主位理论在大学英语写作教学中的应用
|
摘要
玛泰修斯于1939年提出主位、述位这两个概念。主位是信息的起点,提供交际双方已知的信息,述位则是相对于起点而言的,表达出作者要传递的新信息。丹尼斯于1974年提出了一个动态的概念---主位推进。他指出篇章中的信息结构是由主位和述位的推进模式决定的,句子的主位或述位之间按照一定的规律不断联系变换,形成主位推进模式,而篇章的连贯正是取决于这种主位推进模式。近些年来,主位理论在语篇分析研究中占有越来越重要的地位,国内外关于主位理论的研究很多。有些学者研究主位理论与语篇连贯的关系,有些研究中英主位结构的对比分析,最近还有一些学者研究主位理论在翻译和英语教学中的应用。
本文主要研究主位理论在大学英语写作教学中的应用,为此笔者提出两点假设:其一,主位类型和主位推进模式越多样化学生的作文分数越高,复合主位和延续型主位推进模式在高分作文中的出现频率要比低分作文高。其二,学生的写作水平能通过主位理论的学习而得到提高。目的是探讨主位理论应用于大学英语写作教学中的效果。就收集的40篇学生作文,笔者根据实验获得的数据进行了一系列的分析和比较。主要比较主位类型和主位推进模式在教学前后作文中的差别,以及比较教学前后的作文分数,得到的实验结果是,主位类型和主位推进模式的选择与学生作文分数密切相关,而且通过主位理论的学习,学生作文分数有着明显的提高。
最后笔者提出了一些对将来的写作教学会有指导意义的教学启示;得出结论,主位理论的学习能够帮助学生提高写作的连贯性,从而提高学生英语写作的水平;并提出了本研究的局限性和对未来研究的建议。
Theme and rheme were first proposed in 1939 by Vitem Mathesius. Theme is the starting point of utterance and carries the known or given information; while rheme is what the speaker says about in regard to the starting point of the utterance and carries new information. F. Danes, in1974, proposed a more dynamic view of theme: Thematic Progression (TP). He propounds that the organization of information in a discourse is determined by the progression in the sequence of themes and their corresponding rhemes, and this progression between the successive themes and rhemes can be defined as thematic progression which represents text cohesion. In recent years, thematic theory has gained more and more attention in discourse analysis and abundant studies have been conducted on thematic theory both at home and abroad. Some scholars deal with the relationship between thematic theory and discourse coherence; and some conduct contrastive study of thematic structure in Chinese and English discourses; besides, recently there are some researches on its application in the translation field as well as the application to English teaching.
This study is to apply thematic theory to the teaching of college students’writing, and two hypotheses are proposed that 1) The more varied the theme types and TP patterns are, the higher scores of English writing are; the frequency of multiple themes and simple linear pattern of high score compositions is higher than that of low score compositions. 2) The students’writing ability can be improved through the training of thematic theory. It aims at probing into the effect of the application. Based on the 40 compositions collected and the data collected in the experiment, a series of analyses and comparative study are conducted. By the comparative study on theme types, TP patterns and scores in pre-teaching and post-teaching compositions, the results show that theme types and TP patterns are closely related to the score of English writing, and the students’writing score can be improved through the training of thematic theory.
Finally, some pedagogical implications which may be helpful in the future teaching of writing are put forward; the conclusion is drawn, that is, themes and TP patterns are helpful for students’coherent writing, and the students’writing ability can be improved through the training of thematic theory; then the limitations of this study and suggestions for future research are presented at the end of the thesis.
