中美大学生英语议论文语体正式程度对比分析
|
摘要
英语议论文是典型的要求正式语体的文本,为了研究目前中国大学生英语议论文写作在语体方面的现状,作者进行了对比研究。作者把通过预试研究从程雨民的语体成分表中选出的八个变量:名词词组、长句、短句、被动语态、“Itis…that…”句型、从句、独立分词短语、助动词的缩写及作者补充的两个变量:平均句长和单复句之比作为本研究的变量。通过对这些变量的对比分析作者试图回答以下三个问题:
第一,中国学习者与英语本族语者在英语议论文写作中是否存在正式程度的差别?
第二,中国学习者的语体正式程度是否随着学习时间的增长而进步?
第三,中国学习者习得语体成分的发展模式是怎样的?
本研究以程雨民的语体分析理论、对比分析假说和标记性理论以及相关研究成果为主要的理论基础,采用作文取样、问卷调查和SPSS13.0等工具进行数据的采集和分析。作者首先从《中国英语学习者口笔语语料库》的笔语语料库议论文部分随机在英语专业大一至大四每个年级中抽出30篇议论文,又从《美国大学生作文选》和《校园之音——当代美国大学生作文选》中精心选出议论文30篇作为样本来做对比研究。这些样本被分为五组,美国大学生作文单独为一组,英语专业学生作文按年级分为四组,每组样本各有作文三十篇。然后,作者根据程雨民的计量方法统计了各个变量在各年级样本中的频率并运用SPSS 13.0进行了单因素方差分析。随后又通过对西南交通大学英语专业的学生进行问卷调查来进一步检验所得结果。作者通过分析得出以下结论:
第一,中国学习者与英语本族语者在英语议论文写作中存在语体正式程度的差别。中国学习者在正语体成分的使用频率上明显低于本族语者而使用负语体成分的频率则明显高于本族语学习者。
第二,中国学习者的语体正式程度随着学习时间的增长而进步。随着学习时间的增长,中国学习者在各个年级的正语体成分的比值呈上升趋势而负语体成分的比值呈下降趋势,虽然其间有小幅波动但语体域在整体上呈现出上升趋势。
第三,中国学习者习得语体成分的发展模式可以概括为:{回避—}适当使用(学会)—过度使用—恰当使用(习得)。回避阶段并不适用于所有语体成分,不同的语体成分分别处在这一模式的不同的阶段。比如中国学生对短句的习得从开始就能够正确使用。而另一些语体成分如独立分词短语则一直处在回避使用阶段。
中国学习者与本族语者在语体正式程度的差异可以从两个方面进行解释。一方面,应用对比分析方法我们可以找出汉语和英语在语篇组织和语法结构上的异同。研究发现中国学习者对汉语中存在类似结构的语体成分(如从句)的使用频率明显高于那些没有类似结构的语体成分(如独立分词短语)。另一方面,从标记性理论的角度观察,我们发现相对于本族语者中国学习者对那些不具有标记性的语体成分(如短句)的使用频率明显高于那些具有标记性的语言成分(如独立分词短语)。
根据以上发现,本研究为大学英语写作教学提出一些建议:首先,重视母语对中国大学生英语写作的影响,帮助学生认识到英语和汉语在语篇组织和语法结构上的异同,以促进母语正迁移减少负迁移。其次,应该在大学英语写作教学中重视语体的教学,要求学生能够根据不同的文体运用恰当的语体成分。第三,对大学生作文中句法的多样性、创新性应给予足够的鼓励,帮助学生克服回避心理,从而使他们的英语写作水平能够得到快速提高。
The argumentative writings in English are typical texts requiring formal style. In order to research the current situation of the formality of English argumentative writings written by Chinese college students,the author conducted a comparative study.The author selected eight variables(Nominal phrase,Long sentence,Short sentence,Passive voice,Sentence pattern:"lt is...that...",Subordinate clauses, Independent participial phrase,Abbreviations of auxiliary verb)from Cheng Yumin's linguostylistic markers through the pilot study and then add another two variables: average sentence length and the ratio between the simple and complex sentences as the variables of this research.The author aims to answer the following research questions through the comparative study:
Question 1:Is there a difference in the degree of formality between the writings of native speakers and the non-native speakers?
Question 2:Do Chinese learners make progress in learning formal style as their learning time increases?
Question 3:What are the developing patterns of Chinese learners in learning linguostylistic markers?
This research is based on Cheng's theory of linguostylistic markers,Contrast Analysis Hypothesis,the theory of markedness and the research findings of the relative studies.The instruments used in this research include the sample writings, questionnaire and the SPSS 13.0.The author first selected sample writings of both Chinese college students and American college students.The author selected 30 samples of each grade from the Written English Corpus of the Chinese Learners as non-native,speakers group and 30 samples from two books:American College Compositions and Candid Voices—Essays by American College Students as the native speakers group to conduct a contrastive study.These samples are divided into five groups:the native speaker,non-native speakers in Grades one,two,three and four.Each group contains thirty sample writings.The author then calculated the frequencies of each variable according to Cheng's measurement and then conducted One-way Analysis of Variances by SPSS 13.0.Later,the author checked the results by the data from the questionnaire fulfilled by the English majors in Southwest Jiaotong University.Through the comparative analysis,the study has the following research findings:
Finding1:There exist differences in the degree of formality between the writings of native speakers and the non-native speakers.The difference between the native speakers and the non-native speakers displays in two respects:over-use and avoidance.Chinese learners overuse some negative linguostylistics markers while avoid using some positive linguostylistic markers.
Finding 2:Chinese learners make obvious progress in the degree of formality of writing as their learning time increases.The percentages of positive linguostylistic markers display an up-trend while those of the negative linguostylistic markers display a down-trend from Grade one to Grade four.Although there is a little fluctuation,the developing trend of formality in general is upward.
Finding 3:The developing patterns of the linguostylistic markers of Chinese learners can be summarized as:[Avoidance]—Proper frequencies(learned)—Overuse—Proper frequencies(acquired).Avoidance is not suitable for every linguostylistic markers,and different linguostylistic markers are at the different stages of this developing pattern.For instance,Chinese learners can properly use the short sentence at the beginning of study but the study of independent participial phrase is still at the stage of avoidance.
The first reason to explain the differences between the writings of native speakers and the non-native speakers is the native language transfer influences upon the writings of non-native speakers.There are two kinds of influences of language transfer:positive transfer which facilitates the study of the linguostylistic markers and negative transfer which put an obstacle in the study of linguostylistic markers. The theory of markedness also contributes to explain the differences.Linguostylistic markers of high markedness are more difficult for Chinese learners to acquire and those unmarked will be easy to acquire.
According to the findings above,the author presented some suggestions for the College English Teaching in writing:Firstly,we should pay more attention to the influences of mother tongue upon the writings of Chinese college students.We should help the student to know the similarities and differences between Chinese and English in terms of the textual organization and the grammatical structures,in order to accelerate the positive transfer and reduce the negative transfer of the first language.Secondly,we should emphasize the sense of style in the teaching of writing in college English.The writings of students are not only required of correctness in grammar but also the proper style.Thirdly,teachers should encourage students to write compositions with diversity in linguistic structures and help them to overcome the difficulty in avoidance so as to improve their writings of English.
第一,中国学习者与英语本族语者在英语议论文写作中是否存在正式程度的差别?
第二,中国学习者的语体正式程度是否随着学习时间的增长而进步?
第三,中国学习者习得语体成分的发展模式是怎样的?
