): 159-178.
[33] Liang, L. Genre Analysis of abstracts in Research Articles [J]. Journal of HUST, 1998(37): 125-129. (梁丽,1998,“科技论文英文摘要的文体及典型例句分析”,《华中理工大学学报》,第37期,125-129.)
[34] Martin-Martin, P, & Sally, Burgess. The rhetorical management of academic criticism in research article abstracts [J]. Text,2004( 24):171-195.
[35] Miller, C. Genre as social action [J]. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 1984(70): 151-167.
[36] Motta-Roth, D. Discourse analysis and academic book reviews: a study of text and disciplinary cultures [J]. Genre Studies in English for Academic Purposes, 1998(1): 29-59.
[37] Myers, G. Writing Biology: Texts in the Social Construction of Scientific Knowledge [M]. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press. 1990.
[38] Qin Xiubai. A review of genre-based teaching approaches [J]. Foreign LanguageTeaching and research, 2000(1):42-46. (秦秀白, 2000,“体裁教学法评述”,《外语教学与研究》,第1期,42 -46.)
[39] Qin Xiubai. A brief survey of‘genre analysis’[J]. Journal of Foreign languages, 1997(6):8-15. (秦秀白, 1997,“体裁分析概说”.《外国语》,第6期,8 - 15.)
[40] Salager-Meyer, F. Discoursal flaws in medical English abstracts: a genre analysis per research- and text-type [J]. Text, 1990(10):365-384.
[41] Salager-Meyer, F. The rationale behind academic conflict: from outright criticism to contextual "niche" creation[J]. UNESCO-ALSED LSP. 1998(2):4-23.
[42] Salager-Meyer, F. Referential behavior in scientific writing: a diachronic study (1810-1995) [J]. English for Specific Purposes , 1999(18): 279-305.
[43] Salager-Meyer, F. & N. Zambrano. The bittersweet rhetoric of controversiality in 19th-and 20th century French and English medical literature [J]. Journal of Historical Pragmatics,2001(2):141-75.
[44] Salager-Meyer, F., & Alcaraz Ariza, M. A. Academic criticism in Spanish medical discourse: A cross-generic approach [J]. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 2003(13):96–114.
[45] Salager-Meyer, F., Alcaraz Ariza, M. A., & Zambrano, N. The scimitar, the dagger, and the glove: Intercultural differences in the rhetoric of criticism in Spanish, French, and English medical discourse [J]. English for Specific Purposes, 2003(22):223–247.
[46] Samraj, B. Introductions in research articles: variations across disciplines [J]. English for Specific Purposes, 2002(21): 1-17.
[47] Santos, M. B. The textual organization of research paper abstracts in applied linguistics [J]. Text, 1996(4): 481-499.
[48] Swales, J. M. Aspects of article introductions [M]. Birmingham, UK: The University of Aston Language Studies Unit. 1981.
[49] Swales, J. M. Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press. 1990 .
[50] Taylor, G., & T. Chen. Linguistic, cultural, and subcultural issues in contrastive discourse: Anglo-American and Chinese scientific texts [J]. Applied Linguistics, 1991(3):319-336.
[51] Thompson, G, & Ye, Y. Evaluating in the reporting verbs used in academic papers [J]. Applied Linguistics, 1991(4):365-382.
[52] Van Dijk, T. A. Academic nationalism, [Editorial]. Discourse and Society [M]. 275-276. 1994.
[53] Vassileva Irena. Commitment and detachment in English and Bulgarian academic writing [J]. English for Specific Purposes, 2001(20): 83-102.
[54] Williams, J. Results section of medical research articles: analysis of rhetorical categories for pedagogical purposes [J]. English for Specific Purposes, 1999(18): 347-366.
[55] Yu Bingfeng. Writing Manuals for Scientific Research Articles[M].2003. (俞炳丰, 2003,《科技英语论文实用写作指南》.西安交通大学出版社. )
[56] Yu Li & Liang Yu Li & Liang Yonggang. A study of writing model of English scientific papers [J]. Froeign Language Education, 2006(1):34-37. (余莉,梁永刚, 2006,“英语科技论文摘要的写作范式研究”,《外语教学》,第1期,34-37.)
[57] Yu Hui. Genre, text type and second language teaching [J]. Journal of PLA of Foreign Languages, 2003(9):13-17. (于晖, 2003,语篇体裁、语篇类型与外语教学[J ] .解放军外国语学院学报,第5期,13 - 17.)
[2] Bazerman, C. Shaping written knowledge [M]. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. 1988.
[3] Berkenkotter, C., and Huckin, T.N. Genre Knowledge in disciplinary communication: cognition, culture, power [M]. Hillsdate, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 1995.
