语类结构潜势理论在大学英语写作教学中的应用
|
摘要
过去二十多年中，中国大学英语写作教学改革使写作教学从注重产出转变为注重过程。这种变化使学生从注重语言形式的学习转变为注重写作过程的组织。但教学实践表明，重过程的英语写作教学仍不能满足写作的交际需求。学生经过学习后能写出符合逻辑的篇章，但仍然无法有效完成实际交际任务(方琰，2005)。这种不足要求大学英语写作教学仍需要改革。八十年代初，以语类理论为基础的英语写作教学方法开始受到英语教师的关注。这种注重写作目的和内容的教学方法认为，英语写作教学除了注重对语言应用能力的培养，还应注重让学生接触英语社会里不同的语类，培养学生的社会语境意识。这种教学方法注重语境和写作能力的结合，让学生学会写不同的语类语篇文章，从而提高学生的英语写作有效性(韩礼德，哈桑，1985)。近几年来，中国对外交流的频繁对大学生的英语写作交际能力提出了迫切的要求。清华大学的方琰教授在写作教学中实验这种注重目的和内容的教学方法，获得了有价值的研究成果。为了进一步完善大学英语写作教学，本文试图从实证研究的角度，参照国内外学者有关英语写作教学的研究成果，探讨语类结构潜势理论在大学英语实用写作教学中的作用。本文的研究假设是：(1)语类结构潜势理论对大学英语实用写作教学能够产生何种作用，是积极的，还是消极的?即该理论是否能够提高学生的写作交际能力?(2)该理论是否适用于地方性综合大学的英语写作教学?该研究运用定量分析和定性分析相结合的方法，通过写作测试、调查问卷、有声思维、个人访谈、课堂观察的手段，对两所地方性大学—广西大学和沈阳大学的167名非英语专业学生进行实验组和对比组教学实验。实验前后比较研究发现：语类结构潜势理论对大学英语实用写作教学有积极的作用，相比传统的英语写作教学方法，语类结构潜势理论指导下的英语写作教学能更有效地提高学生英语写作交际能力；它不仅适用于中国高水平大学的英语写作教学(方琰，2005)，也适用于地方性大学的英语写作教学。最后本文对大学英语写作教学提出了有针对性的建议，并为今后的相关研究提供了参考意见。
In the past two decades, English writing reform in Chinese universities experienced a shift from a product-oriented approach to a process-oriented approach. Students focused their English writing practice on the organization of the entire writing process and improved their English writing from the perspective of productive skills. However, the teaching practice shows that the process-oriented approach is not efficient enough for communicative purposes. Students being taught by the process-oriented approach are found to be capable of writing out logical passages but fail to write effectively for the given tasks (Fang, 2005). This deficiency calls for a further reform in college English writing teaching. In the early 1980s, researchers tried to apply the GSP (Generic Structure Potential) theory into the teaching of English writing, known as the aim-oriented or content-oriented approach. According to this approach, English teachers should put the emphasis of the writing teaching on students' language application ability, and students are supposed to learn as many genres in English-speaking countries as possible and develop their awareness of social context. By combining context of situation with writing practice, this approach claims that students should learn writings of different genres and consequently improve the efficiency of writing (Halliday & Hasan, 1985). In recent years, the increasing international exchanges challenge the Chinese university students for a better writing communicative competence. Fang Yan, Professor of English in Tsinghua University, a pioneer in applying this approach to the writing teaching in Tsinghua University has conducted a number of experiments in Tsinghua University and produced enlightening discoveries. With the purpose of doing a better job in the English writing teaching, this thesis intends to further study the function of the GSP theory in college English practical writing through an empirical study with the research results home and abroad as references. The author puts forward two hypotheses which are: 1. What kind of effects does the GSP theory have on the college English practical writing, positive or negative? In other words, does the new approach based on the GSP theory play a better role in facilitating the students' writing communicative competence than the traditional writing approaches? 2. Does it work effectively in the teaching of English writing in China's provincial universities? The current study experiments with 167 students of non-English majors in Guangxi University and Shenyang University. By comparing the control group with the experiment group, the author combines quantitative research method with qualitative one and employs instruments like writing tests, questionnaires, thinking aloud, interviews and classroom observations to collect data. Through comparisons before and after the experiments, it is found that the effects of the GSP theory in college English practical writing are positive.