本研究以程雨民的语体分析理论、对比分析假说和标记性理论以及相关研究成果为主要的理论基础,采用作文取样、问卷调查和SPSS13.0等工具进行数据的采集和分析。作者首先从《中国英语学习者口笔语语料库》的笔语语料库议论文部分随机在英语专业大一至大四每个年级中抽出30篇议论文,又从《美国大学生作文选》和《校园之音——当代美国大学生作文选》中精心选出议论文30篇作为样本来做对比研究。这些样本被分为五组,美国大学生作文单独为一组,英语专业学生作文按年级分为四组,每组样本各有作文三十篇。然后,作者根据程雨民的计量方法统计了各个变量在各年级样本中的频率并运用SPSS 13.0进行了单因素方差分析。随后又通过对西南交通大学英语专业的学生进行问卷调查来进一步检验所得结果。作者通过分析得出以下结论:
第一,中国学习者与英语本族语者在英语议论文写作中存在语体正式程度的差别。中国学习者在正语体成分的使用频率上明显低于本族语者而使用负语体成分的频率则明显高于本族语学习者。
第二,中国学习者的语体正式程度随着学习时间的增长而进步。随着学习时间的增长,中国学习者在各个年级的正语体成分的比值呈上升趋势而负语体成分的比值呈下降趋势,虽然其间有小幅波动但语体域在整体上呈现出上升趋势。
第三,中国学习者习得语体成分的发展模式可以概括为:{回避—}适当使用(学会)—过度使用—恰当使用(习得)。回避阶段并不适用于所有语体成分,不同的语体成分分别处在这一模式的不同的阶段。比如中国学生对短句的习得从开始就能够正确使用。而另一些语体成分如独立分词短语则一直处在回避使用阶段。
中国学习者与本族语者在语体正式程度的差异可以从两个方面进行解释。一方面,应用对比分析方法我们可以找出汉语和英语在语篇组织和语法结构上的异同。研究发现中国学习者对汉语中存在类似结构的语体成分(如从句)的使用频率明显高于那些没有类似结构的语体成分(如独立分词短语)。另一方面,从标记性理论的角度观察,我们发现相对于本族语者中国学习者对那些不具有标记性的语体成分(如短句)的使用频率明显高于那些具有标记性的语言成分(如独立分词短语)。
根据以上发现,本研究为大学英语写作教学提出一些建议:首先,重视母语对中国大学生英语写作的影响,帮助学生认识到英语和汉语在语篇组织和语法结构上的异同,以促进母语正迁移减少负迁移。其次,应该在大学英语写作教学中重视语体的教学,要求学生能够根据不同的文体运用恰当的语体成分。第三,对大学生作文中句法的多样性、创新性应给予足够的鼓励,帮助学生克服回避心理,从而使他们的英语写作水平能够得到快速提高。
The argumentative writings in English are typical texts requiring formal style. In order to research the current situation of the formality of English argumentative writings written by Chinese college students,the author conducted a comparative study.The author selected eight variables(Nominal phrase,Long sentence,Short sentence,Passive voice,Sentence pattern:"lt is...that...",Subordinate clauses, Independent participial phrase,Abbreviations of auxiliary verb)from Cheng Yumin's linguostylistic markers through the pilot study and then add another two variables: average sentence length and the ratio between the simple and complex sentences as the variables of this research.The author aims to answer the following research questions through the comparative study:
Question 1:Is there a difference in the degree of formality between the writings of native speakers and the non-native speakers?
Question 2:Do Chinese learners make progress in learning formal style as their learning time increases?
Question 3:What are the developing patterns of Chinese learners in learning linguostylistic markers?
This research is based on Cheng's theory of linguostylistic markers,Contrast Analysis Hypothesis,the theory of markedness and the research findings of the relative studies.The instruments used in this research include the sample writings, questionnaire and the SPSS 13.0.The author first selected sample writings of both Chinese college students and American college students.The author selected 30 samples of each grade from the Written English Corpus of the Chinese Learners as non-native,speakers group and 30 samples from two books:American College Compositions and Candid Voices—Essays by American College Students as the native speakers group to conduct a contrastive study.These samples are divided into five groups:the native speaker,non-native speakers in Grades one,two,three and four.Each group contains thirty sample writings.The author then calculated the frequencies of each variable according to Cheng's measurement and then conducted One-way Analysis of Variances by SPSS 13.0.Later,the author checked the results by the data from the questionnaire fulfilled by the English majors in Southwest Jiaotong University.Through the comparative analysis,the study has the following research findings:
Finding1:There exist differences in the degree of formality between the writings of native speakers and the non-native speakers.The difference between the native speakers and the non-native speakers displays in two respects:over-use and avoidance.Chinese learners overuse some negative linguostylistics markers while avoid using some positive linguostylistic markers.
Finding 2:Chinese learners make obvious progress in the degree of formality of writing as their learning time increases.The percentages of positive linguostylistic markers display an up-trend while those of the negative linguostylistic markers display a down-trend from Grade one to Grade four.Although there is a little fluctuation,the developing trend of formality in general is upward.
