基于语料库对比的中国大学英语议论文中因果连接词的研究
|
摘要
因果连接词在中国大学生的英语作文中起着非常重要的作用。适当的使用因果连接词使作者在提供论据和下结论时语言更具衔接性,增强文章的说服力。然而,中国学生英语写作时因果连接词的使用还存在许多问题。国内外学者做过一些相关研究,然而这些研究大多是思维性的,缺乏足够的实证依据。有个别实证研究也不够全面和深入。本文对中国非英语专业大学生写作中因果连接词的使用进行了研究,并用定量和定性的方法将其和英语本族语者进行对比分析。对如下几个问题为主进行讨论;
(1)中国英语学习者与本族语者在使用因果连接词时是否存在差异?其使用频率和使用特点有什么联系?中国英语学习者因果连接词使用有哪些不足?
(2)中国英语学习者因果连接词的使用与其语言水平是否存在一定的联系?
(3)中国英语学习者与本族语者间使用因果连接词的差异产生的原因是什么?是母语的迁移还是有其他的原因?
在本文中,作者通过使用语料库和中介语对比分析的研究方法探讨了因果连接词的使用。考虑到大学英语四级是中国英语学习者参与人数最多的考试,本文中介语语料库选用了中国英语学习者语料库的子库St3。本族语料库选用BNC。此外,为了更好的对比分析,本文还选用中文语料库LCMC作为辅助语料库。文中采用了检索工具Wconcord、编辑工具Ultra-Edit、Excel以及统计工具SPSS,对因果连接词的使用进行定量分析和定性分析研究。
研究结果表明;
(1)中国大学英语学习者与本族语者在因果连接词的使用上有显著的差异。
中国英语学习者使用因果连接词的频率总体大大高于本族语者。尤其过多使用某些非正式因果连接词而对少数正式文体的因果连接词使用不足。有个别因果连接词中国大学英语学习者从来不使用。本文对此现象进行了研究和分析。此外,中国英语学习者在因果连接词的使用位置方面与本族语也存在不同。中国学习者通常置因果连接词于句首,而较少放在句中。总体来说,中国英语学习者在使用因果连接词时存在许多不足的地方。
(2)中国学习者因果连接词的使用频率与写作质量几乎没有相关性,这点也曾有学者证实过。但本文发现从前的研究只从使用频率方面来研究因果连接词的使用与英语水平相关性是不全面的,因为本文发现中国英语学习者使用因果连接词的丰富性与写作质量是密切相关的。
(3)中国英语学习者在因果连接词上的使用可能受母语迁移、教材与教师的指导和文化因素的影响。这三点进一步证实了以前因果连接词相关研究的结果。此外,本文还发现影响中国英语学习者因果连接词使用的因素除了母语迁移外,还受到目的语迁移和学习者学习策略的影响。
本研究分析了中国大学英语学习者因果连接词的使用,并对英语写作教学和学习提出一些建议,希望可以进一步提高教师和学习者对因果连接词的理解并提高学习者英语写作质量。
Causal connectives play a significant role in English writing of Chinese EFL learners. Proper use of causal connectives will enhance the cohesiveness and persuasion of English writing. However, Chinese EFL learners' use of causal connectives is still problematic. Scholars at home and abroad have done some relevant researches. Most of them lack statistical work and sufficient cases. One or two statistical researches are not comprehensive and deep enough. The present thesis conducts a contrastive study on the causal connectives in English writing between the Chinese non-English major learners and British native English writers. This study mainly concentrates on the following questions:
(1) Is there any significant difference in the use of causal connectives between Chinese EFL learners and native writers? Is there any relation between thewords' frequency and its features? What are the deficiencies of Chinese EFL learners' use of causal connectives?
(2) Is there any significant difference in the use of causal connectives by Chinese EFL learners with different English proficiencies?
(3) What are the possible causes with regards to the different uses of causal connectives between Chinese EFL learners and native English writers? Is itthe L1 transfer or others?
