英语一语二语学术论文引言中情态附加语的对比研究
A Contrastive Study of Interpersonal Metafunction of Modal Adjuncts in Research Article Introductions between Chinese EFL and English L1 Writers
DOI: 10.12677/ML.2020.82018, PDF,    国家社会科学基金支持
作者: 朱嘉祺, 马建军, 刘 阳:大连理工大学外国语学院,辽宁 大连
关键词: 情态附加语人际功能学术论文引言英语一语英语二语Modal Adjuncts Interpersonal Metafunction Research Article Introductions Chinese EFL English L1
摘要: 情态附加语是学术论文中实现人际功能的一种重要手段。本文从系统功能语法的角度出发,通过词汇密度、词汇多样性、位置三个维度,对比分析了中国英语二语作者和国外英语一语作者所写学术论文引言中情态附加语的使用情况异同以及规律并揭示了产生差异的原因。除此之外,本文根据四类情态附加语的高频词探讨了其在文中实现的人际功能。结果表明,中国英语二语和国外英语一语引言中的情态附加语使用情况在三个维度中都存在差异。尽管发表在相同的期刊上,但是相比于中国二语作者而言,国外英语一语作者使用了更多数量,种类和位置的情态附加语。
Abstract: Modal adjuncts are a major element in research article introductions (RAIs) to realize interpersonal metafunction. The aim of this paper was to compare the different uses of modal adjuncts in RAIs between Chinese EFL and English L1 from the perspective of interpersonal metafunction of systemic functional grammar (SFG), by examining their lexical realization including lexical density, lexical variety and lexical position. 52,035 data of computer science RAIs of both English L1 and Chinese EFL were collected and labeled. Results showed that modality, intensity, temporality and comment could realize interpersonal metafunction, and differences occurred in virtually all cases of lexical realization of modal adjuncts between English L1 and Chinese EFL RAIs. Though published in the same journals, English L1 RAIs used more modal adjuncts, more kinds of adjuncts and more positions than Chinese EFL RAIs significantly. The lexical density analysis revealed the strong preference for intensity adjuncts in both Chinese EFL and English L1 RAIs. Sufficient vocabulary resulted in higher lexical variety of English L1 RAIs. Although both Chinese EFL and English L1 writers preferred the neutral position, Chinese EFL RAIs presented an unbalanced distribution in terms of the lexical position.
文章引用:朱嘉祺, 马建军, 刘阳. 英语一语二语学术论文引言中情态附加语的对比研究[J]. 现代语言学, 2020, 8(2): 122-128. https://doi.org/10.12677/ML.2020.82018

参考文献

[1] Reeve, M. and Hicks, G. (2017) Adjunct Extraposition: Base Generation or Movement? Syntax—A Journal of Theo-retical Experimental and Interdisciplinary Research, 20, 215-248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[2] Lobo, M., Santos, A.L. and Soares-Jesel, C. (2016) Syntactic Structure and Information Structure: The Acquisition of Portu-guese Clefts and Be-Fragments. Language Acquisition, 23, 142-174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[3] Hunter, T. and Frank, R. (2014) Eliminating Rightward Movement: Extraposition as Flexible Linearization of Adjuncts. Linguistic Inquiry, 45, 227-267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[4] Jin, D. (2015) Coherence Relation and Clause Linkage towards a Discourse Approach to Adjunct Islands in Chinese. Studies in Language, 39, 424-458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[5] Ariel, M., Dattner, E., Du Bois, J.W. and Linzen, T. (2015) Pronominal Datives the Royal Road to Argument Status. Studies in Language, 39, 257-321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[6] Haug, D.T.T. (2017) Backward Control in Ancient Greek and Latin Participial Adjuncts. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 35, 99-159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[7] Liu, S.L. and Wang, S. (2016) The Contrastive Study of Research Article Conclusions among Disciplines—In a Systemic-Functional Linguistics Perspective. In: Zhang, H., Eds., Lecture Notes in Management Science, Singapore Management & Sports Science Inst. Pte. Ltd., Singapore, Vol. 57, 123-126.
[8] Pessoa, S., Mitchell, T.D. and Miller, R.T. (2017) Emergent Arguments: A Functional Approach to Analyzing Student Challenges with the Argument Genre. Journal of Second Language Writing, 38, 42-55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[9] Halliday, M.A.K. (2016) An Introduction to Functional Grammar. 3rd Edition, Edward Arnold, London.
[10] 胡壮麟, 朱永生, 张德禄, 李战子. 系统功能语法学概论[M]. 第二版. 北京: 北京大学出版社, 2008: 150-151.
[11] Pan, F., Reppen, R. and Biber, D. (2016) Comparing Patterns of L1 versus L2 English Academic Professionals: Lexical Bundles in Telecommunications Research Journals. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 21, 60-71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
[12] Xu, X. and Nesi, H. (2019) Differences in Engagement: A Com-parison of the Strategies Used by British and Chinese Research Article Writers. Journal of English for Academic Pur-poses, 38, 121-134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef