應用語言學中學術論文「討論」章節之探究

A Genre-based Investigation of the Discussion Section of Research Articles in Applied Linguistics

蔡琬渝(TSAI WAN-YU)

指導教授 ： 馮和平

國立臺灣師範大學/文學院/英語學系/碩士(2011年)

摘要

本研究旨在探究應用語言學學術論文中「討論」章節之寫作方法。數十年來發現不同的領域的學術論文會以不同的結構來寫作，因此許多研究致力於探討於不同領域中各章節的寫作方法。本研究選擇應用語言學中的「討論」章節做為研究主體，此章節的寫作結構相當複雜，因此值得更進一步的研究。除了結構分析之外，時態的使用以及提出論述的行為(claim-making behavior)也為本研究之重點。
本研究修改了Peacock (2002)用來分析「討論」章節寫作結構的架構，將其增修為九個言步(move)來分析二十篇選自六本知名國際應用語言學期刊的學術論文。在時態研究方面，時態在「討論」章節的大致使用狀況以及這九個言步的使用情形會做詳細的探討。至於研究提出論述行為(claim-making behavior)的方面，會歸納出最常用來提出論述的動詞(claim-making verbs)，而在提出論述時較常使用的規避策略(hedging strategies)也會用Swales & Feak (2004)觀察論述強度的架構來做分析。
研究結果顯示，就結構而言，言步二(研究結果)、言步四(文獻參照)以及言步六(論述)為「討論」篇章中必要的三個言步。如果將「討論」章節分為前言、主體、結論三個部分，由言步二搭配言步四(研究結果+文獻參照)、言步六搭配言步二(論述+研究結果)、言步一搭配言步二(背景資訊+研究結果)所組成的言步群組(move combination)為最常出現於前言開始的三個群組，主體的部分最常出現的是七個言步群組：言步四搭配言步六(文獻參照+論述)、言步二搭配言步六(研究結果+論述)、言步二搭配言步五(研究結果+解釋)、言步四搭配言步五(文獻參照+解釋)、言步二搭配言步四搭配言步六(研究結果+文獻參照+論述)、言步二搭配言步四搭配言步五(研究結果+文獻參照+解釋)、言步二搭配言步四搭配言步五搭配言步六(研究結果+文獻參照+解釋+論述)。至於在「討論」章節的結論部分，通常會出現的獨立言步有：言步七(研究限制)、言步八(研究建議)以及言步九(教學啟示)，還有二個常用的言步群組：言步七搭配言步八(研究限制+研究建議)以及言步九搭配言步四(教學啟示+文獻參照)。
研究時態的結果顯示，在「討論」章節中，現在式的使用的頻率比過去式來的高一些。而在九個言步當中，言步一(背景資訊)、言步二(研究結果)、言步三(預期中或預料外之研究結果)主要以過去式呈現，言步四(文獻參照)、言步六(論述)、言步八(研究建議)、言步九(教學建議)則是多以現在式呈現，而言步五(解釋)、言步七(研究限制)似乎在時態上沒有特別的偏好。在提出論述的行為中，最常使用來提出論點的動詞為suggest，而最常用來保護研究論點的規避策略則為「可能性策略」(strategy of probability)以及「語氣較薄弱之動詞策略」(strategies of weaker verbs)。
本研究結果能增進我們對於應用語言學學術文章中「討論」章節的結構與語言特質的瞭解。鑑於每年有越來越多的學生在撰寫語言教學方面的學術文章，本研究對於教授學術寫作的講師們有教學上獨特的重要性。最後也提出了教學上的啟示、研究限制以及為來研究方向的建議。

關鍵字

言步 ； 文類分析 ； 討論章節

並列摘要

The present study aims to explore the discussion section of research articles in applied linguistics. The research of academic writing, over the past few decades, has investigated different sections in various disciplines. The current study focuses on the analysis of the discussion section, whose structural complexity often creates challenges for novice research writers. In addition to structures, the use of tense and the claim-making behavior were also analyzed.
Twenty research articles from six prestigious international journals of applied linguistics were selected for analysis. A revised scheme of nine moves, which is based on Peacock (2002), was adapted for the analysis of structure. The use of tense was analyzed for its general use and its realization in the nine moves in terms of the present tense and the past tense. As for the claim-making behavior, the verbs that were adopted to present claims were identified and, in addition, the hedging strategies were analyzed using Swales & Feak’s (2004) taxonomy of hedging devices.
The results showed that Move 2 Finding, Move 4 Reference to previous research and Move 6 Claim were three obligatory moves. With a discussion section divided into the opening part, the body part and the concluding part, the most frequently used move combinations in the opening part were “Move 2 + 4” (Finding + Reference to previous research), “Move 6 + 2” (Claim + Finding), and “Move 1 + 2initial” (Information + Finding). The body part comprised mainly of a number of move combinations: the combinations of “Move 4 + 6” (Reference to previous research + Claim), “Move 2 + 6” (Finding + Claim), “Move 2 + 5” (Finding + Explanation), “Move 4 + 5” (Reference to previous research + Explanation), “Move 2 + 4 + 6” (Finding + Reference to previous research + Claim) , “Move 2 + 4 + 5” (Finding + Reference to previous research + Explanation) and “Move 2 + 4 + 5 + 6” (Finding + Reference to previous research + Explanation + Claim). As for the concluding part, the most frequently appearing moves and move combinations were Move 7 Limitation, Move 8 Recommendation, Move 9 Pedagogical implication, “Move 7 + 8” (Limitation + Recommendation) and “Move 9 + 4 (Pedagogical implication + Reference to previous research).”
The results of tense analysis revealed that the use of the present tense was slightly higher than that of the past tense. In the nine-move scheme, Move 1 Information, Move 2 Finding and Move 3 Expected or unexpected outcome were predominantly realized in the past tense while Move 4 Reference to previous research, Move 6 Claim, Move 8 Recommendation and Move 9 Pedagogical implication were mainly in the present tense. Not a specific tense was found in Move 5 Explanation and Move 7 Limitation. In terms of claim-making behavior, it was discovered that “suggest” was the most frequently used claim-making verbs, and “strategy of probability” and “strategies of weaker verbs” were two more frequently used hedging strategies in the discussion section.
The findings of the present study contribute to our understanding of the structure and linguistic properties of the discussion section in applied linguistics. These findings are of great pedagogical significance to researchers and instructors in applied linguistics. Suggestions for future research, pedagogical implications and limitations are also provided.

並列關鍵字

move ； genre analysis ； discussion section

參考文獻

Adams-Smith, D. E. (1984). Medical Discourse: aspects of author's comments. The ESP Journal, 3, 25-36

Beatty, C. J. & Chan M. J. (1984). Chinese scholars abroad: changes in perceived academic needs. The ESP Journal, 3, 53-59.

Berkenkotter, C. & Huckin, T. N. (1995). Genre knowledge in disciplinary communication: Cognition/Culture/Power. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers.

Bhatia, V. K. (1993). Analysing genre: language use in professional settings. London: Longman Publishing.

Brett, B. (1994). A genre analysis of the results section of sociology articles. English for Specific Purposes, 13(1), 47-59.