In the past two decades, English writing reform in Chinese universities experienced a shift from a product-oriented approach to a process-oriented approach. Students focused their English writing practice on the organization of the entire writing process and improved their English writing from the perspective of productive skills. However, the teaching practice shows that the process-oriented approach is not efficient enough for communicative purposes. Students being taught by the process-oriented approach are found to be capable of writing out logical passages but fail to write effectively for the given tasks (Fang, 2005). This deficiency calls for a further reform in college English writing teaching. In the early 1980s, researchers tried to apply the GSP (Generic Structure Potential) theory into the teaching of English writing, known as the aim-oriented or content-oriented approach. According to this approach, English teachers should put the emphasis of the writing teaching on students' language application ability, and students are supposed to learn as many genres in English-speaking countries as possible and develop their awareness of social context. By combining context of situation with writing practice, this approach claims that students should learn writings of different genres and consequently improve the efficiency of writing (Halliday & Hasan, 1985). In recent years, the increasing international exchanges challenge the Chinese university students for a better writing communicative competence. Fang Yan, Professor of English in Tsinghua University, a pioneer in applying this approach to the writing teaching in Tsinghua University has conducted a number of experiments in Tsinghua University and produced enlightening discoveries. With the purpose of doing a better job in the English writing teaching, this thesis intends to further study the function of the GSP theory in college English practical writing through an empirical study with the research results home and abroad as references. The author puts forward two hypotheses which are: 1. What kind of effects does the GSP theory have on the college English practical writing, positive or negative? In other words, does the new approach based on the GSP theory play a better role in facilitating the students' writing communicative competence than the traditional writing approaches? 2. Does it work effectively in the teaching of English writing in China's provincial universities? The current study experiments with 167 students of non-English majors in Guangxi University and Shenyang University. By comparing the control group with the experiment group, the author combines quantitative research method with qualitative one and employs instruments like writing tests, questionnaires, thinking aloud, interviews and classroom observations to collect data. Through comparisons before and after the experiments, it is found that the effects of the GSP theory in college English practical writing are positive.
引文
[1] Badage, R. & G. White. 2000. "A Process Genre Approach to Teaching Writing" [J]. ELT Journal, 2:153-60.
[2] Baldatin, M. M. 1986. The problem of speech genres [A]. In M. M. Bakhtin, Speech Genres and other Later Essays (translated by V. Mc Gee) [C]. Austin: University of Texas Press.
[3] Berger, P. L. & T. Luckmann. 1966. The Social Construction of Reality—A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge [M]. Penguim Books Harmondsworth.
[4] Bialystok, E. 1990. Communication strategies: A psychological analysis of second-language use [M]. Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell.
[5] Bishop, Wendy & Hans Ostrom. 1997. Genre and writing: issues, arguments, alternatives [M]. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook-Heinemann.
[6] Bracher, Mark (Ed). 1999. The Writing Cure—Psychoanalysis, Composition, and the Aims of Education [C]. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
[7] Brooks, E. 1985. Case studies of the composing processes of five 'unskilled' English as a second language writers [A]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, New York University.
[8] Brown, G. & G. Yule. 1983. Discourse Analysis [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[9] Brown, H. D. 1994. Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy [M]. Prentice Hall Regents.
[10] Chelala, S. 1981. The composing process of two Spanish-speakers and the coherence of their texts: A ease study [A]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, New York University.
[11] Cumming, A. 1987. Decision-making and text representation in ESL writing [A]. Paper presented at the 21st Annual TESOL Convention, Miami, April.
[12] Dong, Yu Ren. 1995. Disciplinary culture and the acquisition of advanced writing Skills in English as a second language [M]. Ann Arbor, Mich.: UMI.
[13] Eggins, Suzanne. 2004. An Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics (2nd Edition) [M]. Continuum International Publishing Group.