[4] Bhatia,V. K. Analyzing Genre: Language Use in Professional Settings [M]. London: Longman. 1993.
[5] Bloch, J. Creating materials for teaching evaluation in academic writing: Using letters to the editor in L2 composition courses [J]. English for Specific Purposes, 2003(22): 347–364.
[6] Bloch, J. & L. Li. A comparison of the use of citations in Chinese and English academic discourse [A]. In D. Belcher & G. Braine, Academic writing in a second language: seeays on research and pedagogy [C]. Norwood, NJ:Ablex. 1995. 231-77.
[7] Booth, V. Communicating Science: Writing and Speaking [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2000.
[8] Brett, P. A genre analysis of the Results section of sociology articles [J]. English for Specific Purposes, 1994(1): 47-59.
[9] Brawn, G., & Levinson, S. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1987.
[10] Cai Jigang. A contrastive Study of English and Chinese Writing [M]. 2001. (蔡基刚, 2001,《英汉写作对比研究》.复旦大学出版社.)
[11] Canagarajah, A. S.“Nondiscursive”requirements in academic publishing, material resources of periphery scholars, and the politics of knowledge production [J]. Written Communication, 1996(13): 435-472.
[12] Cmejrkova, S., & Danes, F. Academic writing and cultural identity: the case of Czech academic writing [A]. In A. Duszak (Ed.) Culture and styles of academic discourse [C]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 1997(9): 41-63.
[13] Connor, Ulla. Contrastive rhetoric: Cross-cultural aspects of second language writing [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1996.
[14] Duszak, A. Academic discourse and intellectual styles [J]. Journal of Pragmatics , 1994(21):291-313.
[15] Day, R. A. How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper [M]. Cambridge University Press. 1988.
[16] Duszak, A. Culture and styles of academic discourse [M]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 1997.
[17] Flowerdew, J. Writing for scholarly publication in English: The case of Hong Kong [J]. Journal of Second Language writing, 1999(8): 123-145.
[18] Flowerdew, J. Attitudes of journal editors to nonnative speaker contributions [J]. TESOL Quarterly, 2001(35): 121-147.
[19] Ge Dongmei &Yang Ruiying. A genre analysis of research article abstracts [J]. Modern Foreign Languages,2005(2):138-146. (葛冬梅,杨瑞英, 2005,“学术论文摘要的体裁分析”.《现代外语》,第2期,138-146.)
[20] Gibson, T. R. Towards a Discourse Theory of Abstracts and Abstracting [M]. Nottingham: University of Nottingham Press. 1993.
[21] Gosden, H. Discourse functions of subject in scientific research articles [J]. Applied Linguistics, 1993(1):56-75.
[22] Henry, Alex., & Robert, L. Roseberry. A narrow-angled corpus analysis of moves and strategies of the genre: Letter of Application [J]. English for Specific Purposes, 2001(20):153-167.
[23] Han Jinlong. Teaching of English writing: process writing and genre analysis [J]. Foreign Language world, 2001(4):35-40. (韩金龙, 2001,“英语写作教学:过程体裁教学法”.《外语界》,第4期,35 - 40.)
[24] Han Jinlong. & Qin Xiubai. Genre Analysis and Genre-based Teaching Approaches [J]. Foreign Languages, 2000(1):11-18. (韩金龙,秦秀白,2000,“体裁分析与体裁教学法”,《外语界》,第1期,11-18.)
[25] Holmes, R. Genre analysis and the social sciences: an investigation of the structure of research article discussion sections in three disciplines [J]. English for SpecificPurposes, 1997(4):321-337.
[26] Hunson, S. Professional conflict: disagreement in academic discourse [A]. In M. Baker, G. Francis & E. Togini-Boneli, Text and technology: in honor of John Sinclair [C]. Amsterdam: Hohn Benjamins. 1993. 115-133.
[27] Hyland, K. Writing without conviction? Hedging in scientific research articles [J]. Applied Linguistics, 1996(4):433-454.
[28] Hyland, K. Disciplinary Discourses: Social Interactions in Academic [M]. London: Longman. 2000.
[29] Hyland, K. & John Milton .Qualification and certainty in L1 and L2 students' writing [J]. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1997(2):183-205.
[30] Ju Yumei. A contrastive study of the articles of English and Chinese academic papers [J]. Foreign Language Education, 2004(2):32-36. (鞠玉梅, 2004,“体裁分析与英汉学术论文摘要语篇”,《外语教学》,第2期,32-36.)
[31] Kaplan, R. B., Cantor, S. On abstract writing [J]. Text, 1994(3): 401-426.