本文主要研究主位理论在大学英语写作教学中的应用,为此笔者提出两点假设:其一,主位类型和主位推进模式越多样化学生的作文分数越高,复合主位和延续型主位推进模式在高分作文中的出现频率要比低分作文高。其二,学生的写作水平能通过主位理论的学习而得到提高。目的是探讨主位理论应用于大学英语写作教学中的效果。就收集的40篇学生作文,笔者根据实验获得的数据进行了一系列的分析和比较。主要比较主位类型和主位推进模式在教学前后作文中的差别,以及比较教学前后的作文分数,得到的实验结果是,主位类型和主位推进模式的选择与学生作文分数密切相关,而且通过主位理论的学习,学生作文分数有着明显的提高。
最后笔者提出了一些对将来的写作教学会有指导意义的教学启示;得出结论,主位理论的学习能够帮助学生提高写作的连贯性,从而提高学生英语写作的水平;并提出了本研究的局限性和对未来研究的建议。
Theme and rheme were first proposed in 1939 by Vitem Mathesius. Theme is the starting point of utterance and carries the known or given information; while rheme is what the speaker says about in regard to the starting point of the utterance and carries new information. F. Danes, in1974, proposed a more dynamic view of theme: Thematic Progression (TP). He propounds that the organization of information in a discourse is determined by the progression in the sequence of themes and their corresponding rhemes, and this progression between the successive themes and rhemes can be defined as thematic progression which represents text cohesion. In recent years, thematic theory has gained more and more attention in discourse analysis and abundant studies have been conducted on thematic theory both at home and abroad. Some scholars deal with the relationship between thematic theory and discourse coherence; and some conduct contrastive study of thematic structure in Chinese and English discourses; besides, recently there are some researches on its application in the translation field as well as the application to English teaching.
This study is to apply thematic theory to the teaching of college students’writing, and two hypotheses are proposed that 1) The more varied the theme types and TP patterns are, the higher scores of English writing are; the frequency of multiple themes and simple linear pattern of high score compositions is higher than that of low score compositions. 2) The students’writing ability can be improved through the training of thematic theory. It aims at probing into the effect of the application. Based on the 40 compositions collected and the data collected in the experiment, a series of analyses and comparative study are conducted. By the comparative study on theme types, TP patterns and scores in pre-teaching and post-teaching compositions, the results show that theme types and TP patterns are closely related to the score of English writing, and the students’writing score can be improved through the training of thematic theory.
Finally, some pedagogical implications which may be helpful in the future teaching of writing are put forward; the conclusion is drawn, that is, themes and TP patterns are helpful for students’coherent writing, and the students’writing ability can be improved through the training of thematic theory; then the limitations of this study and suggestions for future research are presented at the end of the thesis.
引文
[1] Brown, G & G. Yule Discourse Analysis Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1983/2000: 133.
[2] China Ministry of Education College English Curriculum Requirements Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language education Press 2004.
[3] Danes, F “One Instance of Prague School Methodology: Functional Analysis of Utterance and Text” In P. L. Garvin (ed.) Method and Theory in Linguistics The Hague: Mouton 1970.
[4] Danes, F “Functional Sentence Perspective and the Organization of the Text” in F. Danes (ed.) Papers in Functional Sentence Perspective Prague: Academia 1974: 106-128.
[5] Dowing, A An alternative approach to theme: A systemic-functional perspective Word, 1991 Vol.42, Number 2: 119-143.
[6] Dubois, B. L A reformulation of thematic progression typology. Text 1987 (2): 89-116.
[7] Feng Tian Literary Translation from a Thematic Perspective Shanghai Foreign Language University 2006.
[8] Firbas, J “On defining the theme in functional sentence analysis” Travaux Linguistique de Prague University of Alabama Press 1966: 11.
[9] Francis, G Thematic selection and distribution in written discourse. Word, 1989 Vol. 40 Number1-2: 201-211.
[10] Freedman et al. Research in Writing: Past, Present, and Future, University of California 1983.
[11] Fries, P. H “On the status of theme in English: arguments from discourse” In J. S. Petofi and E. Sozer (eds.) Micro and Macro Connexity of Texts Hamburg: Helmut Baske 1983.
[12] Grabe, W & Kaplan, R Theory and Practice of Writing London: Addison Wesley Longman 1996: 203.
[13] Halliday, M.A.K An Introduction to Functional Grammar (second edition) London: Edward Arnold (Publishers) Limited 1994: 37-67, 215-225.
[14] Lee, I Teaching Coherence to ESL Students: a Classroom Inquiry Journal of Second Language Writing 2002.
[15] Li Yanfei Genre Analysis and English Writing Teaching at College Ocean University of China 2004: 34.