Finding 3:The developing patterns of the linguostylistic markers of Chinese learners can be summarized as:[Avoidance]—Proper frequencies(learned)—Overuse—Proper frequencies(acquired).Avoidance is not suitable for every linguostylistic markers,and different linguostylistic markers are at the different stages of this developing pattern.For instance,Chinese learners can properly use the short sentence at the beginning of study but the study of independent participial phrase is still at the stage of avoidance.
The first reason to explain the differences between the writings of native speakers and the non-native speakers is the native language transfer influences upon the writings of non-native speakers.There are two kinds of influences of language transfer:positive transfer which facilitates the study of the linguostylistic markers and negative transfer which put an obstacle in the study of linguostylistic markers. The theory of markedness also contributes to explain the differences.Linguostylistic markers of high markedness are more difficult for Chinese learners to acquire and those unmarked will be easy to acquire.
According to the findings above,the author presented some suggestions for the College English Teaching in writing:Firstly,we should pay more attention to the influences of mother tongue upon the writings of Chinese college students.We should help the student to know the similarities and differences between Chinese and English in terms of the textual organization and the grammatical structures,in order to accelerate the positive transfer and reduce the negative transfer of the first language.Secondly,we should emphasize the sense of style in the teaching of writing in college English.The writings of students are not only required of correctness in grammar but also the proper style.Thirdly,teachers should encourage students to write compositions with diversity in linguistic structures and help them to overcome the difficulty in avoidance so as to improve their writings of English.
引文
Bally, C. 1909. Traite de Stylistique Francaise. Heidelherg: Carl Winters.
Chomsky, N. 1986. Knowledge of Language: its Nature, Origin and Use. New York: Praeger.
Crystal, D. & D. Davy. 1969. Investigating English Style. London: Longman.
Dulay, H. & Burt, M. 1973. Should we teach children syntax? Language Learning. 23,245-58.
Eckman, F. 1977. Markedness and the Contrast Analysis Hypothesis. Language Learning. 27,315-30.
Eckman, F. 1985. Some Theoretical and Pedagogical Implications of the Markedmess Differential Hypothesis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 7,289-307.
Ellis, R. 1985. Understanding Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. 1994. The study of second language acquisition. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Enkvist, N. E. & Spenser, J. 1964. Linguistics and Style. London: Oxford University Press.
Fan Wenfang. 2000. Native and Non-native Writing of Abstracts for Academic Papers, in Hu Gengshen et al(eds), Teaching English at Tertiary Level in the Chinese Context, Tsinghua University Press, 291-298.
French, F. 1949. Common Errors in English. London: Oxford University Press.
Gass, S. 1979. Language transfer and universal grammatical relations. Language Learning. 29,327-440.
Greenburg, H. 1966. Universals of Language (2nd ed.). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Halliday, M.A.K. 1985, 1994. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M.A.K.& Ruquiya H. 2002. Cohesion in English, Beijing: Foreign Languages teaching and researching press.
Helighen F. & F. Jean-Marc. "Formality of Language: definition & measurement". 23, June. 1996 online. Available: http:// pcp. lanl. gov/Papers/Formality.html
James, C. 1981. Contrastive analysis. Essex: Longman Group U.K. Ltd.
Joos, M.1962. The Five Clocks. Indiana University Research Center in Anthropology, Folklore, and Linguistics.
Kellerman, E. 1985. Dative alternation and the analysis of date: a reply to Mazurkewich. Language Learning. 35, 91-106.
Kellerman, E. 1992. Another look at an old classic: Schachter's avoidance. Lecture notes. Tokyo: Temple University Japan.
Kellerman, E. and M. S. Smith. 1986. Crosslinguistic Influence in L2 Acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon Press,
Kellerman, E. 1977. Toward a Characterization of the Strategy of Transfer in Second Language Learning. Interlanguage Studies Bulletin. 2,58-145.
Krashen, S. 1981. Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford: Pergaman Press.
Labov, W. 1972. The Study of Language in It's Social Context, in J. B. Pride and J.Holms(eds.) Sociolinguistics. London: Penguin.