In this thesis, the author explores the use of causal connectives through using corpora and the methodology of CIA (Contrastive Interlanguage Analysis). Considering that CET 4 is the examination with the most examinees, this thesis chooses a sub-corpus of CLEC (St3) as interlanguage corpus,, and BNC (British National; Corpus) as native corpus; Furthermore, this thesis adopts a Chinese corpus (LCMC) as assistant corpus. With the adoption of search tools Wconcord and computer programs (Ultra-Edit, Excel, SPSS etc.), this thesis intends to conduct a quantitative and qualitative study and analyze in detail the use of causal connectives by Chinese EFL learners.
The findings reveal that:
(1) There is significant difference in the frequencies of causal connectives between Chinese EFL learners and native writers. Chinese EFL learners' overall frequency of the use of causal connectives is much greater than native writers. The Chinese EFL learners attempt to overuse some informal causal connectives and underuse some causal connectives which belong to informal style. Some causal connectives are never used by Chinese EFL learners. This phenomenon is analyzed and explained in this research. Moreover, Chinese EFL learners have displayed radical differences from the native English writers concerning the position of causal connectives. Comparing with native English writers, Chinese EFL learners prefer to initial position other than medial position. All in all, there are many deficiencies in the use of causal connectives by Chinese EFL learners.
(2) There is almost no correlation between the learners' frequency of causal connectives and their writing quality. Previous scholars have confirmed this point. However, the present research found that it is not thorough enough to study the correlation between the use of causal connectives and English proficiency just from studying its frequency of use. In the present research, it discovers that the variety of causal connectives used by Chinese EFL learners are positive correlated to students' writing quality.
(3) The Chinese EFL learners' improper use of causal connectives might be the result of L1 transfer, the textbooks' and teachers' instruction, and different culture background. These findings strongly confirm what previous studies have found. Furthermore, the present research finds that L2 transfer and English Learners' learning strategy also affect the use of causal connectives by Chinese EFL learners.
This study attempts to analyze the use of causal connectives of Chinese EFL learners and propose some suggestions regarding teaching and learning implications so as to raise teachers' and learners' understanding of causal connectives and improve learners' quality of English writings.
(1)中国英语学习者与本族语者在使用因果连接词时是否存在差异?其使用频率和使用特点有什么联系?中国英语学习者因果连接词使用有哪些不足?
(2)中国英语学习者因果连接词的使用与其语言水平是否存在一定的联系?
(3)中国英语学习者与本族语者间使用因果连接词的差异产生的原因是什么?是母语的迁移还是有其他的原因?
在本文中,作者通过使用语料库和中介语对比分析的研究方法探讨了因果连接词的使用。考虑到大学英语四级是中国英语学习者参与人数最多的考试,本文中介语语料库选用了中国英语学习者语料库的子库St3。本族语料库选用BNC。此外,为了更好的对比分析,本文还选用中文语料库LCMC作为辅助语料库。文中采用了检索工具Wconcord、编辑工具Ultra-Edit、Excel以及统计工具SPSS,对因果连接词的使用进行定量分析和定性分析研究。
研究结果表明;
(1)中国大学英语学习者与本族语者在因果连接词的使用上有显著的差异。
中国英语学习者使用因果连接词的频率总体大大高于本族语者。尤其过多使用某些非正式因果连接词而对少数正式文体的因果连接词使用不足。有个别因果连接词中国大学英语学习者从来不使用。本文对此现象进行了研究和分析。此外,中国英语学习者在因果连接词的使用位置方面与本族语也存在不同。中国学习者通常置因果连接词于句首,而较少放在句中。总体来说,中国英语学习者在使用因果连接词时存在许多不足的地方。
(2)中国学习者因果连接词的使用频率与写作质量几乎没有相关性,这点也曾有学者证实过。但本文发现从前的研究只从使用频率方面来研究因果连接词的使用与英语水平相关性是不全面的,因为本文发现中国英语学习者使用因果连接词的丰富性与写作质量是密切相关的。
(3)中国英语学习者在因果连接词上的使用可能受母语迁移、教材与教师的指导和文化因素的影响。这三点进一步证实了以前因果连接词相关研究的结果。此外,本文还发现影响中国英语学习者因果连接词使用的因素除了母语迁移外,还受到目的语迁移和学习者学习策略的影响。
本研究分析了中国大学英语学习者因果连接词的使用,并对英语写作教学和学习提出一些建议,希望可以进一步提高教师和学习者对因果连接词的理解并提高学习者英语写作质量。
Causal connectives play a significant role in English writing of Chinese EFL learners. Proper use of causal connectives will enhance the cohesiveness and persuasion of English writing. However, Chinese EFL learners' use of causal connectives is still problematic. Scholars at home and abroad have done some relevant researches. Most of them lack statistical work and sufficient cases. One or two statistical researches are not comprehensive and deep enough. The present thesis conducts a contrastive study on the causal connectives in English writing between the Chinese non-English major learners and British native English writers. This study mainly concentrates on the following questions:
(1) Is there any significant difference in the use of causal connectives between Chinese EFL learners and native writers? Is there any relation between thewords' frequency and its features? What are the deficiencies of Chinese EFL learners' use of causal connectives?
