中英學術引言之後設論述策略分析與教學應用

An Analysis of Metadiscourse Strategies Used in Introduction Sections of Chinese and English Journals and Their Pedagogical Applications

周真安(Chou Chen-An)

指導教授 ： 謝佳玲

國立臺灣師範大學/國際與社會科學學院/華語文教學系/碩士(2016年)

https://doi.org/10.6345/NTNU202204500

摘要

後設論述（metadiscourse）作為一種可以歸納語篇寫作風格的模式，在學術寫作的研究中普遍為人所使用（Crismore, Markkanen & Steffensen, 1993; Hyland, 2005; Vande Kopple, 1985）。過去的研究發現，不同語言的後設論述使用有所差異（Crismore et al., 1993; Lee, 2013; Lee & Casal, 2014），章節亦是影響後設論述的主因之一（Gillaerts & Van de Velde, 2010; Yang, 2013）。然而，中文學術引言（introduction）的後設論述研究仍不多見，過去的研究在質化分析及教學應用的方面也有所不足。因此，本文將透過中英引言後設論述對比研究，歸納中文學術引言的寫作特點，將結果應用於中文學術寫作教學中。
本研究蒐集中英期刊引言共60篇，採用Hyland（2005）的後設論述架構進行分析。研究發現，中英學術引言在後設論述的使用上有相似和相異之處。在相似處方面，中英皆偏好使用交互式後設論述來組織文章架構。此外，中英在標記使用頻率上亦呈現出相似性：連接、舉證與註解標記是中英最常使用的交互式標記，自我、增強與規避標記則為中英最常使用的互動式標記。在相異處方面，中文在交互式標記中偏好使用連接標記、英文則偏好使用舉證標記。在互動式標記中，中文偏好使用強調標記、英文則偏好使用規避標記。此外，中英的規避、態度及第一人稱自我標記亦有其特有的語言表現方式。結果顯示，中英相似處反映出中文學術論文受到英文學術社群的影響，但其差異處反映語言文化背景對作者寫作的影響。本文亦將研究結果應用於中文學術寫作教材的設計上，為將來的學術寫作教學提供實質建議。

關鍵字

中文學術寫作 ； 英文學術寫作 ； 後設論述 ； 引言

並列摘要

Metadiscourse, a discourse analysis that reveals and summarizes the features of discourse, is widely used in the study of academic writing. Previous studies have shown distinctions in the number and type of metadiscourse elements across research articles in different languages and fields. However, little research focuses on the use of metadiscourse in Chinese introduction sections. This study, therefore, aims to summarize the features of Chinese introduction sections by comparing the usage of metadiscourse in Chinese and English language research article introductions. The corpus for this study is comprised of 60 introduction sections drawn from articles published in language teaching journals. Hyland’s (2005) model of metadiscourse is employed as the analytical framework for the present study. The results show that there are similarities and differences in usage between the two languages. To guide readers through each phase, both Chinese and English use interactive metadiscourse markers frequently and extensively; furthermore, there are clear similarities in the frequency of metadiscourse markers. As for the differences, Chinese employs more transitions (e.g., in addition, chúcǐzhīwài) and boosters (e.g., clearly, míngxiǎndi) than English, while English employs more evidentials (e.g., X states, X rènwéi) and hedges (e.g., possible, kěnéng) than Chinese. The language forms are differences as well. For example, in English, authors use first-person singular pronouns to refer to themselves, while Chinese authors do not. The findings suggest that Chinese research articles follow the norms of the English language academic community, but there are cultural and linguistic differences in Chinese academic writing. This study has pedagogical applications for academic writing teaching materials in TCSL (Teaching Chinese as a Second Language) for English students.

並列關鍵字

Chinese academic writing ； English academic writing ； metadiscourse ； introduction sections

參考文獻

Arrington, P., & Rose, S. K. (1987). Prologues to what is possible: Introductions as metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication, 38, 306-318.

Bean, J., Cucchiara, M., Eddy, R., Elbow, P., Grego, R., Haswell, R., Irvine, P., Kennedy, E., Kutz, E., Lehner, A., & Matsuda, P. K. (2006). Should we invite students to write in home languages? Complicating the yes/no debate. In P. K. Matsuda, M. Cox, J. Jordan & C. Ortmeier-Hopper (Eds.), Second-language writing in the composition classroom: A critical sourcebook (pp. 225-240). Boston, MA: Bedford/ST. Martin’s.

Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Connor, U., & Farmer, M. (1990). The teaching of topical structure analysis as a revision strategy for ESL writers. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 37-56). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Crismore, A., Markkanen, R., & Steffensen, M. (1993). Metadiscourse in persuasive writing: A study of texts written by American and Finnish university students. Written Communication, 10, 39-71.