Lado, R. 1957. Linguistics cross cultures. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Li Xiaohua. 2000. Language Transfer Viewed from a Cultural Perspective, An Unpublished Thesis of the Degree of Master in Beijing University.
Liu Ying. 2002. Grammar teaching and the real world. Teaching English in China. 25, 12-16.
Lu Xiaoyong. 2002. L1's positive influence on L2 acquisition. Foreign Language World. 90,11-15.
Qi Shouhua. 2003. Candid Voices—Essays by American College Students. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Languages Education Press.
Richards, Jack. C.et al. 2000. Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching & Applied Linguistics. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press
Ringbom,H.1987.The Role of the Ll in Foreign Language Learning.Clevedon:Multilingual Matters.
Schachter,J.& Rutherfor,W.1979.Discourse function and language transfer.Working Papers on Bilingualism.19,3-12.
Schachter,J.1974.An error in error analysis.Language Learning.27,205-14.
Schachter,J.1981.An Error in Error Analysis,Language Learning.24.205-14.
Seliger,H.W.& Shohamy,E.1997.Second Language Research Methods.Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Ure,J.1971.Lexical Density and Register Differentiation,in G.E.Perren and J.L.Trim(eds).Applications of Linguistics:Selected Papers of the 2~(nd)International Conference of Applied Linguistics,Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,443-451.
Wang Qiuhai.1999.American College Compositions.Beijing:World Knowledge Press.
White,L.1987.Markedness and Second Language Acquisition:the Question of Transfer.Studies in Second Language Acguirition.9,261-86.
程雨民,2004,《英语语体学》,上海:上海外语教育出版社。
蔡基刚,2003,《大学英语高级写作教程》,上海:复旦大学出版社。
蔡金亭,1998a,汉英主题突出特征对中国学生英语作文的影响,《外语教学与研究》第4期。
蔡金亭,1998b,母语迁移与主题突出结构,《解放军外语学院学报》,第6期。
蔡金亭,1998c,外语习得研究中影响预测迁移的因素,《山东外语教学》,第2期。
陈万霞,2002,从中国学习者英语语料库看英语被动语态习得,《外语教学与研究》,第3期。
陈月红,1998,母语语法与外语习得,《外语教学与研究》,第4期。
戴炜栋、束定芳,1994,对比分析、错误分析和中介语研究中的若干问题,《外国语》第5期。
戴炜栋、王栋,2002,语言迁移:问题与思考,《外国语》,第6期。
范文芳,1996,语法隐喻对语篇阅读难易度的影响,《北京大学学报外语语言文 学专刊》,第121-126页。
丰国欣,2001,名词化动词与名词化动词短语,《高等函授学报(社会科学版)》,第4期。
高芳,2003,语体与遣词,《外语教学》,第3期。
高远,2002,《对比分析与错误分析》,北京:北京航空航天出版社。
侯维瑞,1988,《英语语体》,上海:上海外语教育出版社。
胡壮麟,1994,《语篇的衔接与连贯》,上海:上海外语教育出版社。
胡壮麟,2000,《理论文体学》,北京:外语教学与研究出版社。
蒋艳、戴婷婷,2004,英汉名词化对比研究,《渝西学院学报(社会科学版)》,第3卷,第4期。
蒋祖康,1999,《第二语言习得研究》,北京:外语教学与研究出版社。
李睿,2007,中国大学英语学习者被动结构使用不足现象——一项基于CLEC的研究,《甘肃高师学报》,第12卷,第3期。
刘必庆,1991,汉英对比研究的理论问题(上,下),《外国语》,第4-5期。
刘东洪,2002,大学生写作中母语策略与母语迁移,《外语教学》,第4期。
刘件福,1999,中国学生的母语体验与外语语法学习成效,《山东外语教学》,第6期。
刘润清,1999,《外语教学中的科研方法》,北京:外语教学与研究出版社。
刘润清、马丁,1998,《外语教学与学习—理论与实践》,北京:高等教育出版社。
陆效明,2002,试论母语对二语习得的正面影响,《外语界》,第4期。