(2) Is there any significant difference in the use of causal connectives by Chinese EFL learners with different English proficiencies?
(3) What are the possible causes with regards to the different uses of causal connectives between Chinese EFL learners and native English writers? Is itthe L1 transfer or others?
In this thesis, the author explores the use of causal connectives through using corpora and the methodology of CIA (Contrastive Interlanguage Analysis). Considering that CET 4 is the examination with the most examinees, this thesis chooses a sub-corpus of CLEC (St3) as interlanguage corpus,, and BNC (British National; Corpus) as native corpus; Furthermore, this thesis adopts a Chinese corpus (LCMC) as assistant corpus. With the adoption of search tools Wconcord and computer programs (Ultra-Edit, Excel, SPSS etc.), this thesis intends to conduct a quantitative and qualitative study and analyze in detail the use of causal connectives by Chinese EFL learners.
The findings reveal that:
(1) There is significant difference in the frequencies of causal connectives between Chinese EFL learners and native writers. Chinese EFL learners' overall frequency of the use of causal connectives is much greater than native writers. The Chinese EFL learners attempt to overuse some informal causal connectives and underuse some causal connectives which belong to informal style. Some causal connectives are never used by Chinese EFL learners. This phenomenon is analyzed and explained in this research. Moreover, Chinese EFL learners have displayed radical differences from the native English writers concerning the position of causal connectives. Comparing with native English writers, Chinese EFL learners prefer to initial position other than medial position. All in all, there are many deficiencies in the use of causal connectives by Chinese EFL learners.
(2) There is almost no correlation between the learners' frequency of causal connectives and their writing quality. Previous scholars have confirmed this point. However, the present research found that it is not thorough enough to study the correlation between the use of causal connectives and English proficiency just from studying its frequency of use. In the present research, it discovers that the variety of causal connectives used by Chinese EFL learners are positive correlated to students' writing quality.
(3) The Chinese EFL learners' improper use of causal connectives might be the result of L1 transfer, the textbooks' and teachers' instruction, and different culture background. These findings strongly confirm what previous studies have found. Furthermore, the present research finds that L2 transfer and English Learners' learning strategy also affect the use of causal connectives by Chinese EFL learners.
This study attempts to analyze the use of causal connectives of Chinese EFL learners and propose some suggestions regarding teaching and learning implications so as to raise teachers' and learners' understanding of causal connectives and improve learners' quality of English writings.
引文
[1] Altenberg, B. (1984). Causal Linking in Spoken and Written English [J]. Studia Linguistica 38, 20-69.
[2] Altenberg, B. The Correspondence of Resultive Connectors in English and Swedish.
[3] Bamberg B, (1983). B. Bamberg, What makes a text coherent? College Composition and Communication 34 4 (1983), pp. 417-429.
[4] Biber, D. Conrad, S. and Reppen, R. (1998). Corpus Linguistics: Investigating language structure and use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[5] Biber, D. et al. (2000). Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
[6] Brown, H.D. (1994). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
[7] Caron, J., Micko, H.C., & Thuring, M., (1988). Conjunctions and the Recall of Composite Sentences. Journal of Memory and Language. 27, pp. 309-323.
[8] Connor, Ulla. (1996). Contrastive Rhetoric: Cross-cultural aspects of second-language writing. Cambridge.
[9] Donaldson, Morag Lennox. (1983). Young Children's Production of Causal Connectives.
[10] Einar Meier. (2001). "Since you mention it" A Contrastive Study of Causal Subordination in English and Norwegian.