[16] Liu Xiaoping Contrastive Study of Patterns of Thematic Progression in English and Chinese Texts Northeast Normal University 2004.
[17] Mathesius, V On the So-called Actual Bipartition of the Sentence Slovensnort 1939 (5) Vol.7.
[18] Mathesius, V Language and Style SaS. 1940 (6).
[19] McCarthy, M Discourse Analysis for Language Teachers Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language education Press 2002: 55.
[20] Murray, D. M “Writing as a Process: How Writing finds its own Meaning” In Timothy R. Donovan and Ben W. McClelland (ed.) Eight Approaches to Teaching Composition Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English 1980.
[21] Nwogu, K and Bloor, T Thematic progression in professional and poplar medical texts In E. Ventola (ed.) Functional and systemic linguistics: Approaches and uses Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter 1991: 369-384.
[22] Pincas, A Teaching English Writing London: Macmillan 1982: 22.
[23] Reid, J. M Teaching ESL Writing Englewood Cliffs, N. J: Regents/Prentice Hall 1993.
[24] Ruggiero, V. R Composition: The creative response Belmont, Calif: Wadsworth Publishing House 1985.
[25] Silva, Y Second Language Composition Instruction: Development, Issues and Directions in ESL In Knoll, B. (ed.) 1990: 11-23.
[26] Thompson, G Introducing functional grammar Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press 1996: 141-142.
[27] Van Dijk, T. A (ed.) Handbook of Discourse Analysis 4 vols. London: Academic Press 1985.
[28] Zhang Rui A Contrastive Study on Theme and Thematic Progression Patterns of English and Chinese News Reports Northeast Normal University 2006.
[29] Zheng Shutang New Horizon College English Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press 2003 (Book 1-4).
[30] Zhou Meng Thematic Progression and Textual Coherence Northeast Normal University 2005: 9-12.
[31] 程静英 “英语写作教学分析” 《外语教学与研究》1994 (2)。
[32] 方立, 胡壮麟, 徐克容 “谈谈现代英语语法的二大体系和交流语法学” 《语言教学与研究》(增刊一) 1977。
[33] 郭纯洁 刘芳 “外语写作过程中母语影响的动态研究” 《现代外语》1997 (4)。
[34] 胡美华 “大学英语写作教学之不足与可行对策” 《外语界》 1994 (1)。
[35] 胡壮麟 “有关语篇衔接理论多层次模式的思考” 《外国语》 1996 (1)。
[36] 胡壮麟 “韩礼德” 《国外语言学》1983 (2)。
[37] 胡壮麟 “韩礼德的语言观” 《外语教学与研究》1984 (1)。
[38] 胡壮麟 “韩礼德的功能语法” 《现代英语研究》1986 (1)。
[39] 胡壮麟《语篇的衔接与连贯》 上海:上海外语教育出版社1994/2006: 144-145。
[40] 胡壮麟 《当代语言理论与应用》 北京:北京大学出版社 1995。
[41] 胡壮麟 朱永生 张德禄 《系统功能语法概论》 长沙:湖南教育出版社 1989。
[42] 黄国文 《语篇分析概要》 长沙:湖南教育出版社 1988: 81。
[43] 黄国文 “系统功能语言学在中国 20 年回顾” 《外语与外语教学》 2000 (5)。
[44] 黄衍 “试论英语主位和述位” 《外国语(上海外国语大学学报) 》1985 (5)。
[45] 陆彦 原淑芳 “主位结构、语篇分析与英语教学实践” 《外语与外语教学》2003 (8)。
[46] 马静 “主位推进、语义衔接与英语写作的连贯性---四、六级范型作文分析” 《外语教学》2001 (5)。
[47] 任丽卿 《懒虫过四级范文 20 篇》 北京:中国对外翻译出版公司2005: 96。
[48] 王红光 《论以过程体裁法培养大学生的语篇写作能力》 华中师范大学 2002: 29。
[49] 魏丽华 “大学英语写作教学的探索” 《北京第二外国语学院学报》2006 (10)。
[50] 吴锦 “英语写作教学新探” 《外语教学与研究》 2000 (3)。
[51] 项兰 “主位推进模式在阅读教学中的应用” 《外语与外语教学》2002 (3)。
[52] 徐盛桓 “主位和述位” 《外语教学与研究》1982 (1)。
[53] 徐盛桓 “再论主位和述位” 《外语教学与研究》1985 (4)。
[54] 杨玉晨 闻兆荣 “中国学生英文写作的句子类型及分析” 《现代外语》1994 (1)。
[55] 余渭深 “汉英学术语类的标记性主位分析” 《外语与外语教学》2002 (1)。
[56] 战菊 “从学术边缘的游走到学科理论体系的建立” 《中国外语》 2007 (2)。
[57] 张德禄 “论语篇连贯” 《外语教学与研究》 2000 (2)。
[58] 张在新 “我国英语写作教学中的主要问题” 《外语教学与研究》 1995 (4)。
[59] 朱永生 “主位推进模式与语篇分析” 《外语教学与研究》 1995 (3)。
[60] 朱永生 “试论语篇连贯的内部条件(上)” 《现代外语》 1996 (4)。
[61] 朱永生 “试论语篇连贯的内部条件(下)” 《现代外语》 1997 (1)。
[2] China Ministry of Education College English Curriculum Requirements Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language education Press 2004.
