语言学能文献综述
社会语言学文献综述
社会语言学文献综述
1. 研究背景和意义，首先，我们可以介绍社会语言学的研究背景和意义，包括社会语言学对语言学理论和实践的重要性，以及社会语言学在解释语言现象和社会现象之间关系方面的作用。
2. 研究内容和方法，其次，我们可以介绍社会语言学的研究内容和方法。
社会语言学研究的内容包括语言变体、语言政策、语言社会化、语言认同等多个方面，而研究方法则涵盖了田野调查、语料库分析、实验研究等多种方法。
3. 主要研究成果，接着，我们可以介绍社会语言学领域的主要研究成果，包括一些经典的理论模型、重要的实证研究成果以及对语言与社会关系的深刻理解等方面。
4. 存在问题和展望，最后，我们可以讨论社会语言学研究中存在的问题和未来的发展展望，包括当前研究中的争议和挑战，以及未来可能的研究方向和发展趋势等方面。
通过以上全面的回答，可以对社会语言学文献综述提供一个较为完整的认识和理解。
希望这些信息对你有所帮助。
语言学文学综述
语言学文献综述以1964 年在美国召开的第9 届国际语言学大会为标志，社会语言学从诞生至今已近五十余年。
为研究语言学的总体发展及其流派及在中国的发展历程和现状，我阅读了赵蓉晖的《社会语言学的历史与现状》，白鸽杜敏《社会语言学在中国的发展流变》。
武建国庞人骐《社会语言学及其诸邻近学科之间的相互关系》，徐大明《中国社会语言学的新发展》。
社会语言学“最基本的出发点就在于把语言看成是一种社会现象, 主张把语言放到其得以产生和运用的人类社会的广大背景中去研究和考察。
社会语言学是一门年轻的学科, 从确立至今只有不到40 年的历史, 但却因其独特的学科性质和极强的发展能力而备受关注。
目前, 社会语言学已经和句法学、音系学、语义学等一起, 成为许多大学语言学系的核心课程。
”在《社会语言学的历史与现状》中作者认为“社会语言学的诞生是由3 个方面的因素共同促成的:首先, 是社会历史的需要激发了语言与社会问题的研究, 为社会语言学的建立奠定了社会基础。
”“其次, 科学技术的发展使语言研究的物质条件大大改观, 社会科学普遍采用的调查法和统计法使人们更易于通过事物总体的数量关系来揭示事物之间的内在联系”“最后, 语言学自身的发展也呼唤着变革的出现, 结构主义和形式主义语言学一统天下的局面终于被社会语言学打破了。
”社会语言学的主要流派：1.“以拉波夫、特鲁吉尔为代表的社会方言学(或称语言学派、变异学派)”；2.“语言社会学，主要研究带有整体性和全局性的社会语言学问题, 其出发点在于把语言问题看作是社会问题的一部分。
具体课题包括双语或多语现象、双言现象、语库、语码转换、语言忠诚、语言接触和语言规划等, 主要属于宏观社会语言学领域。
语言社会学派又称社会学派或社会学的社会语言学 , 是由美国学者费什曼开创的。
”3.“交际民族志学，交际民族志学又被译成交际人种志学”4.语言社会心理学5.互动社会语言学。
在《社会语言学及其诸邻近学科之间的相互关系》中提到“在社会语言学的研究过程中, 我们不难发现它所涉及的范围非常宽广, 而且与其诸邻近学科有着千丝万缕的联系。
汉语言文学毕业论文文献综述
汉语言文学毕业论文文献综述汉语言文学作为中国传统文化的重要组成部分，在当代社会中仍然有着广泛的影响力。
本文将对汉语言文学研究的相关领域进行综述，以期提供一个全面的文献框架，帮助读者了解该领域的研究动态和前沿。
本文将从以下几个方面展开讨论。
一、古代汉语研究1. 古代汉语音韵研究通过对古代汉语声音变化规律的探索，我们可以深入了解汉语的发展历程和变异特点。
相关研究主要包括声母、韵母、声调等方面的变化分析，以及古代韵书的研究成果。
2. 古代汉语文法研究古代汉语文法的研究旨在揭示古代汉语的语法结构、句法规则等方面的特点。
对于古代文献中的句法结构和语法现象的分析，对于我们理解古代文献的意思和背后的文化内涵具有重要意义。
3. 古代汉字研究古代汉字的研究主要涉及字形、字意、字音等方面。
我们可以通过对古代汉字的形态演变和语义扩展的研究，了解汉字的起源和发展历程，掌握古代文献的正确解读方式。
二、现代汉语研究1. 现代汉语语音学研究现代汉语语音学研究主要探讨汉语的音系、音变、音韵等方面的规律。
通过对现代汉语音系和声调的研究，我们可以了解汉语的音韵体系和音变规律，为语音教学和语音识别技术提供理论基础。
2. 现代汉语词汇研究现代汉语词汇研究旨在揭示汉语词汇的构词规律和语义变化。
对于词的构成和用法的研究，对于我们理解汉语的表达方式和文化内涵具有重要意义。
3. 现代汉语修辞研究现代汉语修辞研究探讨汉语修辞手法的运用和变化规律。
通过对现代汉语文学作品中的修辞现象进行分析，我们可以深入理解汉语修辞的艺术特点和表达效果。
三、经典文学研究1. 中国古代文学研究中国古代文学研究主要涉及到古代文学作品的整理、研究和解读。
通过对古代文学作品的研究，我们可以了解中国古代文化的瑰宝，探索中国古代文学的精神内涵。
2. 现代文学研究现代文学研究探讨了20世纪以来中国现代文学作品的创作特点和文学风格。
通过对现代文学作品的分析，我们可以了解中国当代社会的变迁和文学变革的趋势。
英语语言学硕士学位论文文献综述语步结构分析
智库时代 ·187·智库理论英语语言学硕士学位论文文献综述语步结构分析*张艳 代立菲 李嘉妮（西安外国语大学英文学院，陕西西安 710128）摘要：语步分析根植于体裁分析。
本文以Kwan（2006）提出的文献综述三语步模式为基础，以55篇国内某高校英语语言学专业硕士学位论文为语料，对其文献综述的语步及其步骤分布特征做了研究，旨在探讨国内英语专业硕士研究生文献综述行文结构之不足，并为我国研究生文献综述写作与教学提供一些启示。
研究结果显示中国硕士学位论文文献综述的语步分布完全不符合Kwan（2006）提出的语类结构模式，反映出大部分写作者对文献综述部分的逻辑结构的认识不足，对该部分各语步和策略的熟悉度不够，因此需加强学生语类认识和学术思维能力，提高学生学术写作质量。
关键词：文献综述；语步；硕士学位论文中图分类号：C533文献标识码：A文章编号：2096-4609（2019）48-0187-002一、引言文献综述是学术论文中必不可少一部分。
它可以让作者对已有成果有所了解并进行评价，从而提出在该领域中新的研究课题（陈明芳，2008）。
而如何写出符合学术规范的语步结构，如何有效组织和表达命题思想，却是论文写作过程中的一个难点。
近年来，体裁分析得到国内外学者们的广泛关注，其中Kwan（2006）提出应用语言学文献回顾三语步结构在文献综述写作探究有着很大的推动作用。
另一方面，国内有关学术论文的体裁分析呈上升趋势。
研究语料来源主要为期刊论文，其中摘要和引言部分的研究尤为居多。
较少有研究涉及学位论文语类分析。
虽然近年来学术论文的体裁分析研究呈上升趋势，但相对于国外研究成果，还有很大的研究空间。
本研究通过对我国英语专业硕士学位论文的文献综述语步分布特征进行研究，分析研究生的文献综述写作存在的问题，从而为我国研究生文献综述写作与教学提供一些启示。
二、理论视角Swales（1990）在其作品中开创性地对引言进行分析，并提出了引言四语步模式，来描述学术论文中引言的结构特征。
语言学领域的毕业论文文献综述
语言学领域的毕业论文文献综述语言学作为一门研究语言现象的学科，涉及语言的结构、历史、发展、习得、运用等多个方面，是人类学科中的重要分支之一。
在当今信息爆炸的时代，语言学研究也日新月异，涌现出许多前沿的研究成果。
本文将对语言学领域的一些研究热点进行文献综述，以期为相关领域的研究者提供参考和启发。
一、语言习得语言习得一直是语言学领域的研究热点之一。
在语言习得研究中，有许多经典理论被提出和讨论。
例如，乔姆斯基的生成语法理论认为语言习得是通过内在的语言能力来完成的，而不是简单地通过模仿。
而近年来，一些基于大数据和机器学习的研究也为语言习得研究带来了新的视角。
通过分析大量的语言数据，研究者们可以更好地理解语言习得的规律和机制。
二、语言变化与语言演化语言是一个活的系统，不断地发生变化和演化。
语言变化与语言演化是语言学领域的另一个重要研究方向。
研究者们通过比较不同时期、不同地区的语言数据，探讨语言变化的规律和原因。
同时，一些研究也关注语言演化的机制，试图解释为什么语言会不断地演化，并预测未来语言的发展方向。
三、语言与文化语言与文化密不可分，它们相互影响、相互塑造。
在语言学领域，有许多研究关注语言与文化之间的关系。
比如，一些研究探讨不同文化背景下的语言使用差异，分析语言如何反映和传承文化。
另外，也有研究关注语言对文化的影响，探讨语言如何塑造人们的思维方式和行为习惯。
四、跨文化交际随着全球化的发展，跨文化交际变得越来越重要。
在语言学领域，跨文化交际也成为一个备受关注的研究领域。
研究者们关注不同文化背景下的语言交际方式、沟通障碍以及跨文化交际的策略和技巧。
他们试图找到有效的跨文化交际模式，促进不同文化之间的理解和合作。
五、语言技术与人工智能随着人工智能技术的快速发展，语言技术也成为一个备受关注的研究领域。
语言技术包括自然语言处理、机器翻译、语音识别等多个方面，它们在信息检索、智能对话、智能翻译等领域有着广泛的应用。
应用语言学学术论文文献综述的语类结构分析_英文_