[12] Ellis,. Rod. (2000).'Understanding Second. Language Acquisition. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
[13] French, Lucia Ann. (1988). The Development of Children's' Understanding of "Because" and "So". Journal of Experimental Child Psychology. 45, pp.262-79
[14] Granger, S. (1996). From CA to CIA and back: An integrated approach to computerised bilingual and learner corpora. In K. Aijmer, B. Altenberg and M. Johansson (eds.) Language in Contrast. Lund: Lund University Press. 37-51.
[15] Granger, S. (1998). Learner English on Computer. London: Longman.
[16] Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
[17] Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1989). Language, context, and text: Aspects of language in a social-semiotic perspective. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
[18] Hyunsook Yoon, Alan Hirvela (2004), ESL student attitudes toward corpus use in L2 writing, Journal of Second Language Writing. 13,257-283
[19] John N. Boyd (2002). Psychology and.Life. Sixteenth Edition, 2002, Allyn & Bacon, A Pearson Education Company. Massachusetts, ISBN 0-205-34453-2
[20] Kennedy, G (2000). An Introduction to Corpus Linguistics [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Researching Press.
[21]Kleinmann,H.H.(1978).The strategy of avoidance in adult second language acquisition.In W.C.Ritchie(Ed.),Second language acquisition research;Issues and implications(pp.157-174).New York;Academic Press.
[22]Liesbeth Degand,(2000).Causal Connectives or Causal Prepositions? Discursive Constraints.
[23]Liesbeth Degand,Henk Pander Maat.A Contrastive Study of Dutch and French Causal Connectives on the Speaker Involvement Scale.
[24]Odlin,Language transfer[M].Cambridge;Cambridge University press,1989 Longman.
[25]Richards,J.(1990).The Language Teaching Matrix.Cambridge,England;Cambridge University Press.
[26]Sun,Y.C.(2000).Using on-line corpus to facilitate language learning,Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Language.British Columbia,Canada.
[27]Vandepitte,S.(1993).A Pragmatic Study of the Expression and the Interpretation of Causality;Conjuncts and Conjunctions in Modern Spoken British English.Brussels;AWLSK(n.146)
[28]蔡焱.中国学习者BECAUSE原因状语从句习得初探.《广西师范学院学报(哲学社会科学版)》2005,16(4),106-109
[29]陈新仁.话语联系语与英语议论文写作;调查分析.《外语教学与研究》第5期,2002,350-354″
[30]董莉.《英语文体学理论与实践》.北京电子工业出版社.2005
[31]桂诗春,杨惠中.《中国学习者英语语料库》[M].上海;上海外语教育出版社,2002
[32]金伟英.基于语料库的因果连接对比研究,2006
[33]马广惠.中美大学生英语语篇对比修辞分析[J].解放军外国语学院学报,2001,(6);5-8
[34]莫俊华.中国学生议论文写作中使用因果连接词的语料库研究.《外语教学》,2005,26(5),45-50
[35]徐海铭.中国英语专业本科生使用元语篇手段的发展模式调查研究[J].外语与外语教学,2004,(3);59264.
[36]徐静.(2007).非英语专业学生议论文中因果连接词使用分析
[37]许文胜,张柏然.基于英汉名著语料库的因果关系连接对比研究.《外语教学与研究》2006,38(4),292-297
[38]文秋芳,丁言仁,王文宇.中国大学生书面语中的口语化倾向.《外语教学与研究》第四期,2003,268-274
[39]杨惠中,桂诗春.《中国学生英语语料库》.上海;上海外语教育出版社,2003
[40]虞秋玲.英汉对比修辞研究与英语作文教学[J].福建;福建外语,2001,(2);33-37
[41]赵蔚彬.中国学生英语作文中逻辑连接词使用量化对比分析.外语教学;2003,72-77
[2] Altenberg, B. The Correspondence of Resultive Connectors in English and Swedish.
[3] Bamberg B, (1983). B. Bamberg, What makes a text coherent? College Composition and Communication 34 4 (1983), pp. 417-429.
[4] Biber, D. Conrad, S. and Reppen, R. (1998). Corpus Linguistics: Investigating language structure and use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[5] Biber, D. et al. (2000). Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
[6] Brown, H.D. (1994). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
[7] Caron, J., Micko, H.C., & Thuring, M., (1988). Conjunctions and the Recall of Composite Sentences. Journal of Memory and Language. 27, pp. 309-323.