[3] Danes, F “One Instance of Prague School Methodology: Functional Analysis of Utterance and Text” In P. L. Garvin (ed.) Method and Theory in Linguistics The Hague: Mouton 1970.
[4] Danes, F “Functional Sentence Perspective and the Organization of the Text” in F. Danes (ed.) Papers in Functional Sentence Perspective Prague: Academia 1974: 106-128.
[5] Dowing, A An alternative approach to theme: A systemic-functional perspective Word, 1991 Vol.42, Number 2: 119-143.
[6] Dubois, B. L A reformulation of thematic progression typology. Text 1987 (2): 89-116.
[7] Feng Tian Literary Translation from a Thematic Perspective Shanghai Foreign Language University 2006.
[8] Firbas, J “On defining the theme in functional sentence analysis” Travaux Linguistique de Prague University of Alabama Press 1966: 11.
[9] Francis, G Thematic selection and distribution in written discourse. Word, 1989 Vol. 40 Number1-2: 201-211.
[10] Freedman et al. Research in Writing: Past, Present, and Future, University of California 1983.
[11] Fries, P. H “On the status of theme in English: arguments from discourse” In J. S. Petofi and E. Sozer (eds.) Micro and Macro Connexity of Texts Hamburg: Helmut Baske 1983.
[12] Grabe, W & Kaplan, R Theory and Practice of Writing London: Addison Wesley Longman 1996: 203.
[13] Halliday, M.A.K An Introduction to Functional Grammar (second edition) London: Edward Arnold (Publishers) Limited 1994: 37-67, 215-225.
[14] Lee, I Teaching Coherence to ESL Students: a Classroom Inquiry Journal of Second Language Writing 2002.
[15] Li Yanfei Genre Analysis and English Writing Teaching at College Ocean University of China 2004: 34.
[16] Liu Xiaoping Contrastive Study of Patterns of Thematic Progression in English and Chinese Texts Northeast Normal University 2004.
[17] Mathesius, V On the So-called Actual Bipartition of the Sentence Slovensnort 1939 (5) Vol.7.
[18] Mathesius, V Language and Style SaS. 1940 (6).
[19] McCarthy, M Discourse Analysis for Language Teachers Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language education Press 2002: 55.
[20] Murray, D. M “Writing as a Process: How Writing finds its own Meaning” In Timothy R. Donovan and Ben W. McClelland (ed.) Eight Approaches to Teaching Composition Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English 1980.
[21] Nwogu, K and Bloor, T Thematic progression in professional and poplar medical texts In E. Ventola (ed.) Functional and systemic linguistics: Approaches and uses Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter 1991: 369-384.
[22] Pincas, A Teaching English Writing London: Macmillan 1982: 22.
[23] Reid, J. M Teaching ESL Writing Englewood Cliffs, N. J: Regents/Prentice Hall 1993.
[24] Ruggiero, V. R Composition: The creative response Belmont, Calif: Wadsworth Publishing House 1985.