The Schematic Structure of Literature Review in Research Articles of Applied LinguisticsH U JianBeijing University of Aeronautics and AstronauticsAbstractThis paper reports a schematic analysis of LR texts drawn from research articles (RAs) written in English and from research articles written in Chinese. The schematic structure of these articles was explored via coding and genre analysis. Generic and intercultural perspectives were used to identify similarities and differences between these two groups of articles. It was found that both groups were characterized by a 4-move pattern. The move structure of the Chinese LRs, however, was found to be more straightforward than the move structure of the English LRs. Most of the other observed differences were related to strategy use below the level of moves. The move structures identified in this study may highlight some useful meta-language that will enable students and apprentice writers to be better able to overcome the structuring problems they encounter when writing LRs.Key words: literature review (LR); English and Chinese research articles; schematicstructure; genre; culture 1. IntroductionResearch articles (RAs) are an important means of communication within a discourse community. They are also important for the advancement of a scholar’s professional standing. Most RAs include an Introduction-Methods-Results-Discussion (IMRD) structure (Swales, 1990). The IMRD model is based on the prototype of experimental reporting in the natural sciences, but it does not give sufficient attention to variation between different disciplines (Varttala, 2001). Hu’s study (2008) further identified an Introduction-Literature Review (Background)-Method-Results-Discussion structure inThe Schematic Structure of Literature Review in Research Articles of Applied Linguisticsthe RAs of linguistics articles written in English and Chinese. Although it is a significant topic in the research literature, the literature review (LR) fails to obtain sufficient attention in Chinese academic circle. The popularity of the IMRD model, which does not include a component of literature review, may partly account for the scarcity of, research on LRs in RAs.Reviewing the literature is an indispensable task in research writing. Lack of attention to this crucial part of RAs may hinder our comprehensive understanding of the RA genre and the processes that underlie the structuring of RAs. The purpose of the current study is to fill this research gap. Its aim is to identify the rhetorical movements of LRs that appear in Applied Linguistics research articles that have an ILrMRD format.2. Background to the study2.1 The genre-centered approach to LRGenre analysis, which identifies prototypical moves or functional components, is very important for the study of research articles. “Move Analysis” (Swales, 1990), for example, was developed as a top-down approach to analyzing the discourse structure of texts from a genre: the text is described as a sequence of “moves”, each move representing a stretch of text that serves a particular communicative function. In considering the difficulties that ESL learners have with scientific writing, Swales (1984, cited in Taylor & Chen, 1991) proposed a four-move structure to describe the schematic pattern of the introductions in research articles. In order to investigate the rhetorical styles and discourse types employed in academic and research settings, Swales (1990) established a theoretical framework to define the scope and nature of academic discourse, and offered a model that is designed to examine and describe academic discourse, and his revised Create a Research Space (CARS) model seemed to have adequately captured the textual characteristics of RA introductions.Two recent studies on RAs focused specifically on LRs. Kwan (2006) identified the rhetorical structure of LR chapters and compared this structure with the revised CARS model in the corpus of 20 applied linguistics doctoral dissertations produced by native English speakers. He proposed a 3-move structure to describe the schematic pattern in LRs. His findings suggest that LRs and introductions may not be entirely the same structurally. Chen (2008) conducted a cross-disciplinary comparison in which she probed into the generic similarities and differences among LRs in natural science and social science dissertations. She identified a 4-move structure for LRs: Constructing reference to the published work—General comments on the subject under investigation—Detailed evaluations on the previous research—Summary. Most of the previous research on LRs has focused on LR chapters in theses or dissertations. Only a limited amount of research has examined LRs in research articles.The main purpose of a LR, whether in a thesis or in a RA, is to justify the value of a current investigation, and to show how it is different from what is currently documented in the research literature (Kwan, 2006). This suggests that LRs in theses and in RAs mayH U Jianbe similar in terms of their rhetorical structure. “Rhetorical structure” refers to the underlying structure that determines the organization of a text. Kwan’s model is most