[14] Feng, Ho-ping. 2001. Writing an Academic Paper in English: An Exploratory Study of Six Taiwanese Graduate Students [A]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, New York University.
[15] Flower, L. 1990. Negotiate academic discourse [A]. In L. Flower, B. Stein, J. Ackerman, M. J. Kantz, K. McCormick & W. C. Peck (eds). Reading to write: Exploring a social and cognitive process [C]. New York: Oxford University Press. pp.221-261.
[16] Flower, L. & J. R. Hayes. 1981. A cognitive process theory of writing [J]. College Composition and Communication. 32.4: 365-387.
[17] Flower, L. & J. R Hayes. 1984. Images, plans, and prose: The representation of meaning in writing [J]. Written Communication. 1.1: 120-160.
[18] Friedlander, A. 1990. Composing in English: Effects of a first language on writing in English as a second language [A] in B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insight for the classroom [C]. New York: Cambridge University Press. pp109-125.
[19] Hairston, M. 1982. The winds of change: Thomas Kuhn and the revolution in the teaching of writing [J]. College Composition and Communication. 33.1: 76-88.
[20] Halliday, M.A.K. 1978. Language as Social Semiotic [M]. London: Edward Arnold.
[21] Halliday, M.A.K. 1985. An Introduction to Functional Grammar [M]. Arnold, London.
[22] Halliday, M.A.K.. 2002. Linguistic studies of text and discourse [M]. London: Continuum.
[23] Halliday, M.A.K.. 2004. The Language of Early Childhood [M]. Continuum International Publishing Group.
[24] Halliday, M.A.K. & R. Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in English [M]. London: Longman.
[25] Halliday, M.A.K. & R. Hasan. 1985. Language, Context, and Text: Aspects of Language in a Social-Semiotic Perspective [M]. Australia: Deakin University Press.
[26] Halliday, M.A.K., Angus Mclntosh & Peter Strevens. 1964. The Linguistic Sciences and Language Teaching [M]. London: Longmans.
[27] Hasan, R. & W, Geoff. 1996. Literacy in society [M]. London, New York: Longman.
[28] Johns, Ann M. 2002. Genre in the classroom: multiple perspective [M]. Mahwah, N.J.: L. Erlbaum.
[29] Jones, S. 1982. Attention to rhetorical form while composing in a second language [A]. In C. Campbell, V. Flasher, T. Hudson, & J. Lubing (eds.), Proceedings of the Los Angeles: University of California at Los Angeles [C].
[30] Jones, S. & J. Tetroe. 1987. Composing in a second language [A] in A. Matsuhashi (ed.), Writing in real time: Modeling production process [C]. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. pp.34-57.
[31] Kellogg, R. T. 1994. The psychology of writing [M]. New York: Oxford University Press.
[32] Krapels, A. P. 1990. An overview of second language writing process research [A]. In B. Kroll (ed.), Second language writing: Research insight for the classroom [C]. New York: Cambridge University Press. pp. 37-56.
[33] Lay, N. 1982. Composing process of adult ESL learners [J]. TESOL Quarterly, 16: 406.
[34] Martin, J. R. 1985. Process and Text: two aspects of semiosis [A]. In J. D. Benson & W. S. Greaves (eds.). Systemic Perspectives on Discourse, Vol.1: Selected Theoretical Papers from the 9th International Systemic Workshop [C]. Norwood, N. J.: Ablex. pp.248-274.
[35] Martin, J. R. 1992. English Text: System and Structure [M]. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins.
[36] Martin, J. R. & J. Rothery. 1986. What a functional approach to the writing task can show teachers about good writing [A]. In Couture, B. (ed.). Functional approaches to Writing: Research Perspectives [C]. Norwood, N. J.: Ablex.
[37] Martin-Betancourt, M. 1986. The composing processes of Puerto Pdcan college students of English as a second language [A]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Fordham University.
[38] NewKirk, Thomas. 1997. The performance of self in student writing [M]. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook Publishers: Heinemann.