马广惠,2002,中美大学生作文语言特征的对比分析,《外语教学与研究》,第5期。
马广惠、文秋芳,1999,大学生英语写作能力的影响因素研究,《外语教学》,第5期。
彭宣维,2000a,英汉语篇对比,上海:上海外语教育出版社。
彭宣维,2000b,英汉语在语篇组织上的差异,《外语教学与研究》,第5期。
秦秀白,1986,《文体学概论》,长沙:湖南教育出版社。
阮周林,2000,第二语言学习中回避现象分析,《外语教学》,第1期。
王力,1957,《中国语法理论》,北京:中华书局。
王璐,2005,书面语中的名词化,《西安外国语学院学报》,第13卷,第1期。
王跃洪,2000,母语在第二语言习得中的作用,《解放军外国语学院学报》,第6期。
王志芳,2002,《名词化现象与英语书面语体正式程度关系之功能解析》,东北师范大学硕士论文。
文秋芳等,2005,《中国英语学习者口笔语语料库》,北京:外语教学与研究出版社。
文秋芳、郭纯洁,1998,母语思维与外语写作能力的关系:对高中生英语看图作文过程的研究,《现代外语》,第4期。
席绪慧,2006,非英语专业学生英语作文中名词化现象研究及其教学意义》,华东师范大学硕士论文。
肖建安、王志军,2000,名物化结构与功能及变体特征,《外语与外语教学》,第6期。
许芳,2006,英汉被动结构对比,《长沙航空职业技术学院学报》,第6卷,第1期。
徐晓燕,2006,《语言迁移—中国学生习得英语非限定性分句分析》,西南交通大学硕士论文。
许余龙,2002,《对比语言学》,上海:上海外语教育出版社。
杨彬,2006,话题可以作为语体统计的一个参项,《修辞学习》,第6期。
乐眉云,2000,《应用语言学》,南京:南京师范大学出版社。
曾祥娟,柳晓,2000,高年级英语写作教学中的语体观,《山东外语教学》,第2期。
张会森,1999,《九十年代俄语的变化和发展》,北京:商务印书馆。
张今,1981,《英汉语法比较纲要》,北京:商务印书馆。
章文波、陈红艳,2006,《实用数据统计分析及SPSS 12.0应用》,北京:人民邮电出版社。
章振邦,2000,《新编英语语法教程》第3版,上海:上海外语教育出版社。
章振邦,1995,《新编英语语法教程》(教师用书),上海:上海外语教育出版社。
赵健,2003,《试论母语对中国大学生英语写作中句法结构的影响》,陕西师范大学硕士论文。
赵秀凤,2002,中国学生英语写作的复句分布模式调查分析,《山东师大外语学 院学报》,第3期。
赵秀凤,2003,英语写作评估与语体量化体系,《外语教学》,第5期。
赵秀凤,2004a,英语名词词组结构差异对英语写作语体风格的影响,《外语教学》,第6期。
赵秀凤,2004b,语体研究与体裁性写作教学,《外语教学》,第3期。
赵秀凤、戴卫平,2003,大学生英语写作的语体意识研究,《大学教育科学》,第3期。
Chomsky, N. 1986. Knowledge of Language: its Nature, Origin and Use. New York: Praeger.
Crystal, D. & D. Davy. 1969. Investigating English Style. London: Longman.
Dulay, H. & Burt, M. 1973. Should we teach children syntax? Language Learning. 23,245-58.
Eckman, F. 1977. Markedness and the Contrast Analysis Hypothesis. Language Learning. 27,315-30.
Eckman, F. 1985. Some Theoretical and Pedagogical Implications of the Markedmess Differential Hypothesis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 7,289-307.
Ellis, R. 1985. Understanding Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. 1994. The study of second language acquisition. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Enkvist, N. E. & Spenser, J. 1964. Linguistics and Style. London: Oxford University Press.
Fan Wenfang. 2000. Native and Non-native Writing of Abstracts for Academic Papers, in Hu Gengshen et al(eds), Teaching English at Tertiary Level in the Chinese Context, Tsinghua University Press, 291-298.
French, F. 1949. Common Errors in English. London: Oxford University Press.
Gass, S. 1979. Language transfer and universal grammatical relations. Language Learning. 29,327-440.
Greenburg, H. 1966. Universals of Language (2nd ed.). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Halliday, M.A.K. 1985, 1994. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M.A.K.& Ruquiya H. 2002. Cohesion in English, Beijing: Foreign Languages teaching and researching press.
