基于语料库的中外英语科技期刊学术论文中连接词的对比研究.pdf

华中科技大学 硕士学位论文 基于语料库的中外英语科技期刊学术论文中连接词的对比研究 姓名：张香莲 申请学位级别：硕士 专业：外国语言学及应用语言学 指导教师：徐志华 20090517 华华 中中 科科 技技 大大 学学 硕硕 士士 学学 位位 论论 文文 IV 摘摘 要要 逻辑连接词是语篇衔接的一种手段，在实现语篇的衔接和连贯中起着重要的作 用大量研究表明，逻辑连接词使用不仅受文章的体裁和内容影响，同时还受使用 者的语言和文化背景影响不同的体裁的文章逻辑连接词使用情况不同，不同的语 言背景中的人使用逻辑连接词也不尽相同学术论文作为一种体裁在逻辑连接词使 用上也存在其自身独特的特征本文运用 1976 年韩礼德和哈桑的逻辑连接词分类标 准，将对中外英语科技期刊论文中逻辑连接词使用情况进行定量和定性的对比分析 为了对中外英语科技期刊论文中逻辑连接词进行研究，作者首先建立中国英语科 技期刊论文和国外英语科技期刊论文两个语料库，然后将从以下四个方面对两个语 料库中的逻辑连接词使用情况进行对比分析： 1）逻辑连接词在两个语料中使用的总体频率 2）英语科技期刊论文作为一种体裁在逻辑连接词是否存在自身独有的特点 3）中国学者倾向过多和过少使用的逻辑连接词 4）逻辑连接词 AND 在两个语料库中的使用情况。

研究结果表明中外英语科技期刊论文的逻辑连接词使用上差异性和相似性并存 1.中国英语科技期刊论文中倾向于更多的使用逻辑连接词， 然而使用的逻辑连接词 在语义分布上大致相同：使用最多的是表示因果关系的逻辑连接词 2. 就英语科技期刊论文中逻辑连接词的使用特点而言：表因果和转折的逻辑连接 词在英语科技期刊论文中使用频率较高；and, but, for example, that is, however, then (表因果), therefore, thus 这些逻辑连接词在英语科技期刊论文使用极其频繁 3. 中国英语科技期刊论文中过多使用非正式文体逻辑连接词取代正式文体的逻辑 连接词这一结果表明中国学者对于逻辑连接词的正确使用缺乏足够的认识研究 还发现作者的个人偏好也可能是影响过多或过少使用某些逻辑连接词的一个重要因 素 4. 尽管 AND 在两个语料库中使用频率较高，但是 AND 在两个语料库所表达的逻 华华 中中 科科 技技 大大 学学 硕硕 士士 学学 位位 论论 文文 V 辑语义关系的区别非常显著中国学者较多的使用 AND 表达层进逻辑语义关系，而 外国学者较多的使用 AND 表达原因说明逻辑语义关系。

本研究对于了解中外英语科技期刊论文中逻辑连接词的使用情况，提高我国科技 工作者的英语期刊学术论文均具有较好的参考价值 关键词关键词：英语科技期刊论文 逻辑连接词 对比研究 华华 中中 科科 技技 大大 学学 硕硕 士士 学学 位位 论论 文文 I Abstract Logical connectors as a very important way to indicate logical or semantic relations between units of discourse, when they are used correctly, they are helpful for the listeners or reader to connect units of discourse together and therefore make sense of the whole discourse. However, a bulk of previous studies have revealed that language learners, in particular foreign language learners have met many problems in use of logical connectors to make their writings cohesive. Those foreign language learners lack awareness that different register and style of texts have different use of logical connectors. They also tend to under/overuse logical connectors than native speakers. However, though a large number of profound researches have conducted into the use of logical connectors at home and abroad, as far as the author knows most of which only made some contrastive study on ESL/ EFL students’ writings. The researches on the logical connectors in different styles of English writings such as the English research articles (abbreviated RA) as a genre are rare, let alone, making a contrastive study of choice of logical connectors in Chinese English scientific RAs with those RAs written by native speakers. Using the framework of classification of logical connectors put forward by Halliday and Hasan (1976), the study intends to explore the use of logical connectors in Chinese English scientific journals (abbreviate CESJs) through comparing with International English scientific journals (abbreviated IESJs). The author constructed two corpora in order to explore the use of logical connectors in English scientific research articles, CESJ contains RAs written by Chinese writers and IESJ corpus which included RAs written by native English speakers. They involve 489 pieces of RAs, with a total number of around 1,997,605 words. The author explores the use of logical connectors in CESJ and IESJ from the following aspects. 1) The overall frequency of different types logical connectors used in CESJ and IESJ. 2) The features of the choice of logical connectors in English scientific RAs if there exist. 3) The ten top frequently used logical connectors. 4) The logical connectors under/overused in CESJs. 5) AND in CESJ and IESJ to test whether it is used to signal the same logical semantic 华华 中中 科科 技技 大大 学学 硕硕 士士 学学 位位 论论 文文 II relation. After analyzing the use of logical connectors from the above-mentioned aspects, the results are shown as follows: (1). From the overall frequency of the logical connectors used in the two corpora, it can be found that CESJ tends to use logical connectors more frequently in contrast to logical connectors used in IESJ. But as to the distribution of four sub-categories, it is almost the same in the two corpora, that is, causal connectors are most frequently used, additive and adversative connectors are moderately used, while temporal connectors are rarely used. That means both corpora rely heavily on the same logical connectors and Chinese writers have internalized some skills of the use of logical connectors in their RAs writing. (2). As to the features of use of logical connectors in English scientific research articles, there are a large proportion of logical connectors in the semantic category of causal, it is also found that some individual logical connectors such as and, but, however, then, therefore, thus, hence, for example occur in RA writing with notable frequencies. (3). With regard to the underused and overused logical connectors in CESJs, it reveals that those informal logical connectors such as “so” and “and” are significantly overused by the Chinese writers, It indicates that Chinese w。