[39] Pfingstag, N. 1984. Showing writing: Modeling the process [J]. TESOL Newsletter, 18: 1-3.
[40] Raimes, A. 1985. What unskilled writers do as they write: A classroom study of composing [J]. TESOL Quarterly, 19.2:225-258.
[41] Riley, J. & D. Reedy. 2000. Developing Writing for different purposes—teaching about genre in the early years [M]. London: Paul Chapman Publishing Ltd.
[42] Silva, T. 1990. Second language composition instruction: developments, issues, and directions in ESL [A]. In B. Kroll (ed.). Second language writing: Research insight for the classroom [C]. New York: Cambridge University Press. pp.11-23.
[43] Simon, D. & H. Simon. 1978. Individual differences in solving problems [A]. In R. Siegler (ed.), Children's thinking: What develops? [C]. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates. pp. 325-348.
[44] Van Dijk, T. A. 1977. Text and Context: Explorations in the Pragmatics of Discourse [M]. London: Longman.
[45] Vipond, Douglas. 1993. Writing and psychology: understanding writing and its teaching from the perspective of composition studies [M]. Westport, Loan: Praeger.
[46] Witte, S. P. & R. D. Cherry. 1994. Think-aloud protocols, protocol analysis, and research design: An Exploration of the influence of writing tasks on writing processes [A]. In P. Smagorinsky (ed.), Speaking about writing: Reflections on research methodology [C]. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE publications, pp. 21-54.
[47] Yao, C. K. 1991. Writing in English for academic purposes: Care studies of four Taiwanese graduate Students [A]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota.
[48] Zamel, V. 1982. Writing: The process of discovering meaning [J]. TESOL Quarterly, 16: 195-209.
[49] Zamel, V. 1983. The composing processes of advanced ESL students: Six case studies [J]. TESOL Quarterly, 17: 165-187.
[50] 陈红，2005，《大学英语实用写作》[M]，北京：清华大学出版社。
[51] 方琰，1995，Hasan的“语体结构潜势理论”及其对语篇分析的贡献[J]，《外语学刊》第1期，33-39页。
[52] 方琰，方艳华，2002，以语类为基础的应用文英语写作教学模式[J]，《外语与外语教学》第1期，33-36页。
[53] 方琰，2005，系统功能语言学及其应用，在广西大学外国语学院的学术交流报告[Z]。
[54] 胡壮麟，朱永生，张德禄，李战子，2005，《系统功能语言学概论》[M]，北京：北京大学出版社．
[55] 文秋芳，2001，《应用语言学研究方法与论文写作》[M]，北京：外语教学与研究出版社。
[56] 张德禄，1990，论语域的预测能力[J]，《外国语》第4期，17-24页。
[57] 张德禄，2000，社会文化因素与语篇连贯[J]，《山东师大外国语学院学报》第4期，1-9页。
[58] 朱永生等编著，2001，《英汉语篇衔接手段对比研究》[C]，上海：上海外教出版社。
[59] 朱永生，2005，《语境动态研究》[M]，北京：北京大学出版社。
[60] 朱永生，严世清，2001，《系统功能语言学多维思考》[M]，上海：上海外语教育出版社。
[61] 朱永生，严世清，苗兴伟编著，2004，《功能语言学导论》[M]，上海：上海外语教育出版社。
[2] Baldatin, M. M. 1986. The problem of speech genres [A]. In M. M. Bakhtin, Speech Genres and other Later Essays (translated by V. Mc Gee) [C]. Austin: University of Texas Press.
[3] Berger, P. L. & T. Luckmann. 1966. The Social Construction of Reality—A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge [M]. Penguim Books Harmondsworth.
[4] Bialystok, E. 1990. Communication strategies: A psychological analysis of second-language use [M]. Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell.
[5] Bishop, Wendy & Hans Ostrom. 1997. Genre and writing: issues, arguments, alternatives [M]. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook-Heinemann.
[6] Bracher, Mark (Ed). 1999. The Writing Cure—Psychoanalysis, Composition, and the Aims of Education [C]. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
[7] Brooks, E. 1985. Case studies of the composing processes of five 'unskilled' English as a second language writers [A]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, New York University.