Helighen F. & F. Jean-Marc. "Formality of Language: definition & measurement". 23, June. 1996 online. Available: http:// pcp. lanl. gov/Papers/Formality.html
James, C. 1981. Contrastive analysis. Essex: Longman Group U.K. Ltd.
Joos, M.1962. The Five Clocks. Indiana University Research Center in Anthropology, Folklore, and Linguistics.
Kellerman, E. 1985. Dative alternation and the analysis of date: a reply to Mazurkewich. Language Learning. 35, 91-106.
Kellerman, E. 1992. Another look at an old classic: Schachter's avoidance. Lecture notes. Tokyo: Temple University Japan.
Kellerman, E. and M. S. Smith. 1986. Crosslinguistic Influence in L2 Acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon Press,
Kellerman, E. 1977. Toward a Characterization of the Strategy of Transfer in Second Language Learning. Interlanguage Studies Bulletin. 2,58-145.
Krashen, S. 1981. Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford: Pergaman Press.
Labov, W. 1972. The Study of Language in It's Social Context, in J. B. Pride and J.Holms(eds.) Sociolinguistics. London: Penguin.
Lado, R. 1957. Linguistics cross cultures. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Li Xiaohua. 2000. Language Transfer Viewed from a Cultural Perspective, An Unpublished Thesis of the Degree of Master in Beijing University.
Liu Ying. 2002. Grammar teaching and the real world. Teaching English in China. 25, 12-16.
Lu Xiaoyong. 2002. L1's positive influence on L2 acquisition. Foreign Language World. 90,11-15.
Qi Shouhua. 2003. Candid Voices—Essays by American College Students. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Languages Education Press.
Richards, Jack. C.et al. 2000. Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching & Applied Linguistics. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press
Ringbom,H.1987.The Role of the Ll in Foreign Language Learning.Clevedon:Multilingual Matters.
Schachter,J.& Rutherfor,W.1979.Discourse function and language transfer.Working Papers on Bilingualism.19,3-12.
Schachter,J.1974.An error in error analysis.Language Learning.27,205-14.
Schachter,J.1981.An Error in Error Analysis,Language Learning.24.205-14.
Seliger,H.W.& Shohamy,E.1997.Second Language Research Methods.Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Ure,J.1971.Lexical Density and Register Differentiation,in G.E.Perren and J.L.Trim(eds).Applications of Linguistics:Selected Papers of the 2~(nd)International Conference of Applied Linguistics,Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,443-451.