[25] Silva, Y Second Language Composition Instruction: Development, Issues and Directions in ESL In Knoll, B. (ed.) 1990: 11-23.
[26] Thompson, G Introducing functional grammar Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press 1996: 141-142.
[27] Van Dijk, T. A (ed.) Handbook of Discourse Analysis 4 vols. London: Academic Press 1985.
[28] Zhang Rui A Contrastive Study on Theme and Thematic Progression Patterns of English and Chinese News Reports Northeast Normal University 2006.
[29] Zheng Shutang New Horizon College English Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press 2003 (Book 1-4).
[30] Zhou Meng Thematic Progression and Textual Coherence Northeast Normal University 2005: 9-12.
[31] 程静英 “英语写作教学分析” 《外语教学与研究》1994 (2)。
[32] 方立, 胡壮麟, 徐克容 “谈谈现代英语语法的二大体系和交流语法学” 《语言教学与研究》(增刊一) 1977。
[33] 郭纯洁 刘芳 “外语写作过程中母语影响的动态研究” 《现代外语》1997 (4)。
[34] 胡美华 “大学英语写作教学之不足与可行对策” 《外语界》 1994 (1)。
[35] 胡壮麟 “有关语篇衔接理论多层次模式的思考” 《外国语》 1996 (1)。
[36] 胡壮麟 “韩礼德” 《国外语言学》1983 (2)。
[37] 胡壮麟 “韩礼德的语言观” 《外语教学与研究》1984 (1)。
[38] 胡壮麟 “韩礼德的功能语法” 《现代英语研究》1986 (1)。
[39] 胡壮麟《语篇的衔接与连贯》 上海:上海外语教育出版社1994/2006: 144-145。
[40] 胡壮麟 《当代语言理论与应用》 北京:北京大学出版社 1995。
[41] 胡壮麟 朱永生 张德禄 《系统功能语法概论》 长沙:湖南教育出版社 1989。
[42] 黄国文 《语篇分析概要》 长沙:湖南教育出版社 1988: 81。
[43] 黄国文 “系统功能语言学在中国 20 年回顾” 《外语与外语教学》 2000 (5)。
[44] 黄衍 “试论英语主位和述位” 《外国语(上海外国语大学学报) 》1985 (5)。
[45] 陆彦 原淑芳 “主位结构、语篇分析与英语教学实践” 《外语与外语教学》2003 (8)。
[46] 马静 “主位推进、语义衔接与英语写作的连贯性---四、六级范型作文分析” 《外语教学》2001 (5)。
[47] 任丽卿 《懒虫过四级范文 20 篇》 北京:中国对外翻译出版公司2005: 96。
[48] 王红光 《论以过程体裁法培养大学生的语篇写作能力》 华中师范大学 2002: 29。
[49] 魏丽华 “大学英语写作教学的探索” 《北京第二外国语学院学报》2006 (10)。
[50] 吴锦 “英语写作教学新探” 《外语教学与研究》 2000 (3)。
[51] 项兰 “主位推进模式在阅读教学中的应用” 《外语与外语教学》2002 (3)。
[52] 徐盛桓 “主位和述位” 《外语教学与研究》1982 (1)。
[53] 徐盛桓 “再论主位和述位” 《外语教学与研究》1985 (4)。
[54] 杨玉晨 闻兆荣 “中国学生英文写作的句子类型及分析” 《现代外语》1994 (1)。
[55] 余渭深 “汉英学术语类的标记性主位分析” 《外语与外语教学》2002 (1)。
[56] 战菊 “从学术边缘的游走到学科理论体系的建立” 《中国外语》 2007 (2)。
[57] 张德禄 “论语篇连贯” 《外语教学与研究》 2000 (2)。
[58] 张在新 “我国英语写作教学中的主要问题” 《外语教学与研究》 1995 (4)。
[59] 朱永生 “主位推进模式与语篇分析” 《外语教学与研究》 1995 (3)。
[60] 朱永生 “试论语篇连贯的内部条件(上)” 《现代外语》 1996 (4)。
[61] 朱永生 “试论语篇连贯的内部条件(下)” 《现代外语》 1997 (1)。