specific to the field of linguistics and very relevant to this study.Kwan (2006) proposed a 3-move structure to describe the schematic pattern of the thematic sections in the body of LRs (Figure 1). He further examined their respective elements, and differentiated them as steps and strategies. None of the elements occur in their respective move 100% of the time, and they do not appear in a predictable sequential pattern so, in Kwan’s study, only strategies were included as elements.Move 1Establishing one of the territory of one's own research bystrategy A#surveying the non-research-related phenomena or knowledge claimsstrategy B#claiming centralitystrategy C surveying the research-related phenomenaMove 2Creating a research niche (in response of move 1) by:strategy A creating-claimingstrategy B gap-indicatingstrategy C a sserting confirmative claims about knowledge or research practices surveyedstrategy D asserting the relevancy of the surveyed claims to one’s own researchstrategy E a bstracting or synthesizing knowledge claims to establish a theoretical position or a theoretical frameworkMove 3 (optional)Occupying the research niche by announcing:strategy A research aims, focuses, research questions or hypotheses*strategy B theoretical positi ons/theoretical frameworks*strategy C research design/processes*strategy D interpretations of terminology used in the thesis*Figure 1. Kwan’s move structure for the thematic units in LR chapters (Kwan, 2006: 51) I used the rhetorical moves that was developed by Swales (1984, 1990) and applied by Kwan. (2006) I did, however, make some changes. Kwan’s study employed Bunton’s (2002, cited in Kwan, 2006) modified CARS model for introductions. I propose, however, that certain adjustments need to be made. LRs and introductions are not entirely the same. An introduction presents a general picture of the research, whereas the main purpose of a LR is to justify the value of a new research project, and to show why it is distinct from what can be seen in the literature (Creswell, 2003, cited in Kwan, 2006). Because of this, identifying relevant work that has already been done is essential. Therefore, it is appropriate to classify “Surveying research activities” as a move, not a strategy, because, according to Kwan (2006), a strategy is a non-obligatory and non-sequential element of a LR. I propose a 4 move model that includes surveying and summarizing previous research as a move (Figure 2).Move 1:Establishing a thematic territoryMove 2:Surveying and summarizing previous researchMove 3:Creating a research niche (preparing for present research)Move 4:Occupying the research nicheFigure 2. The moves in the LRThe Schematic Structure of Literature Review in Research Articles of Applied LinguisticsThe analyses included in our study also incorporated the strategies established by Kwan (2006) as well as the steps and moves in Swales’ (1990) CARS model and Chen’s (2008) model. Elements that are obligatory and sequential are referred to as “steps”. Elements that are non-obligatory and non-sequential are referred to as “strategies”. Unlike previous LR studies focusing on academic discourse produced by native speakers of English, this analysis focuses on both English LRs (which are assumed to have been produced by native speakers of English) and Chinese LRs (which are assumed to have been produced by native speakers of Chinese).2.2 Intercultural rhetoric research on academic discourseIn 1966, Kaplan published his contrastive rhetoric hypothesis and, in 1996, Ulla Connor published her book on contrastive rhetoric. Many new methodolical trends have since appeared in the literature. Previously limited to the EAP (English for Academic Purposes) study of student essays, intercultural rhetoric has expanded its scope to include the study of writing in many different disciplines and genres. “Intercultural rhetoric research” is a new term introduced by Ulla Connor (2004) that may better reflect the dynamic nature of this area of study, with changing definitions of written discourse analysis—from text-based to context sensitive—and of culture—from static to dynamic.In a comparative study of the RA introductions written by Anglo-American and Chinese scientists, Taylor and Chen (1991) identified some of the sources of variability in discourse structure. They found, “there is a basic rhetorical structure that is common to all language groups, but that there are systematic variations from this structure, some of which characterize the discipline or culture rather than the language”. Their