修辞结构理论视角下英汉学术论文摘要的修辞关系对比研究被引量：20

A comparative study of rhetorical relations in English and Chinese research article abstracts: A Rhetorical Structure Theory perspective

原文传递

导出

摘要近年来,学者多用体裁分析方法研究学术论文摘要的语篇结构和语言特点,但少有从修辞关系角度研究论文摘要语篇。本文选取英汉语言学期刊论文摘要各100篇作为语料,运用修辞结构理论考察英汉论文摘要的修辞关系分布特点,揭示摘要的语篇构建方式。研究发现详述关系、准备关系、背景关系、结合关系和解释关系是英汉论文摘要最基本的修辞关系。汉语论文摘要偏好使用评价关系和详述关系,而英语论文摘要更多使用证据关系,偏好通过对照关系说明研究的价值和意义。 Much literature shows that genre analysis has been widely used in research on the discourse structure and the linguistic features of research article(RA) abstracts. However, few studies have paid attention to the RA abstracts' rhetorical relations. Using 100 RA abstracts in English and another 100 in Chinese as the corpora, this study compared the distributions of the rhetorical relations in English and Chinese and investigated how English and Chinese RA abstracts construct discourse. It was found that the essential rhetorical relations in both English and Chinese abstracts were the relations of elaboration, preparation, background, conjunction and explanation; in Chinese abstracts more evaluation and elaboration relations are more likely to be presented whereas in English abstracts more evidence relations are shown and antithesis relations are expressed so as to reveal the research gap.

作者穆从军

机构地区上海海事大学

出处《现代外语》 CSSCI 北大核心 2016年第1期97-107,147,共11页 Modern Foreign Languages

基金国家哲学社科基金一般项目"跨文化修辞视阈下中国学者英语学术期刊论文写作与发表研究"(14BYY151)的阶段性成果

关键词修辞关系修辞结构理论英汉论文摘要 rhetoric relations Rhetoric Structure Theory English and Chinese research article abstracts

分类号 H0 [语言文字—语言学]

引文网络
相关文献

参考文献29

1Chang, C. H. 1994. A Contrastive Study of English and Chinese Rhetoric [D]. Master thesis, the University of Texas, Arlington.
2Connor, U. 1996. Contrastive Rhetoric: Cross-cultural Aspects of Second-language Writing [M]. New York: the Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge.
3Connor, U. 2011. Intercultural Rhetoric in Second Language Writing [M]. Michigan: University of Michigan.
4Connor, U. M. & A. I. Moreno. 2005. Tertium comparationis: A vital component in contrastive research methodology [A]. In P. Bruthiaux, D. Atkinson, W. G. Eggington, W. Grabe & V. Ramanathan (eds.). Directions in Applied Linguistics: Essays in Honor of Robert B. Kaplan [C]. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 153-164.
5Golebiowski, Z. 2009. Prominent messages in education and applied linguistic abstracts: How do authors appeal to their prospective readers? [J] Journal of Pragmatics 41: 753-769.
6Hinds, J. 1990. Inductive, deductive, quasi- inductive: Expository writing in Japanese, Korean, Chinese, and Thai [A]. In U. Connor & A. M. Johns (eds.). Coherence in Writing: Research and Pedagogical Perspectives [C]. Alexandria, VA: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, 87-110.
7Hu, G. & F. Cao. 2011. Hedging and boosting in abstracts of applied linguistics articles: A comparative study of English- and Chinese-medium journals [J]. Journal of Pragmatics 43: 2795-2809.
8Hyland, K. & P. Tse. 2005. Hooking the reader: A corpus study of evaluative that in abstracts [J]. English for Specific Purposes 24: 123-139.
9Mann, W. C. & S. A. Thompson. 1987. Rhetorical Structure Theory: A framework for the analysis of texts [J]. IPRA Papers in Pragmatics 1: 79-105.
10Pho, P. D. 2008. Research article abstracts in applied linguistics and educational technology: A study of linguistic realizations of rhetorical structure and authorial stance [J]. Discourse Studies 10(2): 231-250.