[32] Li Yongyan, Negotiating knowledge contribution to multiple discourse communities: A doctoral student of computer science writing for publication [J]. Journal of Second Language Writing, 2006(3): 159-178.
[33] Liang, L. Genre Analysis of abstracts in Research Articles [J]. Journal of HUST, 1998(37): 125-129. (梁丽,1998,“科技论文英文摘要的文体及典型例句分析”,《华中理工大学学报》,第37期,125-129.)
[34] Martin-Martin, P, & Sally, Burgess. The rhetorical management of academic criticism in research article abstracts [J]. Text,2004( 24):171-195.
[35] Miller, C. Genre as social action [J]. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 1984(70): 151-167.
[36] Motta-Roth, D. Discourse analysis and academic book reviews: a study of text and disciplinary cultures [J]. Genre Studies in English for Academic Purposes, 1998(1): 29-59.
[37] Myers, G. Writing Biology: Texts in the Social Construction of Scientific Knowledge [M]. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press. 1990.
[38] Qin Xiubai. A review of genre-based teaching approaches [J]. Foreign LanguageTeaching and research, 2000(1):42-46. (秦秀白, 2000,“体裁教学法评述”,《外语教学与研究》,第1期,42 -46.)
[39] Qin Xiubai. A brief survey of‘genre analysis’[J]. Journal of Foreign languages, 1997(6):8-15. (秦秀白, 1997,“体裁分析概说”.《外国语》,第6期,8 - 15.)
[40] Salager-Meyer, F. Discoursal flaws in medical English abstracts: a genre analysis per research- and text-type [J]. Text, 1990(10):365-384.
[41] Salager-Meyer, F. The rationale behind academic conflict: from outright criticism to contextual "niche" creation[J]. UNESCO-ALSED LSP. 1998(2):4-23.
[42] Salager-Meyer, F. Referential behavior in scientific writing: a diachronic study (1810-1995) [J]. English for Specific Purposes , 1999(18): 279-305.
[43] Salager-Meyer, F. & N. Zambrano. The bittersweet rhetoric of controversiality in 19th-and 20th century French and English medical literature [J]. Journal of Historical Pragmatics,2001(2):141-75.
[44] Salager-Meyer, F., & Alcaraz Ariza, M. A. Academic criticism in Spanish medical discourse: A cross-generic approach [J]. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 2003(13):96–114.
[45] Salager-Meyer, F., Alcaraz Ariza, M. A., & Zambrano, N. The scimitar, the dagger, and the glove: Intercultural differences in the rhetoric of criticism in Spanish, French, and English medical discourse [J]. English for Specific Purposes, 2003(22):223–247.
[46] Samraj, B. Introductions in research articles: variations across disciplines [J]. English for Specific Purposes, 2002(21): 1-17.
[47] Santos, M. B. The textual organization of research paper abstracts in applied linguistics [J]. Text, 1996(4): 481-499.
[48] Swales, J. M. Aspects of article introductions [M]. Birmingham, UK: The University of Aston Language Studies Unit. 1981.
[49] Swales, J. M. Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press. 1990 .
[50] Taylor, G., & T. Chen. Linguistic, cultural, and subcultural issues in contrastive discourse: Anglo-American and Chinese scientific texts [J]. Applied Linguistics, 1991(3):319-336.
[51] Thompson, G, & Ye, Y. Evaluating in the reporting verbs used in academic papers [J]. Applied Linguistics, 1991(4):365-382.
[52] Van Dijk, T. A. Academic nationalism, [Editorial]. Discourse and Society [M]. 275-276. 1994.
[53] Vassileva Irena. Commitment and detachment in English and Bulgarian academic writing [J]. English for Specific Purposes, 2001(20): 83-102.
[54] Williams, J. Results section of medical research articles: analysis of rhetorical categories for pedagogical purposes [J]. English for Specific Purposes, 1999(18): 347-366.
[55] Yu Bingfeng. Writing Manuals for Scientific Research Articles[M].2003. (俞炳丰, 2003,《科技英语论文实用写作指南》.西安交通大学出版社. )
[56] Yu Li & Liang Yu Li & Liang Yonggang. A study of writing model of English scientific papers [J]. Froeign Language Education, 2006(1):34-37. (余莉,梁永刚, 2006,“英语科技论文摘要的写作范式研究”,《外语教学》,第1期,34-37.)
[57] Yu Hui. Genre, text type and second language teaching [J]. Journal of PLA of Foreign Languages, 2003(9):13-17. (于晖, 2003,语篇体裁、语篇类型与外语教学[J ] .解放军外国语学院学报,第5期,13 - 17.)
© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号 地址：北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编：100083 电话：办公室：(+86 10)66554848；文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新：66554700 |