Wang Qiuhai.1999.American College Compositions.Beijing:World Knowledge Press.
White,L.1987.Markedness and Second Language Acquisition:the Question of Transfer.Studies in Second Language Acguirition.9,261-86.
程雨民,2004,《英语语体学》,上海:上海外语教育出版社。
蔡基刚,2003,《大学英语高级写作教程》,上海:复旦大学出版社。
蔡金亭,1998a,汉英主题突出特征对中国学生英语作文的影响,《外语教学与研究》第4期。
蔡金亭,1998b,母语迁移与主题突出结构,《解放军外语学院学报》,第6期。
蔡金亭,1998c,外语习得研究中影响预测迁移的因素,《山东外语教学》,第2期。
陈万霞,2002,从中国学习者英语语料库看英语被动语态习得,《外语教学与研究》,第3期。
陈月红,1998,母语语法与外语习得,《外语教学与研究》,第4期。
戴炜栋、束定芳,1994,对比分析、错误分析和中介语研究中的若干问题,《外国语》第5期。
戴炜栋、王栋,2002,语言迁移:问题与思考,《外国语》,第6期。
范文芳,1996,语法隐喻对语篇阅读难易度的影响,《北京大学学报外语语言文 学专刊》,第121-126页。
丰国欣,2001,名词化动词与名词化动词短语,《高等函授学报(社会科学版)》,第4期。
高芳,2003,语体与遣词,《外语教学》,第3期。
高远,2002,《对比分析与错误分析》,北京:北京航空航天出版社。
侯维瑞,1988,《英语语体》,上海:上海外语教育出版社。
胡壮麟,1994,《语篇的衔接与连贯》,上海:上海外语教育出版社。
胡壮麟,2000,《理论文体学》,北京:外语教学与研究出版社。
蒋艳、戴婷婷,2004,英汉名词化对比研究,《渝西学院学报(社会科学版)》,第3卷,第4期。
蒋祖康,1999,《第二语言习得研究》,北京:外语教学与研究出版社。
李睿,2007,中国大学英语学习者被动结构使用不足现象——一项基于CLEC的研究,《甘肃高师学报》,第12卷,第3期。
刘必庆,1991,汉英对比研究的理论问题(上,下),《外国语》,第4-5期。
刘东洪,2002,大学生写作中母语策略与母语迁移,《外语教学》,第4期。
刘件福,1999,中国学生的母语体验与外语语法学习成效,《山东外语教学》,第6期。
刘润清,1999,《外语教学中的科研方法》,北京:外语教学与研究出版社。
刘润清、马丁,1998,《外语教学与学习—理论与实践》,北京:高等教育出版社。
陆效明,2002,试论母语对二语习得的正面影响,《外语界》,第4期。
马广惠,2002,中美大学生作文语言特征的对比分析,《外语教学与研究》,第5期。
马广惠、文秋芳,1999,大学生英语写作能力的影响因素研究,《外语教学》,第5期。
彭宣维,2000a,英汉语篇对比,上海:上海外语教育出版社。
彭宣维,2000b,英汉语在语篇组织上的差异,《外语教学与研究》,第5期。
秦秀白,1986,《文体学概论》,长沙:湖南教育出版社。
阮周林,2000,第二语言学习中回避现象分析,《外语教学》,第1期。
王力,1957,《中国语法理论》,北京:中华书局。
王璐,2005,书面语中的名词化,《西安外国语学院学报》,第13卷,第1期。
王跃洪,2000,母语在第二语言习得中的作用,《解放军外国语学院学报》,第6期。
王志芳,2002,《名词化现象与英语书面语体正式程度关系之功能解析》,东北师范大学硕士论文。
文秋芳等,2005,《中国英语学习者口笔语语料库》,北京:外语教学与研究出版社。
文秋芳、郭纯洁,1998,母语思维与外语写作能力的关系:对高中生英语看图作文过程的研究,《现代外语》,第4期。
席绪慧,2006,非英语专业学生英语作文中名词化现象研究及其教学意义》,华东师范大学硕士论文。
肖建安、王志军,2000,名物化结构与功能及变体特征,《外语与外语教学》,第6期。
许芳,2006,英汉被动结构对比,《长沙航空职业技术学院学报》,第6卷,第1期。
徐晓燕,2006,《语言迁移—中国学生习得英语非限定性分句分析》,西南交通大学硕士论文。
许余龙,2002,《对比语言学》,上海:上海外语教育出版社。
杨彬,2006,话题可以作为语体统计的一个参项,《修辞学习》,第6期。
乐眉云,2000,《应用语言学》,南京:南京师范大学出版社。
曾祥娟,柳晓,2000,高年级英语写作教学中的语体观,《山东外语教学》,第2期。
张会森,1999,《九十年代俄语的变化和发展》,北京:商务印书馆。
张今,1981,《英汉语法比较纲要》,北京:商务印书馆。
章文波、陈红艳,2006,《实用数据统计分析及SPSS 12.0应用》,北京:人民邮电出版社。
章振邦,2000,《新编英语语法教程》第3版,上海:上海外语教育出版社。
章振邦,1995,《新编英语语法教程》(教师用书),上海:上海外语教育出版社。
赵健,2003,《试论母语对中国大学生英语写作中句法结构的影响》,陕西师范大学硕士论文。
赵秀凤,2002,中国学生英语写作的复句分布模式调查分析,《山东师大外语学 院学报》,第3期。
赵秀凤,2003,英语写作评估与语体量化体系,《外语教学》,第5期。
赵秀凤,2004a,英语名词词组结构差异对英语写作语体风格的影响,《外语教学》,第6期。
赵秀凤,2004b,语体研究与体裁性写作教学,《外语教学》,第3期。
赵秀凤、戴卫平,2003,大学生英语写作的语体意识研究,《大学教育科学》,第3期。