期刊「研究方法」的寫作風格： 一個跨學科的比較

An Interdisciplinary Study on the Writing Style of the Method Section in the Research Article

黃莉婷(Li-Ting Huang)

指導教授 ： 張玉櫻

元智大學/人文社會學院/應用外語學系/碩士(2008年)

https://doi.org/10.6838/YZU.2008.00251

摘要

在學術英語的研究中，許多研究者已經一再強調領域文化對學術文類(academic genres) 的文本語言形式有關鍵性的影響。在各種學術文類中，另一方面，期刊中的研究方法(the method section)已經被認為是最能呈現文本語言形式以及領域文化之間關係的文類之一。然而，相關的研究卻為數甚少，在這些現有的研究中，大部分都僅侷限於研究單一文本語言形式與單一領域文化面向之間的關係，沒有研究曾試圖探討不同的領域文化面向如何影響一系列語言形式的使用並進而產生學科特有的文本風格。此外，文本分析似乎是這些研究唯一的研究方法，然而，僅根據作者主觀的分析，推論的結果可能會失之偏頗，或是導致錯誤的解讀。
因此，本論文主要的目的在於探討在植物學、結構工程、以及消費者行為這三種學科的期刊研究方法之間，是否在一系列文本語言形式的使用會有差異？而這一系列的語言形式是否會影響這三個學科研究方法的寫作風格？以及，不同的領域文化是否會影響研究方法的寫作風格或是反映在語言形式的使用上？為了能夠獲得更詳實的分析並正確解釋分析的結果，有別於之前的研究，本論文的研究方法包含二階段，首先，根據Swales (2004)針對二種不同研究方法寫作風格所提出的一系列文本語言形式的使用進行文本分析，之後再以文本分析的結果為基礎，分別深度訪談這三種學科的教授。
結果顯示，Swales (2004) 所提的各種文本語言形式的使用在這三個學科的期刊研究方法中的確有其差異性存在，並因此形成不同的文本風格。而且，各種文本語言形式與風格之間的關係似乎比Swales (2004)當初預測的複雜。此外，不同的領域文化面向的確會反應在期刊研究方法的寫作風格上。舉例而言，實驗方法的複雜性可能會影響副標題的使用；不同的研究對象因為屬性的差異也可能會影響作者變換句子主詞的頻率；而實驗設計的原創性則可能影響作者是否時常解釋為何選擇某些研究步驟。除此之外，本研究結果亦發現，
研究方法的寫作與文化之間關係是多變的。同一個領域文化因素可能造成不同文本特徵的使用。就另一方面而言，不同的領域文化因素也可能造成作者使用相同的文本特徵。

關鍵字

學術英文 ； 研究方法 ； 文本風格 ； 領域文化

並列摘要

In the field of English for Academic Purposes (EAP), it has been highlighted that various aspects of disciplinary cultures are crucial factors influencing the rhetorical characteristics of different academic genres. On the other hand, the research article (RA) method section has also been assumed to be one of the genres where the disciplinary culture seems to be reflected the most obviously. However, till present, very few studies have ever focused on the influences of disciplinary cultures on the textual features of RA method section. Moreover, these existing studies have only focused on the relationship between one specific textual feature and one single aspect of disciplinary cultures. None of them have attempted to reveal how various aspects of disciplinary cultures influence the use of a set of textual features associated with the writing style of method texts in different disciplines. In addition, the conclusions of these studies seem to only depend on the textual analysis which might lead to subjective and inappropriate analysis and interpretation.
Therefore, the goal of this thesis is to reveal how a set of textual features in RA method section are used in three different disciplines, including (1) Botany, (2) Structural Engineering,and (3) consumer behavior, to see whether the use of these features indeed are different among these three fields and thus leading to distinctive writing styles of method texts, as well as to see what and how aspects of disciplinary cultures are reflected on the use of these features. A set of features associated with two distinctive writing styles of method texts (i.e. clipped and elaborated style) proposed by Swales (2004) were examined in this study. Moreover, after the textual analysis, in-depth text-based interviews with expert informants from each of the subfields were conducted to ensure the appropriateness of the interpretation of the results and to obtain deeper insights of the various culture issues.
The results show that scientists in each of the three fields investigated indeed tend to use the textual features differently, leading to the exhibition of different style preferences. Moreover, it is also found that the relationship between the use of these features and the writing styles might be more complex than what Swales (2004) originally assumed. Moreover, the results also show that various aspects of disciplinary cultures indeed both influence and are reflected in the uses of the features examined. For example, the degree of complexity in the research design might influence the number of subheading used, different characteristics of the research targets might affect the frequency of switching sentence subjects, and the degree of originality might influence the
frequency of justification of the methodological choices. Additionally, it is also found that the relationship between the style of RA method section and the disciplinary culture tend to be dynamic and fluid. One factor of the disciplinary cultures might result in the uses of different features. On the other hand, similar uses of one specific feature might be the products of different disciplinary cultural factors.

並列關鍵字

English for academic purposes ； Method sections ； Writing style ； Disciplinary cultures

參考文獻

Anthony, L. (1999). Writing research article

the standard model? IEEE Transactions of Professional

Bazerman, C. (1981). What written knowledge does.

Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 2, 361-387.

Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.