[8] Brown, G. & G. Yule. 1983. Discourse Analysis [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[9] Brown, H. D. 1994. Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy [M]. Prentice Hall Regents.
[10] Chelala, S. 1981. The composing process of two Spanish-speakers and the coherence of their texts: A ease study [A]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, New York University.
[11] Cumming, A. 1987. Decision-making and text representation in ESL writing [A]. Paper presented at the 21st Annual TESOL Convention, Miami, April.
[12] Dong, Yu Ren. 1995. Disciplinary culture and the acquisition of advanced writing Skills in English as a second language [M]. Ann Arbor, Mich.: UMI.
[13] Eggins, Suzanne. 2004. An Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics (2nd Edition) [M]. Continuum International Publishing Group.
[14] Feng, Ho-ping. 2001. Writing an Academic Paper in English: An Exploratory Study of Six Taiwanese Graduate Students [A]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, New York University.
[15] Flower, L. 1990. Negotiate academic discourse [A]. In L. Flower, B. Stein, J. Ackerman, M. J. Kantz, K. McCormick & W. C. Peck (eds). Reading to write: Exploring a social and cognitive process [C]. New York: Oxford University Press. pp.221-261.
[16] Flower, L. & J. R. Hayes. 1981. A cognitive process theory of writing [J]. College Composition and Communication. 32.4: 365-387.
[17] Flower, L. & J. R Hayes. 1984. Images, plans, and prose: The representation of meaning in writing [J]. Written Communication. 1.1: 120-160.
[18] Friedlander, A. 1990. Composing in English: Effects of a first language on writing in English as a second language [A] in B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insight for the classroom [C]. New York: Cambridge University Press. pp109-125.
[19] Hairston, M. 1982. The winds of change: Thomas Kuhn and the revolution in the teaching of writing [J]. College Composition and Communication. 33.1: 76-88.
[20] Halliday, M.A.K. 1978. Language as Social Semiotic [M]. London: Edward Arnold.
[21] Halliday, M.A.K. 1985. An Introduction to Functional Grammar [M]. Arnold, London.
[22] Halliday, M.A.K.. 2002. Linguistic studies of text and discourse [M]. London: Continuum.
[23] Halliday, M.A.K.. 2004. The Language of Early Childhood [M]. Continuum International Publishing Group.
[24] Halliday, M.A.K. & R. Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in English [M]. London: Longman.
[25] Halliday, M.A.K. & R. Hasan. 1985. Language, Context, and Text: Aspects of Language in a Social-Semiotic Perspective [M]. Australia: Deakin University Press.
[26] Halliday, M.A.K., Angus Mclntosh & Peter Strevens. 1964. The Linguistic Sciences and Language Teaching [M]. London: Longmans.
[27] Hasan, R. & W, Geoff. 1996. Literacy in society [M]. London, New York: Longman.
[28] Johns, Ann M. 2002. Genre in the classroom: multiple perspective [M]. Mahwah, N.J.: L. Erlbaum.
[29] Jones, S. 1982. Attention to rhetorical form while composing in a second language [A]. In C. Campbell, V. Flasher, T. Hudson, & J. Lubing (eds.), Proceedings of the Los Angeles: University of California at Los Angeles [C].
[30] Jones, S. & J. Tetroe. 1987. Composing in a second language [A] in A. Matsuhashi (ed.), Writing in real time: Modeling production process [C]. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. pp.34-57.
[31] Kellogg, R. T. 1994. The psychology of writing [M]. New York: Oxford University Press.
[32] Krapels, A. P. 1990. An overview of second language writing process research [A]. In B. Kroll (ed.), Second language writing: Research insight for the classroom [C]. New York: Cambridge University Press. pp. 37-56.
[33] Lay, N. 1982. Composing process of adult ESL learners [J]. TESOL Quarterly, 16: 406.