findings suggest that attempts to make broad generalizations about the connections between discourse structure and culture-linguistic systems are futile.Findings from other studies on academic writing, such as Cmejrkova (1996, cited in Martin, 2003), Mauranen (1993) and Martin (2003), suggest that scientific discourse is not universal—there are socio-cultural factors that may condition the members of different scientific communities to prefer certain rhetorical strategies. Mauranen (1993) asserts that there is significant intercultural variation in the rhetorical preferences of writers despite a relative consistency in requirements for academic papers that are imposed by journals within each genre. The underlying assumption, here, is that writing is a cultural object that is heavily influenced by the educational system within which a writer has been socialized (Moreno, 1997).Instead of focusing on the larger aspects of culture (i.e., national or ethnic culture), intercultural rhetoric research needs to consider the ways in which smaller cultures interact with each other in educational settings, or in other intercultural settings. Drawing on the work of Holliday (1994, 1999), Atkinson (2004) shows how small cultures (i.e., classroom culture, disciplinary culture, student culture, etc.) interact with the national culture.H U JianThe present study is designed to answer the following research questions:1. Do LRs in ILrMRD research articles exhibit a common schematic structure and, if they do, what is their prototypical structure?2. Is the prototypical structure of LRs characterized by cross-cultural variations and, if so, what are some plausible explanations for this?3. The Study3.1 Data collectionOur analyses included 80 ILrMRD RAs—40 were written in English and 40 were written in Chinese. The articles included a variety of linguistic topics. All English RAs were published during the period between 2001-2007. All of these articles were published in one of the following journals: The Modern Language Journal, ELT Journal, English for Specific Purposes, Linguistics and Education,and Journal of English for Academic Purposes. All Chinese RAs were published during the same time period. All Chinese articles were published in one of the following journals: Foreign Language Teaching and Research, Foreign Language Research, Foreign Languages and Their Teaching, Foreign Language Education and Foreign Language World. Eight articles were selected from each of the journals listed above.3.2 CodingA functional-semantic approach was used to perform the coding analysis. The theoretical assumption underlying the concept of a move is that “each move has a local purpose, but also contributes to the overall rhetorical purposes of the text” (Kwan, 2006). This theoretical definition of a move is in line with a functional approach to text analysis. This approach relies on cognitive judgments, rather linguistic criteria, to identify the intention and textual boundaries of a text (Kwan, 2006; Paltridge, 1994). According to Paltridge (1994), “the search for structural divisions in texts should be seen as a search for cognitive boundaries in terms of convention, appropriacy, and content rather than as a search for linguistically defined boundaries” (p. 288). In this study, the function of each text segment was first examined to determine its local purpose, such as highlighting major studies that were conducted in the past. Each text segment was then examined to determine its contribution to the ultimate goal of the writer’s research. Coding analysis was performed to identify the main semantic features of the target text segment. References were made to the semantic scheme developed by Lewin et al. (2001) and to semantic features identified in other studies.3.3 ProceduresI first developed a general understanding of the overall rhetorical purpose of the literature review texts in the RAs that were selected for analysis. I then identified the function of each text segment and determined its local purpose. Next, I identified common functional and semantic themes. These functional-semantic themes were then grouped together based onThe Schematic Structure of Literature Review in Research Articles of Applied Linguisticscontributions to the overall rhetorical purpose of the LR text.Our proposed model, which includes both moves and strategies/steps, was our starting point. During our analysis, a new strategy or step was proposed each time a segment of the text seemed to have a communicative purpose that was not