[8] Connor, Ulla. (1996). Contrastive Rhetoric: Cross-cultural aspects of second-language writing. Cambridge.
[9] Donaldson, Morag Lennox. (1983). Young Children's Production of Causal Connectives.
[10] Einar Meier. (2001). "Since you mention it" A Contrastive Study of Causal Subordination in English and Norwegian.
[12] Ellis,. Rod. (2000).'Understanding Second. Language Acquisition. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
[13] French, Lucia Ann. (1988). The Development of Children's' Understanding of "Because" and "So". Journal of Experimental Child Psychology. 45, pp.262-79
[14] Granger, S. (1996). From CA to CIA and back: An integrated approach to computerised bilingual and learner corpora. In K. Aijmer, B. Altenberg and M. Johansson (eds.) Language in Contrast. Lund: Lund University Press. 37-51.
[15] Granger, S. (1998). Learner English on Computer. London: Longman.
[16] Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
[17] Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1989). Language, context, and text: Aspects of language in a social-semiotic perspective. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
[18] Hyunsook Yoon, Alan Hirvela (2004), ESL student attitudes toward corpus use in L2 writing, Journal of Second Language Writing. 13,257-283
[19] John N. Boyd (2002). Psychology and.Life. Sixteenth Edition, 2002, Allyn & Bacon, A Pearson Education Company. Massachusetts, ISBN 0-205-34453-2
[20] Kennedy, G (2000). An Introduction to Corpus Linguistics [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Researching Press.
[21]Kleinmann,H.H.(1978).The strategy of avoidance in adult second language acquisition.In W.C.Ritchie(Ed.),Second language acquisition research;Issues and implications(pp.157-174).New York;Academic Press.
[22]Liesbeth Degand,(2000).Causal Connectives or Causal Prepositions? Discursive Constraints.
[23]Liesbeth Degand,Henk Pander Maat.A Contrastive Study of Dutch and French Causal Connectives on the Speaker Involvement Scale.
[24]Odlin,Language transfer[M].Cambridge;Cambridge University press,1989 Longman.
[25]Richards,J.(1990).The Language Teaching Matrix.Cambridge,England;Cambridge University Press.
[26]Sun,Y.C.(2000).Using on-line corpus to facilitate language learning,Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Language.British Columbia,Canada.
[27]Vandepitte,S.(1993).A Pragmatic Study of the Expression and the Interpretation of Causality;Conjuncts and Conjunctions in Modern Spoken British English.Brussels;AWLSK(n.146)
[28]蔡焱.中国学习者BECAUSE原因状语从句习得初探.《广西师范学院学报(哲学社会科学版)》2005,16(4),106-109
[29]陈新仁.话语联系语与英语议论文写作;调查分析.《外语教学与研究》第5期,2002,350-354″
[30]董莉.《英语文体学理论与实践》.北京电子工业出版社.2005
[31]桂诗春,杨惠中.《中国学习者英语语料库》[M].上海;上海外语教育出版社,2002
[32]金伟英.基于语料库的因果连接对比研究,2006
[33]马广惠.中美大学生英语语篇对比修辞分析[J].解放军外国语学院学报,2001,(6);5-8
[34]莫俊华.中国学生议论文写作中使用因果连接词的语料库研究.《外语教学》,2005,26(5),45-50
[35]徐海铭.中国英语专业本科生使用元语篇手段的发展模式调查研究[J].外语与外语教学,2004,(3);59264.
[36]徐静.(2007).非英语专业学生议论文中因果连接词使用分析
[37]许文胜,张柏然.基于英汉名著语料库的因果关系连接对比研究.《外语教学与研究》2006,38(4),292-297
[38]文秋芳,丁言仁,王文宇.中国大学生书面语中的口语化倾向.《外语教学与研究》第四期,2003,268-274
[39]杨惠中,桂诗春.《中国学生英语语料库》.上海;上海外语教育出版社,2003
[40]虞秋玲.英汉对比修辞研究与英语作文教学[J].福建;福建外语,2001,(2);33-37
[41]赵蔚彬.中国学生英语作文中逻辑连接词使用量化对比分析.外语教学;2003,72-77
© 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 |