[34] Martin, J. R. 1985. Process and Text: two aspects of semiosis [A]. In J. D. Benson & W. S. Greaves (eds.). Systemic Perspectives on Discourse, Vol.1: Selected Theoretical Papers from the 9th International Systemic Workshop [C]. Norwood, N. J.: Ablex. pp.248-274.
[35] Martin, J. R. 1992. English Text: System and Structure [M]. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins.
[36] Martin, J. R. & J. Rothery. 1986. What a functional approach to the writing task can show teachers about good writing [A]. In Couture, B. (ed.). Functional approaches to Writing: Research Perspectives [C]. Norwood, N. J.: Ablex.
[37] Martin-Betancourt, M. 1986. The composing processes of Puerto Pdcan college students of English as a second language [A]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Fordham University.
[38] NewKirk, Thomas. 1997. The performance of self in student writing [M]. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook Publishers: Heinemann.
[39] Pfingstag, N. 1984. Showing writing: Modeling the process [J]. TESOL Newsletter, 18: 1-3.
[40] Raimes, A. 1985. What unskilled writers do as they write: A classroom study of composing [J]. TESOL Quarterly, 19.2:225-258.
[41] Riley, J. & D. Reedy. 2000. Developing Writing for different purposes—teaching about genre in the early years [M]. London: Paul Chapman Publishing Ltd.
[42] Silva, T. 1990. Second language composition instruction: developments, issues, and directions in ESL [A]. In B. Kroll (ed.). Second language writing: Research insight for the classroom [C]. New York: Cambridge University Press. pp.11-23.
[43] Simon, D. & H. Simon. 1978. Individual differences in solving problems [A]. In R. Siegler (ed.), Children's thinking: What develops? [C]. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates. pp. 325-348.
[44] Van Dijk, T. A. 1977. Text and Context: Explorations in the Pragmatics of Discourse [M]. London: Longman.
[45] Vipond, Douglas. 1993. Writing and psychology: understanding writing and its teaching from the perspective of composition studies [M]. Westport, Loan: Praeger.
[46] Witte, S. P. & R. D. Cherry. 1994. Think-aloud protocols, protocol analysis, and research design: An Exploration of the influence of writing tasks on writing processes [A]. In P. Smagorinsky (ed.), Speaking about writing: Reflections on research methodology [C]. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE publications, pp. 21-54.
[47] Yao, C. K. 1991. Writing in English for academic purposes: Care studies of four Taiwanese graduate Students [A]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota.
[48] Zamel, V. 1982. Writing: The process of discovering meaning [J]. TESOL Quarterly, 16: 195-209.
[49] Zamel, V. 1983. The composing processes of advanced ESL students: Six case studies [J]. TESOL Quarterly, 17: 165-187.
[50] 陈红，2005，《大学英语实用写作》[M]，北京：清华大学出版社。
[51] 方琰，1995，Hasan的“语体结构潜势理论”及其对语篇分析的贡献[J]，《外语学刊》第1期，33-39页。
[52] 方琰，方艳华，2002，以语类为基础的应用文英语写作教学模式[J]，《外语与外语教学》第1期，33-36页。
[53] 方琰，2005，系统功能语言学及其应用，在广西大学外国语学院的学术交流报告[Z]。
[54] 胡壮麟，朱永生，张德禄，李战子，2005，《系统功能语言学概论》[M]，北京：北京大学出版社．
[55] 文秋芳，2001，《应用语言学研究方法与论文写作》[M]，北京：外语教学与研究出版社。
[56] 张德禄，1990，论语域的预测能力[J]，《外国语》第4期，17-24页。
[57] 张德禄，2000，社会文化因素与语篇连贯[J]，《山东师大外国语学院学报》第4期，1-9页。
[58] 朱永生等编著，2001，《英汉语篇衔接手段对比研究》[C]，上海：上海外教出版社。
[59] 朱永生，2005，《语境动态研究》[M]，北京：北京大学出版社。
[60] 朱永生，严世清，2001，《系统功能语言学多维思考》[M]，上海：上海外语教育出版社。
[61] 朱永生，严世清，苗兴伟编著，2004，《功能语言学导论》[M]，上海：上海外语教育出版社。