yet accounted for. After the analysis of the 80 RAs included in the study, a 2-level Move and Strategy/ step model for literature reviews in RAs was proposed. The model also differentiate moves and strategies/steps that are usually present (i.e., in more than half the texts) from moves and strategies/steps that are sometimes present (i.e., in more than one tenth of the texts). Particular attention was given to observed differences between English and Chinese LRs.The entire corpus was coded by the author of this paper, and a research assistant—an applied linguistic graduate student who was experienced in genre analysis. We performed coding for four English LRs and four Chinese LRs in order to assess inter-rater reliability. Discrepancies were resolved via re-coding and discussion. All samples for the inter-rater reliability assessment were chosen randomly.4. Findings and discussionOur analysis included 40 English LRs and 40 Chinese LRs. The 4 moves included in our revised model were present in many of the LRs. Table 2 gives an overview of the number and proportion of English and Chinese LRs containing these moves.T able 1. Moves found in the LRsMovesEnglish (n=40)Chinese (n=40) n%n%1. Establishing a thematic territory3587.52767.52. Surveying and summarizing previous research40100401003. Creating a research niche3792.53177.54. Occupying the research niche2972.52357.5I considered a move to be obligatory if it appeared in 100% of the LRs. The data presented in Table 2 suggests that Move 2 is obligatory, supports the assertion that it is a move, not a strategy.Prior to this study, Kwan (2006) drew on Bunton’s (2002, cited in Kwan, 2006) modified CARS model for Ph. D. dissertation introductions to propose a 3-move structure to describe the schematic pattern in LRs. Our investigation, however, suggests that both English LRs and Chinese LRs are characterized by a 4-move pattern. Introductions and literature reviews have different functions in an article. Introductions present a general picture of the research, whereas LRs justify the value of a current investigation and show how it is distinct from research that has already been published. Therefore, surveying and summarizing previous research (Move 2) is indispensable in LRs.H U JianT able 2. Development patterns found in the LRsPattern English ChineseLinear17 (42.50%)31(77.50%)Recursive23 (57.50%)9 (22.50%)In 31 of the 40 Chinese LRs, the moves appeared in a single progression. Nevertheless, I did identify a cycle of recursive moves in 23 of the 40 English LRs, and this suggests that recursive patterns are more common than linear sequences in English LRs. In this sense, the move structure of the Chinese LRs is more straightforward than that of the English LRs. This tendency may be explained, in part, by the length of Chinese LRs. The Chinese LRs tend to contain less content than the English LRs for at least two reasons: scholars in China are expected to employ a terse style of scientific writing (Liu, 2001), and submission guidelines for Chinese journals set stringent limits on word counts for RAs. .4.1 Establishing a thematic territory as the first moveMost literature reviews start with segments that establish particular themes that are relevant to the author’s research as Table 1 shows. These segments can be categorized into three different strategies: making topic generalizations (1A), claiming centrality (1B) and giving background information (1C). Strategy 1A expresses in general terms the current state of the art—of knowledge, or of practices. Centrality claims has been conceptualized by Swales (1990) as “appeals to the discourse community whereby members are asked to accept that the research is part o a lively, significant or well-established research area”. Besides, I found in my corpus some writers make use of giving background information as a means to establishing the field.4.2 Surveying and summarizing previous research as the second moveIn both corpora, Move 1 is found to be followed by segments that survey and summarize previous research that is relevant. This move was found to be obligatory. I find that its segments fall roughly into three categories: constructing reference to the published work (Step 2A, as the element is found to be obligatory), making positive and/or negative evaluations (Strategy 2B), and making summary statements (Strategy 2C). The two latter strategies are optional, and generally do not appear in a fixed order. These elements are exemplified in the following examples for illustration in turn:A: O xford and her colleagues have contributed a great deal to establishing questionnaire research methods for learning strategy identification (e.g., Nyikos & Oxford, 1993; Oxford, 1990; Oxford & Nyikos, 1989). (Eng. No. 3)B: C itation typologies based on formal criteria avoid this pitfall by focusing on the linguistic realization of citations… (Eng. No. 7)C: P revious ESP studies have generally reported positive effects of genre-based teaching for non-native English speakers… (Eng. No. 6)The Schematic Structure of Literature Review in Research Articles of Applied Linguistics4.3 Creating a research niche as the third moveMove 3, creating a research niche, includes 5 major types of strategies, four of which correspond to those in Kwan’s (2006) model. These strategies include counter-claiming (3A), gap-indicating (3B), asserting the relevancy (3D) and establishing or synthesizing a theoretical position or framework (3E). Move 3 was present in most of the LRs.The gap-indicating elements serve to identify a scarcity or limited amount of a certain type of published research. In this study, terms such as “need” and “problem” are assumed to be semantic elements of the gap-indicating strategy. This assumption is in line with Kwan’s (2006) perspective on the gap indicating strategy. Here are some sample passages that contain gap-indicating elements:Further research is needed in order to determine whether and how voice plays a role in academic writing. (Eng. No. 9)The problem with representing a culture of the future is, of course, that of foreseeing, a particularly individual and subjective phenomenon. This problem makes it impossible to select teaching materials that adequately reflect the future. (Eng. No. 23)Another way to establish a niche is to raise a question (3C), as in the following case: What happens when the presence and implications of voice are examined in a high-stake academic writing situation where voice, if it can be identified, would matter? (Eng. No. 9)This strategy may also be used concurrently with the other strategies; for example, the question-raising strategy and the gap-indicating strategy are used jointly in the English No. 9 LR (see the underlined elements in the above examples).4.4 Occupying the research niche as the final moveMost of the instances of Move 4 include segments that introduce aspects of the current research. Some examples appear below:Strategy 4A: Announcing the aims or research questionsWith respect to… the study aimed to address the following research questions: 1. How relevant were the genres covered in the course to students’ subsequent L2 reading materials?… (Eng. No. 5)Strategy 4B: Announcing theoretical framework or positionsThe cross-disciplinary approach taken here endeavors to provide such a framework. (Eng. No. 8) In our view, the basic meanings of the progressive aspect appear to be common and natural;whereas its special meanings are unusual. Therefore, the former ought to be deemed as unmarked, and the latter marked. (Chin. No. 10, English translation)Strategy 4C: Indicating RA structureTherefore, I take as a starting point the functional criteria of Thompson’s (2001) typology of citations. I exclude the formally based categories and introduce other function-based categories that emerged from the analysis of the corpus. Section 3 describes the corpus andH U Jianthe method, while Section 4 outlines the typology of rhetorical functions of citations used in this study. (Eng. No. 7)Strategy 4D: Announcing the adoption or definitions of terminologyWhile realising that this is a useful distinction, I shall employ the term lingua franca in a broader sense to include situations including native speakers, viz. to refer to communication between “groups of people who speak different native languages”. (Eng. No. 5)Strategy 4E: Indicating possible findingsApplying a functional grammar analysis should reveal the colloquial features of informal speech that mark students’ performance of stance-support in online discussion, and perhaps suggest the formal structures they need to be taught for expository essay writing. (Eng. No. 13) Strategy 4F: Announcing research design or processThis study thus adopts a qualitative methodology to examine students’ learning process in a listening comprehension strategies programme. (Eng. No. 26)I plan to start with discourse structure and prosodic features of texts, adopt an experimentaltool to study the effects of discourse structure and prosodic features on English majors’listening comprehension of English texts. (Chin. No. 1, English translation)Strategies 4C and 4E found in the analysis of this corpus are absent from Kwan’s (2006) model. Kwan excluded concluding and introductory texts of LRs, and focused exclusively on thematic units in LR chapters, which is probably why strategy 4C and 4E are excluded in his categorization.The data for the frequency and distribution of the various moves and strategies/ steps in English and Chinese LRs are summarized in Table 3. This table includes data for moves and strategies/steps that occur in more than half of the English and Chinese LRs. Also included are data for moves and strategies/steps that occur in more than 1/10 of the LRs. The frequency of these moves and strategies/steps is also recorded as the number of occurrences divided by the number of LRs being analyzed (N=40). (Note: as recursive moves appear in the English corpus, their numbers of occurrence are counted, and therefore some frequency rates are more than 1.As can be seen in Table 3, both English and Chinese LRs have a discourse structure that is congruent with the pattern of moves proposed in our model. Our findings also support our assertions regarding Move 2: Constructing reference to the published work. This item was found to be obligatory in both English and Chinese texts. Strategies 2B and 2C are not obligatory, but the frequent occurrence of strategy 2B suggests that making positive/negative evaluations is a prevalent strategy in both English and Chinese LRs. LRs from both language groups seem to be working within the same rhetorical schema.The above findings suggest that LRs in Chinese applied linguistics RAs largely follow the international conventions established by the English-speaking international academic community. A possible explanation for this finding may be related to the extent to which the discipline of applied linguistics in China has been influenced by English-speaking scholars. In China, applied linguistics is an academic discipline for scholars that areThe Schematic Structure of Literature Review in Research Articles of Applied Linguisticsdevoted to the study of English language and culture. Many Chinese academics in this field use sources that are published in English. It seems reasonable to assume that English RAs have exerted a strong influence on the ways in which Chinese scholars approach research articles. Similar conclusions were drawn in Martin’s (2003: 25-43) study of abstracts for experimental social science RAs written in Spanish. Therefore, it seems reasonable to assume that genre, rather than language, may have the most significant influence on the structure and content of RA texts.Differences between the two groups appear to emerge, however, when I consider the distribution of strategies/steps. In Move 1, the most frequently occurring strategy was Strategy 1A in the English LRs, followed by Strategy 1C (giving background information) and Strategy 1B (claiming centrality), but their distribution in the Chinese samples was much more sparse (less than 1/10), with only 1 article offering background information to establish the territory. In Move 3, gap-indicating stood out as the most preferred strategy in both the English LRs and the Chinese LRs, but its frequency in the Chinese LRs was only 47%. The other 4 strategies from Move 3 were also present in the English samples. Only one of these 4 strategies was present in a significant number of the Chinese samples: Strategy 3E (Establishing theoretical framework or position). The other three strategies appeared in the Chinese LRs only occasionally. In Move 4, the strategies seemed to be distributed somewhat evenly, with no clear preference for any given strategy. What is noteworthy is that Strategy 4C, indicating RA structure, was present in the English LRs, but not the the Chinese LRs.T able 3. Moves and steps in English and Chinese LRsLanguages Usually Present (>50%)Freq.Present (>10%)Freq.English LRs (N=40)Move 1: Establishing a thematic territoryS. 1A: Making topic generalizationsMove 2: S urveying and summarizingprevious researchS. 2A: c onstructing reference to thepublished workS. 2B: making positive/negative evaluationMove 3: Creating a research nicheS. 3B: Gap-indicatingMove 4: Occupying the research niche0.880.832.273.101.500.930.770.73S. 1B: Claiming centralityS. 1C: Giving background informationS. 2C: Making general/summary statementS. 3A: Counter-claimingS. 3C: Question-raisingS. 3D: Asserting the relevancyS. 3E: E stablishing theoretical framework orpositionS. 4A: A nnouncing aims/research questionsS. 4B: A nnouncing theoretical frameworkor positionS. 4C: Indicating RA structure0.200.270.300.130.170.170.370.470.170.23。
英汉语言学文献综述研究-汉语言文学论文-文学论文
英汉语言学文献综述研究-汉语言文学论文-文学论文——文章均为WORD文档，下载后可直接编辑使用亦可打印——一、研究背景对学术论文这一体裁，过去20多年以来，引言部分首先受到较多的关注。
引言图式结构的语步模型首先是Swales提出的，1990年他修订为CARS模型。
［11］其后不少研究都采用CARS模型来分析论文及其各部分的修辞特点。
Bunton于2002年就学位论文的引言提出了一个修订模型。
论文的文献综述部分近年才开始受到研究者的关注。
Kwan收集了应用语言学博士论文LR章节的语料，将其正文部分与开头和结尾分开来分析学位论文LR的修辞结构，由此提出了一个三语步图式结构来描述LR的正文部分。
他采用了功能—语义法来判别语步，并进一步分析了组成各语步的元素，采用“策略”(strategy)来描述。
其研究显示:LR和引言在结构上并非完全相同［12］。
国内学者陈明芳提出博士学位论文的LR部分存在四个语步，即“参阅已有文献—对选题进行总体评价—对前期研究成果进行详细的评判—从文献综述提出结论”［2］。
此外，不少研究采用CARS模型分析学术论文中跨语言和跨文化的修辞策略。
Taylor和Chen在比较英语和汉语论文的引言语篇的基础上指出，差异所呈现的学科和文化特征胜于语言特点，不能泛化语篇结构和语言文化系统的关系。
［13］Martin对社会科学领域论文摘要的研究则发现，西班牙语所写的摘要大多遵循以英语为母语的学术社团建立起来的国际惯例。
［14］另一方面，多项研究发现，学术论文的修辞存在显著的跨文化差异，尽管因语类的限制呈现相对的一致性。
修辞风格产生跨文化差异的主要原因是不同语篇社团(discoursecommunities)的预期和要求不同。
［15］Cmejrkova也证明了社会文化因素可以制约学术语篇的修辞和写作，并没有通用于不同科研社团的学术语篇模式。
［16］杨玉晨认为，英汉学术论文开头段语篇模式差异的产生主要在于中西方人思维方式的不同。
毕业论文汉语言的文献综述
毕业论文汉语言的文献综述汉语言的文献综述在现代社会中，汉语作为世界上使用人数最多的语言之一，其研究备受关注。
汉语言的文献综述是一项重要的研究方法，通过对相关文献的综合分析和总结，可以了解到汉语言的发展、演变以及影响因素等方面的知识。
本文将对汉语言的文献综述进行探讨，以期对汉语言的研究有所启发。
首先，我们可以从汉语言的历史发展角度进行文献综述。
汉语言的历史可以追溯到几千年前，其发展经历了不同的阶段和变迁。
在古代，汉语言主要是以古汉语为代表，而现代汉语则是在近代时期逐渐形成的。
通过对相关文献的研究，我们可以了解到古代汉语的特点和演变过程，以及现代汉语的起源和发展。
其次，我们可以从汉语言的语音、词汇和语法等方面进行文献综述。
汉语言的语音系统包括声母、韵母和声调等要素，而词汇和语法则是构成汉语言的基本单位和规则。
通过对相关文献的研究，我们可以了解到汉语言的音韵规律、词汇的来源和演变，以及语法结构的特点和变化等方面的知识。
此外，我们还可以从汉语言的方言和变体等方面进行文献综述。
汉语言作为一个广泛分布在中国各地的语言系统，其方言和变体的存在是不可忽视的。
通过对相关文献的研究，我们可以了解到不同地区的方言和变体的特点和差异，以及其与标准汉语之间的关系和影响等方面的知识。
此外，我们还可以从汉语言的教育和教学等方面进行文献综述。
随着全球对汉语学习的兴趣不断增加，汉语教育和教学成为一个热门的研究领域。
通过对相关文献的研究，我们可以了解到汉语教育和教学的理论和实践，以及教学方法和教材的发展和应用等方面的知识。
最后，我们还可以从汉语言的社会和文化等方面进行文献综述。
汉语言作为中国的官方语言，对中国社会和文化具有重要的影响。
通过对相关文献的研究，我们可以了解到汉语言在社会和文化领域的地位和作用，以及其与其他语言和文化之间的关系和交流等方面的知识。
综上所述，汉语言的文献综述是一项重要的研究方法，通过对相关文献的综合分析和总结，可以了解到汉语言的发展、演变以及影响因素等方面的知识。
- 1、下载文档前请自行甄别文档内容的完整性，平台不提供额外的编辑、内容补充、找答案等附加服务。
- 2、"仅部分预览"的文档,不可在线预览部分如存在完整性等问题,可反馈申请退款(可完整预览的文档不适用该条件!)。
- 3、如文档侵犯您的权益，请联系客服反馈,我们会尽快为您处理(人工客服工作时间：9:00-18:30)。
语言学能文献综述
语言学能的测量始于上世纪20年代。
其中最早的测试是外语预后测试，由四个部分构成。
第一部分为词汇翻译，要求学生在10分钟内将一段世界语同英语相比较，并以这一材料为基础，辨认出30个世界语的英语对等词。
第二部分是一种人造语言，要求学生先阅读词汇条目，语法规则和四个例句，然后翻译20个句子（10句从英语翻译成人造语，10句从人造语翻译成英语）。
第三部分是句子翻译，要求学生阅读26个词汇项目，然后完成多项选择填空（1个英语句子给出4种世界语译文）。
学生做这些翻译时，不断为他们提供有关世界语的信息（如动词的时态词尾变化，复数变化规则等）。
第四部分是英语的词类构成，要求学生将50个词变成其它词类，如动词变名词，名词变副词等。
这种试题测试何种能力，并没讲清楚，但大多数测试项目是将语言作为语法-----翻译活动来测验的。
这一时期设计的其它试题有衣阿华外语学能试题（Iowa Foreign Language Aptitude Examination）(Stoddard & Vanderneke, 1925), Luria-Orleans 的现代语言预后测试(Luria-Orleans Modern Language Prognosis Test) (Luria & Orleans, 1928), Barry 的预后语言测试(Barry Prognostic Language Test) (Rice, 1929), Todd的语言学能测试(Todd Linguistic Aptitude Test (Todd, 1929)。
这些学能测试与语言学习成绩得分之间的相关性大多很弱，测试内容以语法翻译技巧为主。
这种测试只能测试学生对书面语言规则
掌握的快慢。
可以设想，早期的这些学能测试之所以与学习效果之间的相关性差，是因为其指导思想是分析性的形式主义，认为第二语言学习就是语法加上翻译，也就是说一个人可以自己训练自己“学习”语言，学习的语言愈多，掌握一种新的语言就愈快。
Politzer 和Weiss（1969）的研究旨在训练人们更好地应试Carroll 著名的“现代语言学能测试”（MLAT）和各试题部分。
研究结果认为他们是失败的。
Carroll 和Stanley Sapon被认为是现代语言学能测试的先驱。
Carroll（1981：86）在谈到该研究及其他类似研究时说，现在还没有“铁的证据”来推翻外语学能“---与以往的学习经验没有关系，不过，我的证据表明，外语学能在一个人的一生中很长时间内是相对稳定的，也很难有大的变化。
”
语言学能是总智力中负责语言学习的一个特殊部分。
基于这中观点，Carroll 和Sapon设计了“语言学能测验”，几经修改，最后成了目前这种标准的、包括四个部分的MLAT。
他们认为，语言学能就像智力一样，是与生俱来的，训练或实践并不能提高多少。
不同的人学习第二语言的速度不同，一部分原因就是语言学能的差异。
Carroll （1973）认为，“在青少年时期之后仍表现出很高的外语学能的人，是因为某种原因，他们没有失去天生的语言习得能力；那些外语学能显得不足的人，是因为他们的这种天生的能力已完全丧失”。
Carroll 进一步认为，语言学能在两种意义上是有普遍性的：“其一，不论学习任何一门外语，学能的影响都是一样的；其二，不论操何种母语，外语学能的个人差异同样存在。
”
―――――――
第二种重要的学能测试是Pimsleur的“语言学能试题组”（PLAB）。
这套试题同MLAT有许多相似之处，一共分为六个部分（前两个部分是口头汇报性质的）。
第一部分，“学分平均数”，要求受试者报出他们最近学年的英语、数学、自然科学和历史（或社会科学）的学分。
第二部分，“兴趣”，要求学生在有五级兴趣量表上标出自己对外语学习的兴趣。
第三部分是词汇测验。
第四部分为语言分析测试，要求学生先熟悉一种虚构语言的某些词汇、短语以及英语对等词，然后据此推出如何用此虚构语言表达其他事情，并从选择项目中找出正确答案。
第五部分是语音辨认。
受试者从录音机上先听外语的三个发音近似的词，再听该语言的几个句子，然后标出每个句子包含三个词中的哪个词。
第六部分是声音符号测试。
受试者听到一个双音节或三音节的无意义的词，在四个选择项中标出听到的是哪个词。
PLAB强调的是归纳性学习能力和听力，但没有测试语法敏感性和记忆。
Pimsleur似乎认为，语言学能只包括语言分析能力和听力。
Skehan(1989:29)认为，MLAT与PLAB之所以不同，是因为Carroll的学术背景是心理学，而Pimsleur的兴趣是从语言学角度处理声音和句法。
PLAB集中测试语言的分析能力和听力，而ＭＬＡＴ涉及的面更广泛些，包括了语法敏感性和记忆能力。
―――――――
Gardner和Lambert（１９６５）调查研究了语言学能、智力和第二语言学习成绩之间的关系。
调查对象为路易斯安那州的96名学
法语的高中男女学生。
使用的测试手段有MLAT，PLAB以及一些法语成绩测试。
他们发现，智力相对独立与语言学能和第二语言学习成绩；不同的第二语言学习技巧与不同的能力相关。
------------
Theivananthampillai 和Baba（1984）在斐济调查了297名十一年级学生，分为三个种族小组（斐济人、印度人、其他人，即欧洲人和中国人）。
他们发现，斐济人和其他人在P=0.01时，语言学能同英语有显著的相关性，而对于印度人则不然。
鉴于上述情况，Skehan （1989：34）论述道：“尽管有人认为学能是一种单一纯正的结构体，但是从教学的角度强调其多成分机制更有益处，因为这将为研究学习者的优势和劣势提供一个框架。
”他根据学习者在三个方面的强弱，即音素编码能力、语言分析能力和记忆力，区分出三种学习者类型。
今后的研究应有两方面。
第一是“用诊断式的方法证实语言学能的各个部分”。
第二是“以经验和理论为基础，也使用学能测试，但事先不对类别做任何设想，尽力找出学习者类型”。